# Liberal Minority Government 2019 - ????



## garb811 (23 Oct 2019)

In light of the PM's announcement he would not be seeking to form a coalition government post election, this thread is established for discussions related to the new minority Liberal Government.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (23 Oct 2019)

garb811 said:
			
		

> In light of the PM's announcement he would not be seeking to form a coalition government post election, this thread is established for discussions related to the new minority Liberal Government.



Trudeau doesn't need a coalition because the NDP are very weak, the Green Party is irrelevant, the Bloc can be manipulated and no other party likes the Conservatives so the threat of being backstabbed at the 11th hour is very remote right now.  In other words, Trudeau smells blood and is seizing the initiative.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (23 Oct 2019)

We will see how his budget turns out.


----------



## Underway (23 Oct 2019)

Trudeau doesn't smell anything.  He's nearly incapable of strategic political calculations and has demonstrated that consistently.  He has ruthless staff however who give him good advice.

NDP are broke.  Bloc have been proven by Harper to either abstain or be amenable to some bills.  As long as the Libs don't do anything that the NDP can't just say we don't like it but we're willing to hold our noses and vote yes, they should be ok.  Standby for more omnibus bills.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (23 Oct 2019)

Underway said:
			
		

> Trudeau doesn't smell anything.  He's nearly incapable of strategic political calculations and has demonstrated that consistently.  He has ruthless staff however who give him good advice.
> 
> NDP are broke.  Bloc have been proven by Harper to either abstain or be amenable to some bills.  As long as the Libs don't do anything that the NDP can't just say we don't like it but we're willing to hold our noses and vote yes, they should be ok.  Standby for more omnibus bills.



When I say Trudeau, I really mean his handlers  8).  Everyone knows it's Gerry Butts & Co calling the shots in the background.

But I absolutely agree with everything you say.


----------



## OldSolduer (23 Oct 2019)

Colin P said:
			
		

> We will see how his budget turns out.



What?? It didn’t balance itself?


----------



## CountDC (24 Oct 2019)

its a work in progress.

He is sorry that his perception of the event and his are not the same.

Please let him know what costume you would be most offended by and he will have it ordered for his next photo shoot.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (24 Oct 2019)

CountDC said:
			
		

> its a work in progress.
> 
> He is sorry that his perception of the event and his are not the same.
> 
> Please let him know what costume you would be most offended by and he will have it ordered for his next photo shoot.



That is actually pretty funny.


----------



## Jarnhamar (1 Nov 2019)

Not winning a majority probably stung a little but Halloween this year must have been devastating for Trudeau.

https://globalnews.ca/news/6108716/trudeau-halloween-costume-2019/

* Justin Trudeau won’t wear a Halloween costume for trick-or-treating this year*


----------



## mariomike (1 Nov 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Not winning a majority probably stung a little but Halloween this year must have been devastating for Trudeau.



If we are still discussing blackface, I put my opinion here,
https://army.ca/forums/threads/131141/post-1588354.html#msg1588354


----------



## Remius (1 Nov 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Not winning a majority probably stung a little but Halloween this year must have been devastating for Trudeau.
> 
> https://globalnews.ca/news/6108716/trudeau-halloween-costume-2019/
> 
> * Justin Trudeau won’t wear a Halloween costume for trick-or-treating this year*



A wise decision.


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Nov 2019)

Torn between putting this here or in the Election thread, so I flipped a coin ...


> Federal Green Party Leader Elizabeth May has stepped down as party leader.
> 
> Speaking to reporters in Ottawa Monday, May said that she is leaving the post she has held since 2006, effective today.
> 
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (20 Nov 2019)

New cabinet being sworn in -- list of who's who attached (source).


----------



## Jarnhamar (20 Nov 2019)

What does a chief government whip do?


----------



## The Bread Guy (20 Nov 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> What does a chief government whip do?


Keeps the troops in line for the boss (aka "enforcer") - this polite version from an older announcement from the info-machine:


> ... Each recognized party in the Parliament of Canada has a whip. The whips ensure that enough party members are in the Chamber for debates and votes. They also determine which committees a party member will sit on, assign offices and seats in the House, and *encourage members to follow party commitments*.


Re: the bit in yellow, the "or else" is silent ;D

This from Wikipedia:


> ... The party whip works to ensure that the number of MPs in the House or at committee meetings is adequate to win a vote if one is called. When a vote is called in the House, division bells ring until the whips for each party are satisfied that there are sufficient numbers of members of their own party present for the vote to proceed.
> 
> The whip's role is especially important when there is a minority government or if the government has a slim majority, as the absence of a handful of MPs during a confidence vote can result in the defeat of the government. Party discipline is strict in Canada and MPs are expected to vote with the rest of their party in all but a few designated free votes ...


----------



## my72jeep (20 Nov 2019)

Appointing the biggest ***** in the liberal party as whip? There goes any independent thought.




Staff edit as per site political thread policies


----------



## The Bread Guy (20 Nov 2019)

my72jeep said:
			
		

> Appointing the biggest ***** in the liberal party as whip? There goes any independent thought.


Like that's a surprise for _any_ minority government of any stripe ...

Staff edit quote


----------



## dangerboy (20 Nov 2019)

So Global Affairs is back to being Foreign Affairs, how many times have they changed the name of that department? What is Middle Class Prosperities? Sounds like a weird cabinet position to me.


----------



## Cloud Cover (20 Nov 2019)

I’m surprised that nobody has complained (yet) about “triggering” through the use of the word “whip” in politics. RSM will do.


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 Nov 2019)

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> I’m surprised that nobody has complained (yet) about “triggering” through the use of the word “whip” in politics. RSM will do.


I was going to use the term, but I don't think "RSM" quite covers the ... murkier elements of the job of keeping politicians in line.


----------



## Jarnhamar (8 Feb 2020)

* Trudeau commits $10 million to African Nations to promote gender equality* 

https://globalnews.ca/video/6525637/trudeau-commits-10-million-to-african-nations-to-promote-gender-equality




> As I have seen directly in my own cabinet having more women in leadership positions leads to better decisions.



Unless they try and stand up to you for unethical behavior  :


----------



## Journeyman (9 Feb 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> *Trudeau commits $10 million to African Nations to promote gender equality* as a bribe, plain an simple, hoping for their UN Security Council seat vote


… but Canadian veterans are asking for too much.   :not-again:


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Feb 2020)

You have to love our government.

https://nationalpost.com/pmn/news-pmn/canada-news-pmn/trudeau-misses-deadline-for-disclosing-private-interests-to-ethics-commissioner


> Trudeau misses deadline for disclosing private interests to ethics commissioner


  




> There is no penalty for missing the deadline for filing statements


 8)


----------



## MilEME09 (12 Feb 2020)

And now our glorious leader has stated he will not step in, in any way with current wave of protests against the coastal gas link pipeline. So much for national leadership, guess the rule of law dies in our country.


----------



## Brad Sallows (12 Feb 2020)

Well.  Look on the bright side.  If firearm owners protest confiscation and tie up trains and traffic, maybe they won't be immediately hauled off and detained, and subsequently prosecuted.


----------



## my72jeep (12 Feb 2020)

Well go figure...... look who’s in trouble with the ethics commissioner again. shared with all the usual 
https://ca.yahoo.com/news/trudeau-misses-deadline-disclosing-private-230516792.html


----------



## Jarnhamar (13 Feb 2020)

*Bombardier ask for another $3.7 billion to study the effects of government money going through a jet engine*
https://www.thebeaverton.com/2020/02/bombardier-ask-for-another-3-7-billion-to-study-the-effects-of-government-money-going-through-a-jet-engine/



Something the government should consider maybe?


----------



## Jarnhamar (14 Feb 2020)

Did someone mention UN security council seat? 




*PM defends not publicly supporting LGBTQ rights in Senegal, photo with Iranian minister* 
https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/politics/pm-defends-not-publicly-supporting-lgbtq-rights-in-senegal-photo-with-iranian-minister-1.4812426




> In Senegal, homosexual activity is criminalized. While standing next to Trudeau, Sall doubled down on his stance that his country would not accept any changes to its current laws and that homosexuality or Pride parades would not be accepted.
> 
> Sall's comments made front-page news in that country, *  while Trudeau touted that Canada was able to secure Senegal's vote for the coveted UN Security Council seat during that visit. *



Junior is really driving for that seat lol


----------



## Cloud Cover (14 Feb 2020)

well that's it, I can't take anymore of his duplicity.  :facepalm:  He's not getting my vote next election.


----------



## Jarnhamar (26 Feb 2020)

* Liberals apologize after hiding $183K in contracts awarded to environmental group* 

The Liberal government has been forced to apologize after coming clean about concealing nearly $200,000 in contracts awarded to an environmental group.

https://torontosun.com/news/national/liberals-apologize-after-hiding-183k-in-contracts-awarded-to-environmental-group#click=https://t.co/p0EhvQCiOd


Oh Seamus lol

_“deeply sorry”_


----------



## dapaterson (4 Jun 2020)

Trudeau under fire from Quebecois journalists for not repeating his 21-second pause in French.


----------



## Xylric (4 Jun 2020)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Trudeau under fire from Quebecois journalists for not repeating his 21-second pause in French.



Well, that's a perfectly fair complaint..


----------



## Quirky (4 Jun 2020)

A 20 second quiet pause was way better than 20 seconds of “ummmmmmmmmmmmm uhhhhhhhhhhh ummmmmmmmm”.


----------



## OldSolduer (4 Jun 2020)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Trudeau under fire from Quebecois journalists for not repeating his 21-second pause in French.



Now that's funny ummmm  :rofl:


----------



## Jarnhamar (5 Jun 2020)

*George Floyd solidarity march: Trudeau joins anti-racism protesters on Parliament Hill *
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/george-floyd-solidarity-march-trudeau-joins-anti-racism-protesters-on-parliament-hill/ar-BB155gjb

Always a pleasure when the Honourable Justin Trudeau gets involved. I wonder if he will get called out on his blackface escapades.


----------



## GAP (5 Jun 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> * I wonder if he will get called out on his blackface escapades.
> *


*

No.....but he has mostly secured a majority in the next election with the help of our money...... *


----------



## Jarnhamar (27 Jun 2020)

No conflict of interest here.
*
Trudeau says charity with ties to him and his wife 'only one' that could run COVID-19 student volunteer grant program*
https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/trudeau-says-charity-with-ties-to-him-and-his-wife-only-one-that-could-run-covid-19-student-volunteer-grant-program?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1593220325


----------



## Jarnhamar (30 Jun 2020)

*Teachers to be paid $12K to recruit and manage students under government program with WE Charity *
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/teachers-to-be-paid-dollar12k-to-recruit-and-manage-students-under-government-program-with-we-charity/ar-BB16aWX9


----------



## stellarpanther (30 Jun 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> *Teachers to be paid $12K to recruit and manage students under government program with WE Charity *
> https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/teachers-to-be-paid-dollar12k-to-recruit-and-manage-students-under-government-program-with-we-charity/ar-BB16aWX9



I'm not sure it's safe to have these students out working right now but when it is, I'm all for doing something to get them off their video games.


----------



## Jarnhamar (30 Jun 2020)

The ol sole-source contract trick.


*Records show charity closely linked to Trudeau has received multiple sole-source contracts from Liberal government* 


> According to the government’s online database of government contracts, WE Charity has received five federal contracts worth a total of $120,000 since March 2017. Four of the five contracts have been in the last 15 months, with the most recent — and largest, until now, at $40,000 — dated January 2020.


https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/records-show-charity-closely-linked-to-trudeau-has-received-multiple-sole-source-contracts-from-liberal-government

$40,000 to $900,000,000.  Not bad.


----------



## dapaterson (4 Jul 2020)

MP asks for privacy as family member arrested in drug bust, police seek removal of news

Conservative MP Karen Vecchio is asking for privacy after she says a family member was arrested by St. Thomas police in a drug bust that resulted in the seizure of fentanyl and four guns.

Hours after police issued a news release about the arrest of two people, Vecchio posted a statement on Facebook.

“Sadly, I have a personal connection to this case as a family member has been arrested. I ask that the privacy of my family and I are respected at this difficult time.”

Vecchio, who represents Elgin-Middlesex-London, also thanked police for their “great work” in the investigation.

Late Friday afternoon, St. Thomas police made an unusual request and asked media outlets to remove information about the bust posted to their websites and refrain from publishing any further information about the case because of a publication ban put in place at a court hearing. Police removed the release from their website. A police spokesperson was unable to provide details about the publication ban.

https://lfpress.com/news/local-news/drug-dealers-on-notice-after-four-guns-fentanyl-seized-in-st-thomas-police-raid-chief/wcm/d4f2933f-5bdf-412e-913e-768462d7c822/


----------



## Jarnhamar (9 Jul 2020)

More from the _nothing to see here_ files.

*Federal website advertising hundreds of non-existent student-volunteer positions* 




> OTTAWA -- The federal website advertising volunteer positions for students hoping to earn money for their educations through a $900-million government aid program contains hundreds of positions that do not actually exist.
> 
> Among the student-volunteer positions advertised as available on the I Want to Help website are 1,500 spots with YMCA Canada to help create online exercise regimes for kids and seniors in their communities.
> 
> Yet the YMCA says those positions were actually the brainchild of WE Charity, the organization originally tapped by the Liberal government to administer the Canada Student Services Grant, and that the YMCA never agreed to them.



https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/federal-website-advertising-hundreds-of-non-existent-student-volunteer-positions-1.5016852


----------



## Jarnhamar (9 Jul 2020)

Aaaand more from the _nothing to see here_ files lol



*PM's mother Margaret and brother Alexandre were both paid to speak at WE Charity events* 

Margaret Trudeau received $250,000 in honoraria; Alexandre Trudeau was paid about $32,000

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/margaret-justin-trudeau-we-charity-1.5643586



Wait for it. 


> I uh uh uh uh uh welcome the ethics commissioners report because Canadian safety and security is important and uh uh uh uh climate change is a danger to us all and I'm extending CERB. I decided we're moving past this now.


----------



## Halifax Tar (10 Jul 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Aaaand more from the _nothing to see here_ files lol
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I will preface this by saying that I am geographically located very far from Canada right now and my only exposure to sentiment and traction back home on this subject is social media.  

From what I am seeing, this whole topic doesnt have much traction.  And to be honest, how could it ?  There is no viable and positive alternative to the current sitting government yet.  The sitting government can do as they please, for now, and all will be fogiven and forgotten until the opposition pulls up its boot straps and presents viable and positive alternatives.


----------



## brihard (10 Jul 2020)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I will preface this by saying that I am geographically located very far from Canada right now and my only exposure to sentiment and traction back home on this subject is social media.
> 
> From what I am seeing, this whole topic doesnt have much traction.  And to be honest, how could it ?  There is no viable and positive alternative to the current sitting government yet.  The sitting government can do as they please, for now, and all will be fogiven and forgotten until the opposition pulls up its boot straps and presents viable and positive alternatives.



That's about right. It's a 'gotcha', but not at a time that does any tangible good for any of the opposition parties.

The CPC still have to pick a leader.
The NDP have a leader that people are losing faith in, and they're tight on cash.
Bloc Quebecois are already in about as good a position as they can reasonably hope for.
Nobody else is particularly relevant.

All three of the relevant opposition parties would need to collude in order to sink the current minority government. LPC only need to keep one of them happy - realistically, probably the Bloc, though on some issues NDP will do - and they get to keep governing.

I would also suspect that absolutely nobody is in any hurry to inherit this mess. I don't think the CPC have any desire to form government within this fiscal year.

I suspect we'll see this minority ride out a full term or close to it. The seat count, and the ability of any one of three parties to prop up the government, gives them considerable potential longevity. For better or worse they're polling pretty well, and most Canadians see at least reasonably content with how they have governed through crisis.

I don't personally want them in power, but looking at it pragmatically, that's how I see the big picture.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (10 Jul 2020)

Or the LPC manufactures a vote of non-confidence, and strikes while the opposition is in disarray.  Let's say prorogue in Oct / Nov, election in Feb et voila - majority for another 4 years.


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 Jul 2020)

Brihard said:
			
		

> That's about right. It's a 'gotcha', but not at a time that does any tangible good for any of the opposition parties.



Very true. I think this more important than just giving the opposition crap to throw at the government for a couple hours at Question period though. Or at least it should be.

Last week the WE was saying they never gave a dime to the Trudeau's, now it's thousands of dollars.

It's another case of the government ignoring the rules, knowing full well they won't be held accountable.


----------



## brihard (10 Jul 2020)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Or the LPC manufactures a vote of non-confidence, and strikes while the opposition is in disarray.  Let's say prorogue in Oct / Nov, election in Feb et voila - majority for another 4 years.



They don’t even need to. He could simply ask the GG for an election and he would get one. It would be pitched to voters as ‘seeking a mandate to guide Canada out of this crisis and through the economic turbulence.’ And it would probably work.

The best armour against this is MacKay, but he would face a hell of a fight.


----------



## Remius (10 Jul 2020)

And MacKay will be tested a lot by his own party.


----------



## Xylric (10 Jul 2020)

:Tin-Foil-Hat:





			
				Brihard said:
			
		

> They don’t even need to. He could simply ask the GG for an election and he would get one. It would be pitched to voters as ‘seeking a mandate to guide Canada out of this crisis and through the economic turbulence.’ And it would probably work.
> 
> The best armour against this is MacKay, but he would face a hell of a fight.



I would not be surprised to see Ford decide that being Premier isn't enough within the next decade.


----------



## stellarpanther (11 Jul 2020)

I don't think this is that big of a deal but to each their own I guess.  Also, Scheer is so unpopular even with many Conservative voters that IMO, nothing that the Liberal's do right now will get some people to vote for a party that has Scheer as it's leader.  They need to get rid of him and fast.  I also don't think Mackay is going to be much better.  He's also extremely negative and insulting in the way he talks.  I'm personally extremely turned off my negative politics.


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Jul 2020)

[quote author=stellarpanther] I'm personally extremely turned off my negative politics.
[/quote]
But not ethical violations. To each their own indeed.


----------



## stellarpanther (11 Jul 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> But not ethical violations. To each their own indeed.



Sorry, I didn't realize the investigation was complete and the ethics commissioner had ruled an ethics violation was committed by Trudeau .  Can you post the link please.


----------



## Cloud Cover (11 Jul 2020)

Xylric said:
			
		

> :Tin-Foil-Hat:
> I would not be surprised to see Ford decide that being Premier isn't enough within the next decade.



Oddly enough, it appears to the rest of Canada that the Premier of Ontario seems to want to be the next mayor of Toronto and the Mayor of Toronto wants to be/thinks he is the Premier of Ontario. Can't say I miss the place.


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Jul 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> Sorry, I didn't realize the investigation was complete and the ethics commissioner had ruled an ethics violation was committed by Trudeau .  Can you post the link please.



Well I don't need to get hit in the head with a hammer to know it'll hurt but sure I'll get that link to you in a couple weeks then we can talk about you coming over to the conservative party.


Some reading while we wait.

*Chris Selley: Trudeau III: The Kielburger Affair — a sequel with extra banana flavour!*
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/chris-selley-trudeau-iii-the-kielburger-affair-a-sequel-with-extra-banana-flavour


*Timeline: Trudeau’s ties to WE are as old as his political career*
https://ipolitics.ca/2020/07/03/timeline-trudeaus-ties-to-we-are-as-old-as-his-political-career/


Bonus tweet in the national post article.



> Emilie Nicolas
> @Emilie_Ni
> When WE asked me to speak at the WE Day in Montreal (2018) *they told me that as a charity, they do not pay speakers*. Oh well. I guess as a charity, they put the emphasis on giving their speaker money to those who need it the less, while asking black folks for free labour.



Hardly fair to suggest it's just black people though. Former NHL player and child abuse advocate Sheldon Kennedy, who helped created the _Sheldon Kennedy Child Advocacy Centre_ also *reported being told by the WE that they don't pay for speakers. *


Weird right?


----------



## OldSolduer (11 Jul 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> I don't think this is that big of a deal but to each their own I guess.  Also, Scheer is so unpopular even with many Conservative voters that IMO, nothing that the Liberal's do right now will get some people to vote for a party that has Scheer as it's leader.  They need to get rid of him and fast.  I also don't think Mackay is going to be much better.  He's also extremely negative and insulting in the way he talks.  I'm personally extremely turned off my negative politics.



So sole sourcing a billion dollar contract isnt a big deal? Really????


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (11 Jul 2020)

No bigger than sole cancelling a contract with a billion dollar penalty, I guess.  

But, seriously (he said in a sarcastic tone), don't you understand Hamish: It wasn't Trudeau or even Morneau (because he has now been brought into this through members of his family working at WE, but also failed to recuse himself), it was the bureaucrats !!!

Who answers to whom in their topsy-turvy world?


----------



## stellarpanther (11 Jul 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> then we can talk about you coming over to the conservative party.



If O'toole wins, there is a good chance I will.


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Jul 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> If O'toole wins, there is a good chance I will.



Sweet.


Do you think it's a big deal if a CO of a unit is having a change of command parade and decides that, contrary to a few rules, a company his wife is a board member on, who has received money from along with other family members, gets the expensive catering contract? When asked what other catering companies the CO checked with, since we need 3 quotes, the CO just shrugged his shoulders and said the other companies weren't able to provide the food. Except he can't even say what other companies he asked.

Would you sign off on that?


----------



## stellarpanther (11 Jul 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Sweet.
> 
> 
> Do you think it's a big deal if a CO of a unit is having a change of command parade and decides that, contrary to a few rules, a company his wife is a board member on, who has received money from along with other family members, gets the expensive catering contract? When asked what other catering companies the CO checked with, since we need 3 quotes, the CO just shrugged his shoulders and said the other companies weren't able to provide the food. Except he can't even say what other companies he asked.
> ...



It wasn't food but there was a similar incident about 15 years ago at a base I worked at in which a unit Admin O who was also the person responsible for awarding the contract decided to do a sole sourced contract for approx. $75,000 to his wife's business for artwork.  I'm not getting into specifics but other than saying there should have been a bidding process and don't do it again, the person was promoted and that was the end of that.


----------



## Navy_Pete (11 Jul 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Sweet.
> 
> 
> Do you think it's a big deal if a CO of a unit is having a change of command parade and decides that, contrary to a few rules, a company his wife is a board member on, who has received money from along with other family members, gets the expensive catering contract? When asked what other catering companies the CO checked with, since we need 3 quotes, the CO just shrugged his shoulders and said the other companies weren't able to provide the food. Except he can't even say what other companies he asked.
> ...



I'm not a Trudeau fan, but can't imagine how the PMO would have done an end around on the sole source contract. Something like this would have got worked up by PSPC, and while they are definitely prone to doing stupid things and play politics, can't really see that happening on a billion dollar contract without someone leaking it to the press before contract award.

Suspect there were a few public servants, with no real knowledge of the volunteer landscape that looked at it and recommended WE get the sole source contract. Something like this they CYA up the yingyang, so should come out if this was something PMO directed, but guessing it's more likely that someone did a crap job at due diligence and made a bad recommendation for this to be sole sourced, and it got skipped over without the normal due diligence because of tight timelines and abnormal work conditions.

If not, there should be a bunch of heads rolling; we get a hard time for trying to sole source contracts to buy parts from companies that are the sole owners for the IP for the widget, so abusing that pisses me off.

Still, the Cons are doing a pretty weak job at being the opposition and really not terribly impressed at how ineffective they are generally.


----------



## PuckChaser (11 Jul 2020)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Still, the Cons are doing a pretty weak job at being the opposition and really not terribly impressed at how ineffective they are generally.



They're not getting the traditional help from a non-partisan media. CTVNews.ca mobile site today had no mention of the WE Scandal. Only reference to Trudeau was his platitudes on some viral anti-mask allegedly racist video rant. Which also appears pretty suspect considering the $600M fund they were given recently.


----------



## Remius (11 Jul 2020)

Well the cbc has it...

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-we-charity-margaret-trudeau-alexandre-1.5645781


Regardless the opposition is pretty ineffective these days.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (11 Jul 2020)

Well, Navy_Pete, of course it was worked up by PSPC. 

I suspect it simply started with Cabinet telling whoever it concerned "If we are going to get all these unemployed people to volunteer and serve, we need someone to coordinate all that. Find someone who can."

Then PSPC did the work and came back with this recommendation for sole source contracting to WE.

So far, even though it may turn out to be a bad decision for taxpayers in the end, it's all legit.

However, seeing in the cabinet papers that the org recommended was WE, PM Trudeau and, probably, Finance minister Morneau only had to say right at the beginning of that item: "Look, I'm possibly in conflict on this one so I won't tell you what I think. I'll retire while you debate this point of the agenda and you can call me back when you are done: it's all up to you from here on. Clerck, please minute my absence and its reasons. Thank you." And then get up and leave the room until a decision is reached by the others.

And it is up to the Cabinet to decide - not public servants. If the Cabinet doesn't like the outlook of such a sole source contract, they were always free to tell PSPC to go back and re-think that one, or propose someone else, or open a quick tendering process, or just defer to a later date. The possibilities are endless.

But that didn't happen. Neither Trudeau nor Morneau abstained and excluded themselves, and they blame public servants for something that is truly up to them to decide, as opposed to propose.


----------



## dapaterson (11 Jul 2020)

No PSPC involvement.  It was not structured as a contract, rather, as a contribution agreement.  Different authorities for contribution agreements.

It was ESDC that recommended the structure, not PSPC.


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Jul 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> It wasn't food but there was a similar incident about 15 years ago at a base I worked at in which a unit Admin O who was also the person responsible for awarding the contract decided to do a sole sourced contract for approx. $75,000 to his wife's business for artwork.



And you don't think that was a big deal either?


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Jul 2020)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> I'm not a Trudeau fan, but can't imagine how the PMO would have done an end around on the sole source contract.



Possibly with the same long stick that he had Butts poke Jody Wilson-Raybould with. Remember how important it was to him but he he didn't bother to ask about it when in town?





> Still, the Cons are doing a pretty weak job at being the opposition and really not terribly impressed at how ineffective they are generally.


That could be because the minority government practically shut down the parliament.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (12 Jul 2020)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Suspect there were a few public servants, with no real knowledge of the volunteer landscape that looked at it and recommended WE get the sole source contract.........




Pretty sure that is how it went.  

I am not a Trudeau fan, but for all the haters out there, you can't have it both ways.   He can't be "not ready" and "too stupid to rule" and "just a drama teacher" and still be a criminal mastermind who is trying to ruin the country while feathering his nest....and if the usual suspects now trot our Gerald Butts and Katie Telford, I will ask them about Flanagan and Beardsley, just to start.



> Still, the Cons are doing a pretty weak job at being the opposition and really not terribly impressed at how ineffective they are generally.



This is the real scandal.  Where oh where are people of substance?


----------



## stellarpanther (12 Jul 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> And you don't think that was a big deal either?



I was a Private at the time so who I'm sure there was a lot of stuff I didn't hear about.  All I know is that a lot of people much higher than me were saying his career was going to be over and he'd be lucky if he wasn't charged and instead, he got promoted a year later.

As far as this latest investigation regarding WE, let's see what happens.  The optics don't look good but I'm sure there is more to it.  I will say this though.  When Scheer comes out running his mouth all I can focus on is how he comes across as someone who personally hates Trudeau and I can't process anything else that he says.  I'm not an NDP supporter either but when Singh speaks, I don't usually agree with most things he says but I can still listen to what he says and give it some thought.  With Scheer, I need to fight the urge not to change the channel and I usually lose the fight.


----------



## Haggis (12 Jul 2020)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Still, the Cons are doing a pretty weak job at being the opposition and really not terribly impressed at how ineffective they are generally.



That's because they are mired in internal strife and chest deep in a stupefyingly boring leadership campaign featuring four lackluster candidates, none of whom can defeat the Trudeau personality cult.



			
				PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> He can't be "not ready" and "too stupid to rule" and "just a drama teacher" and still be a criminal mastermind who is trying to ruin the country while feathering his nest.



Trudeau survived SNC Lavalin, JWR, Norman, Blackface (x2), the India and Aga Khan trips and alleged groping.  He may not be a criminal mastermind or "not ready" and "too stupid to rule" and "just a drama teacher" but he is a powerful personality and is well advised (handled) by an experienced inner circle who understand what his political support base want to see and hear coming out of Parliament.  As long as he stays on script he appears to be prime ministerial.  He and his cabinet also have some trump cards yet to play in the coming months (no pun intended).  WE, like his vacation with the Aga Khan, is a speed-bump on the way to a majority win if an election is called in the next 6 to 12 months.


----------



## Good2Golf (12 Jul 2020)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> No PSPC involvement.  It was not structured as a contract, rather, as a contribution agreement.  Different authorities for contribution agreements.
> 
> It was ESDC that recommended the structure, not PSPC.



Was it Vote 10 funds?  Was it within Supp A or extraordinary?


----------



## dapaterson (12 Jul 2020)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Was it Vote 10 funds?  Was it within Supp A or extraordinary?



I don't know - and remember that the vote structures are not identical across departments.  While DND/CAF has G&C under vote 10, it is not necessarily the same for others.

And given the lack of a federal budget this year, I have no idea how (from the perspective of the institution of government) the money is intended to flow.


----------



## ModlrMike (12 Jul 2020)

It doesn't matter if the bureaucrats recommended WE, both Trudeau and Morneau (and I suspect others like O'Regan) should have recused themselves from the decision by Cabinet. 

You want to sit at the head of the table, you get to take ownership of decisions you have authority over. Both the good and the bad. Regardless of one's political leaning, or opinion of the incumbent, he needs to take a lesson from Truman - "The buck stops here."


----------



## Kirkhill (12 Jul 2020)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Pretty sure that is how it went.
> 
> I am not a Trudeau fan, but for all the haters out there, you can't have it both ways.   He can't be "not ready" and "too stupid to rule" and "just a drama teacher" and still be a criminal mastermind who is trying to ruin the country while feathering his nest....and if the usual suspects now trot our Gerald Butts and Katie Telford, I will ask them about Flanagan and Beardsley, just to start.
> 
> ...



In business I have noticed a pattern.  The people that succeed don't know enough to know how little they know.  Consequently they are confident and that confidence wins them followers and success.  Conversely people that know what they don't know are unable to give the confident guarantees that people who want to be followers need.  

Consequently people schooled in the scientific method, which is based on doubt, need not apply. Actors, on the other hand, are great at selling confidence and emoting.  They have that whole faking sincerity thing down to a science.


----------



## PuckChaser (12 Jul 2020)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Pretty sure that is how it went.



They legislated an ability to give a major donor (SNC Lavalin) a legal out of corruption and bribery charges, tried to pressure the AG to use that legal out and were only caught when the AG had the smallest amount of ethics training and realized what was being doing was wrong and put the rule of law over party partisanship. Doing an end-run around a sole-source contract (if it even is that as noted above) seems like small potatoes compared to SNC Lavalin. Do you also not think its a little odd so many people in the Trudeau cabinet have either personal or immediate family connections to this charity, which needed cabinet approval of a release of a billion dollars?



> I am not a Trudeau fan, but for all the haters out there, you can't have it both ways.   He can't be "not ready" and "too stupid to rule" and "just a drama teacher" and still be a criminal mastermind who is trying to ruin the country while feathering his nest



You don't need a PHD in political science to be/act corrupt. Your argument is that this isn't a big deal because you can cite a bunch of lowest common denominator slogans? The counter to your point is that Trudeau is willfully circumventing and thumbing his nose at Parliament and the Conflict of Interest Act to pull all sorts of political cronyism acts on multiple occasions, and is smart enough to know its wrong but has so little opinion of the Canadian voter that he knows he can get away with it. 



> if the usual suspects now trot our Gerald Butts and Katie Telford, I will ask them about Flanagan and Beardsley, just to start.



Did you have a point or are you just trying to troll "the usual suspects" into a personal attack? I thought whataboutism was something we were trying to avoid in intelligent debate...


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (12 Jul 2020)

Here is a passage that is found in every ministers in the Trudeau cabinet's mandate letters:

*We have committed to an open, honest government that is accountable to Canadians, lives up to the highest ethical standards and applies the utmost care and prudence in the handling of public funds. I expect you to embody these values in your work and observe the highest ethical standards in everything you do. I want Canadians to look on their own government with pride and trust.

As Minister, you must ensure that you are aware of and fully compliant with the Conflict of Interest Act and Treasury Board policies and guidelines. You will be provided with a copy of Open and Accountable Government to assist you as you undertake your responsibilities. I ask that you carefully read it, including elements that have been added to strengthen it, and ensure that your staff does so as well. I expect that in staffing your offices you will hire people who reflect the diversity of Canada, and that you will uphold principles of gender equality, disability equality, pay equity and inclusion.

Give particular attention to the Ethical Guidelines set out in Annex A of that document, which apply to you and your staff. As noted in the Guidelines, you must uphold the highest standards of honesty and impartiality, and both the performance of your official duties and the arrangement of your private affairs should bear the closest public scrutiny. This is an obligation that is not fully discharged by simply acting within the law.*

I have underlined some portion.

All Trudeau and Morneau had to do is say: "Sorry, potentially conflicted on that one, We'll go out . Let us know when we can come back in for the next point."

You tell me how the way they chose to act instead meets the underlined parts of the mandate letter (I am working on the assumption that Trudeau, in drafting those mandate letters expected the same standard would apply to him. I may be mistaken in that assumption).


----------



## Eaglelord17 (12 Jul 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> That's because they are mired in internal strife and chest deep in a stupefyingly boring leadership campaign featuring four lackluster candidates, none of whom can defeat the Trudeau personality cult.
> 
> Trudeau survived SNC Lavalin, JWR, Norman, Blackface (x2), the India and Aga Khan trips and alleged groping.  He may not be a criminal mastermind or "not ready" and "too stupid to rule" and "just a drama teacher" but he is a powerful personality and is well advised (handled) by an experienced inner circle who understand what his political support base want to see and hear coming out of Parliament.  As long as he stays on script he appears to be prime ministerial.  He and his cabinet also have some trump cards yet to play in the coming months (no pun intended).  WE, like his vacation with the Aga Khan, is a speed-bump on the way to a majority win if an election is called in the next 6 to 12 months.



I don't know about that, he barely won the last election (20k votes being the deciding factor between the Conservatives and the Liberals). If the Conservatives put someone like Mackay in who would get them some Eastern seats, coupled with the Western seats they are basically guaranteed, I could see them easily making up the next government.


----------



## brihard (12 Jul 2020)

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> I don't know about that, he barely won the last election (20k votes being the deciding factor between the Conservatives and the Liberals). If the Conservatives put someone like Mackay in who would get them some Eastern seats, coupled with the Western seats they are basically guaranteed, I could see them easily making up the next government.



The CPC actually won the popular vote by 220k, but that's not particularly relevant. The LPC crushed them in seats, at 157 to 121 (point to note- the PPC made the difference in 'costing' a CPC win in only 6 seats, assuming every PPC voter would have voted CPC). The CPC put so much into catering to the prairies that they alienated too many voters elsewhere. Each vote in AB, SK, MB came at the cost of several others elsewhere. They already have tee prairies pretty locked down; they failed to properly allocate their efforts to where they could potentially make gains. Of course, picking Scheer was an uninspired choice and didn't help them.

CPC need to pull a bit back towards the centre to capture swing votes, not reinforce areas they've already won and gain precisely nothing from. That said, the election is probably a lock for LPC for the next year or so with the way things look now. CPC might be wiser to accept that this minority may go a full term, let the shine of the handling of COVID wear off, build a solid team and a solid slate of potential cabinet ministers, and they go into the next election unified and properly prepared.


----------



## dapaterson (12 Jul 2020)

Really, there's only one logical choice.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DA-tFDcyNMc

https://genius.com/Arrogant-worms-if-i-were-prime-minister-lyrics


----------



## Haggis (12 Jul 2020)

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> I could see them easily making up the next government.


The recent black gun ban and promised handgun ban (which I'm still convinced will be national in scope) has solidified his base in the major urban areas of Québec, BC and all of south central Ontario, which is pretty much a majority right there.  The ongoing COVID giveaways, which aren't going to end anytime soon, will get him a few more presently blue and orange seats.



			
				Brihard said:
			
		

> CPC might be wiser to accept that this minority may go a full term, let the shine of the handling of COVID wear off, build a solid team and a solid slate of potential cabinet ministers, and they go into the next election unified and properly prepared.


The LPC are already governing like a majority anyways.  The next chance for a vote of non-confidence will come when/if they table a budget which may be at least 6 months to a year out thanks to COVID.


----------



## Jarnhamar (12 Jul 2020)

Et tu, Seamus?

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-oregan-telford-helped-raise-400000-for-we-charity/


----------



## The Bread Guy (13 Jul 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Et tu, Seamus?
> 
> https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-oregan-telford-helped-raise-400000-for-we-charity/


There's a reason The Beaverton's rarely short of material 
_*"Liberals desperately searching for a Liberal without ties to WE Charity"*_


----------



## Xylric (13 Jul 2020)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> There's a reason The Beaverton's rarely short of material
> _*"Liberals desperately searching for a Liberal without ties to WE Charity"*_



I think they are far superior to the Onion.


----------



## Haggis (13 Jul 2020)

The PM has  apologized for not recusing himself from the WE decision making.  In fact, he is "sincerely sorry".

Finance Minister Mormeau has yet to apologize.

Nothing to see here.  Move along.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (13 Jul 2020)

A true apology comes with changed behavior......and it appears that'll never happen.


----------



## Old Sweat (13 Jul 2020)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> A true apology comes with changed behavior......and it appears that'll never happen.



I'd like to see him try to sincere his way out of a winger, say a charge 4 instead of a charge 3, or maybe 100 mils in elevation.


----------



## Cloud Cover (13 Jul 2020)

So if he apologizes after being caught, is it still a conflict of interest.


----------



## Xylric (13 Jul 2020)

CloudCover said:
			
		

> So if he apologizes after being caught, is it still a conflict of interest.



"I'm sorry I killed my wife, officer."

Doesn't work with murder, so I doubt it would work with other circumstances.


----------



## mariomike (13 Jul 2020)

Brihard said:
			
		

> CPC need to pull a bit back towards the centre to capture swing votes, not reinforce areas they've already won and gain precisely nothing from. That said, the election is probably a lock for LPC for the next year or so with the way things look now. CPC might be wiser to accept that this minority may go a full term, let the shine of the handling of COVID wear off, build a solid team and a solid slate of potential cabinet ministers, and they go into the next election unified and properly prepared.



Well said.


----------



## ModlrMike (13 Jul 2020)

Without a functional parliament, the opposition parties can't get enough traction on holding the government to account. Government by press conference needs to end.


----------



## PuckChaser (13 Jul 2020)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Without a functional parliament, the opposition parties can't get enough traction on holding the government to account. Government by press conference needs to end.



It has ended. Trudeau stopped doing daily press conferences 2 weeks ago. He's basically just doing whatever he wants with extremely limited accountability. We can thank the NDP for stoking COVID-19 panic that Parliament somehow can't be safe or essential.


----------



## Haggis (13 Jul 2020)

Minister Morneau has now aplogized.


----------



## YZT580 (13 Jul 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Minister Morneau has now aplogized.


  I'm sorry I got caught


----------



## Haggis (14 Jul 2020)

In another Liberal about-turn, Public Safety Minister Bill Blair today cut the CBSA's budget by $390M over two years. This comes after he announced $86M in funding for the CBSA and the RCMP to combat gun smuggling following the massive legally owned gun ban in May.


----------



## PuckChaser (14 Jul 2020)

Do you have a news article link? Only thing I can find is stuff from before 2018.


----------



## dapaterson (14 Jul 2020)

The devil is, as always, in the details; a quick look and all i can find is this: https://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/pd-dp/tb-ct/min/overview-apercu-eng.html

It suggests that 19/20 saw a 17.5% increase - and that removing $390M over two years would still leave CBSA with more funds at the end of that period than they had in 2018-19.

What, specifically has been removed from the budget?  Are there specific initiatives not going forward?  Is this an accounting change (for example, removing CBSA's rather unique two-year rolling budget)?


----------



## dapaterson (14 Jul 2020)

Looking at the CBSA budget (https://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/agency-agence/reports-rapports/rpp/2020-2021/report-rapport-eng.html) yes, funding are showing a downward trend but there is not sufficient granularity to call it a cut - it could be completion of capital projects.  The planned FTE counts show a ~3.5% reduction over two years.


----------



## Haggis (14 Jul 2020)

It's still 3.5% less personnel when recruiting can't keep up with retirements and attrition already. Many ports of entry are serioulsy understaffed already and a recent new article pointed out the agency's inability to track and remove tens of thousand of persons known to be in Canada illegally.


----------



## stellarpanther (14 Jul 2020)

Something tells me there will be a big cut to the DND/CAF budget.  I think all departments are going to face a significant hit in the next couple of budgets The feds can't keep spending the money they are and not cut from somewhere else.


----------



## Remius (14 Jul 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> Something tells me there will be a big cut to the DND/CAF budget.  I think all departments are going to face a significant hit in the next couple of budgets The feds can't keep spending the money they are and not cut from somewhere else.



If you currently rely on a class b for your employment start planning.


----------



## Haggis (14 Jul 2020)

Remius said:
			
		

> If you currently rely on a class b for your employment start planning.


DRAP 2.0 will lead to PRECS 2021.  Given the Liberals love for anything military I don't see this ending well for the Class B world.


----------



## brihard (14 Jul 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> In another Liberal about-turn, Public Safety Minister Bill Blair today cut the CBSA's budget by $390M over two years. This comes after he announced $86M in funding for the CBSA and the RCMP to combat gun smuggling following the massive legally owned gun ban in May.



A few years back, CBSA saw a 17% raise in response to their officers becoming armed, so that bumped numbers quite a bit.

RCMP will probably see a total compensation increase somewhere on the order of 20% in the next year or two with unionization and the first collective being negotiated, so that will have to be taken into account too.


----------



## PuckChaser (15 Jul 2020)

Excited for the CAF's 1% pay increase ratified in 2023...


----------



## brihard (15 Jul 2020)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Excited for the CAF's 1% pay increase ratified in 2023...



PSAC just got 6.6% for 2018-2021. They’re a decent bellweather for CAF pay.

CBSA got a huge raise because they now have the substantially increased hazard and liability of being armed. RCMP will see a substantial increase because they lag vastly behind nearly all other police and way behind any comparable services, and now get to collectively bargain. CAF might see some bump from this too, knowing that RCMP and CBSA are attractive employers for many vets.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (15 Jul 2020)

Brihard said:
			
		

> PSAC just got 6.6% for 2018-2021. They’re a decent bellweather for CAF pay.
> 
> CBSA got a huge raise because they now have the substantially increased hazard and liability of being armed. RCMP will see a substantial increase because they lag vastly behind nearly all other police and way behind any comparable services, and now get to collectively bargain. CAF might see some bump from this too, knowing that RCMP and CBSA are attractive employers for many vets.



I just wonder where all the money is coming from?


----------



## Brad Sallows (15 Jul 2020)

Mostly income taxes, increasingly paid by people who receive generous raises.

0, 0, 2 looked good during the last recession, to people who got -5, 0, 0.


----------



## YZT580 (15 Jul 2020)

Sober reminder:  Justin's father froze all civil service pay and also set a hard cap via legislation of 4,3% afterwards with no raises and no promotions.  Contract negotiations simply decided how the money in the contract would be divided up.  Legislation would keep the RCMP and all others right where they are regardless of bargaining rights.  There are probably 100 uses of the expression like father, like son in these web pages so...


----------



## mariomike (15 Jul 2020)

Brihard said:
			
		

> RCMP will see a substantial increase because they lag vastly behind nearly all other police and way behind any comparable services, and now get to collectively bargain.



Well deserved, and long overdue, Brihard.


----------



## Remius (15 Jul 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> DRAP 2.0 will lead to PRECS 2021.  Given the Liberals love for anything military I don't see this ending well for the Class B world.



Concur.  I expect deep cuts there but also in the PS.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (15 Jul 2020)

When the piper comes calling, they won`t have a choice, even before I left in Apr 2019, senior managers I knew were quite worried about the long term funding for programs and people, the last thing they wanted was another Work Force Adjustment.


----------



## ModlrMike (15 Jul 2020)

Maybe the Libs are banking on losing the next election, so that they can blame any future belt tightening on the Cons being heartless b@stards.


----------



## daftandbarmy (15 Jul 2020)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Maybe the Libs are banking on losing the next election, so that they can blame any future belt tightening on the Cons being heartless b@stards.



That might be why they are continuing to portray the future as 'uncertain' so they can avoid picking a 'hill to die on':

Trudeau government’s fiscal ‘snapshot’ doubles down on uncertainty

According to the Oxford Dictionary, a snapshot is “a short description that gives you an idea of what something is like.” When the Trudeau government delivered its Economic and Fiscal Snapshot 2020 on Wednesday, it was anything but.

At 168 pages, the “Long-Winded Economic and Fiscal Update” might have been a more appropriate title. While lengthy in volume, it was unfortunately short on substance, particularly about the future of government finances and the government’s plans might tackle its $343 billion budget deficit. As such, this federal government continued its record of fuelling uncertainty.

In difficult times, workers, businesses, investors and entrepreneurs crave certainty, particularly with respect to government policy. With a deficit of $343 billion this year (which follows $89.1 billion in total deficits since 2015), there’s a real risk of higher taxes in the immediate future. Without a plan of how the government will deal with the state of federal finances, workers, investors, businesses and entrepreneurs are left guessing about whether taxes might be raised, and by how much. This uncertainty means that investments that might look profitable today might not be so in a near future with higher taxes. This kind of uncertainty means that workers, businesses, investors and entrepreneurs will take a wait-and-see attitude towards potential investments.

Again, this government has a record of creating policy uncertainty. Even prior to the COVID-induced recession, deficits created uncertainty about future taxes, aiding rumours of potential increases to capital gains taxes and limits on interest-deductibility for business. New subjective regulations for major projects created massive uncertainty about how and if new infrastructure projects would be approved. And earlier this year, the government’s indecisive handling of the #ShutDownCanada movement and ensuing rail blockades created yet more uncertainty, not to mention significant economic damage.

Nick Bloom, professor of economics at Stanford University, and Steven Davis, professor of economics at the University of Chicago, developed the first rigorous analytical framework for measuring the extent and impact of policy uncertainty. Data for Canada show an increasing trend of policy uncertainty over the past five years, with many periods of uncertainty eclipsing that of the 2008/09 recession. Currently, policy uncertainty is at an all-time 35-year high in Canada.

To be fair, federal Finance Minister Bill Morneau clearly understands that we live in uncertain times. During his “snapshot” speech, which to his credit was actually quite short, the minister noted that “Businesses of all sizes are still facing uncertainty.” The actual snapshot document, which mentions “uncertain” or “uncertainty” 35 times, also notes that “Businesses drastically reduced investment… in response to large revenue losses and high uncertainty.”

Unfortunately, the Trudeau government seems oblivious to how it creates policy uncertainty rather than reducing it.

The need for increased certainty is why during the during the Great Recession of 2008/09, the then-Conservative federal government produced an Update of Economic and Fiscal Projections (which by the way was only 24 pages long) and included updated forecasts for revenues, spending and the deficit for the current year and the following five-year period. Canadians could see the government had a plan to get the budget, which was $56 billion in deficit, back to near balance, and that tax increases would not be required.

Clarity and certainty are critically important, now more than ever. With its snapshot, the Trudeau government missed an opportunity to reassure workers, businesses, investors and entrepreneurs that an attack on capital through tax increases was not coming. It missed an opportunity to show it would return to budget balance, or at least close to it, without massive tax increases. And it missed an opportunity to end long-running rumours of capital gains tax increases, limits on interest-deductibility and additional taxes on stock options.

If this government is serious about Canada’s economic recovery, it would prioritize key reforms central to economic growth including a robust plan to reduce the deficit and balance the budget, improving tax competitiveness for individuals and businesses, and easing the regulatory burden to get the conditions right for investment and entrepreneurship. For our economy to thrive, for Canadians to benefit from the fruits of investment, economic activity and job creation, the government must send strong signals that it has a viable plan.

But instead, the government doubled down on its pattern of fuelling more uncertainty in this very uncertain time.

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/article/trudeau-governments-fiscal-snapshot-doubles-down-on-uncertainty


----------



## Haggis (16 Jul 2020)

Brihard said:
			
		

> CBSA got a huge raise because they now have the substantially increased hazard and liability of being armed.


CBSA actually received two better-than-average raises over about ten years which appeared huge because of four years of retroactivity. Arming was only part of the reason.  Another was because the front line BSOs were pretty much the lowest paid federal law enforcement officers in Canada.  In the second contract, the front-line BSOs were well looked after but those officers above and below that classification were largely ignored. That's understandable, as the front-line BSOs make up the lion's share of the union.

*TANGENT ALERT*



			
				Brihard said:
			
		

> .....knowing that RCMP and CBSA are attractive employers for many vets.


CBSA has been actively courting vets for the last few years now.  However, the number of vets actually making it through the recruiting and selection process to the CBSA College has remained pretty constant and disappointingly low.  It could be partly because vets are shying away from the CBSA once they find out that, unlike the RCMP, CBSA recruits are not hired prior to training and are not paid AND that attendance at the CBSA College is not (yet) eligible for the Education and Training Benefit though VAC.  CBSA recruits receive free room and board, an allowance of $125/week and receive their probationary letters of offer right before graduation.

*TANGENT ALERT ENDS.*


----------



## Dale Denton (16 Jul 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> CBSA has been actively courting vets for the last few years now.  However, the number of vets actually making it through the recruiting and selection process to the CBSA College has remained pretty constant and disappointingly low.  It could be partly because vets are shying away from the CBSA once they find out that, unlike the RCMP, CBSA recruits are not hired prior to training and are not paid AND that attendance at the CBSA College is not (yet) eligible for the Education and Training Benefit though VAC.  CBSA recruits receive free room and board, an allowance of $125/week and receive their probationary letters of offer right before graduation.



This does not work.

If the CBSA is 'aiming' at early-mid 20somethings to join straight from Uni/College, then this allowance would work in that specific demographic. If the CBSA want recruits with more life experience and maturity (a tad older generally speaking), then these policies serve to dissuade an applicant.

For ex, a late 20something applicant with a decent paying civy job, a new parent, or someone with a mortgage would be dissuaded from joining as they would suffer during the training as you can't feed a kid, pay a mortgage, or service any debt with $150/week. Unless they 'hope' you have a partner that will cover you entirely during training, or you sign up for EI.

Lower the standard (and accept all the risk that comes with it), or increase the standard of living at training (and accept the cost of doing business like police services).


----------



## Remius (16 Jul 2020)

The RCMP had that problem when they made Depot a non paying thing Some years ago.  They also had to absorb a lot of incidental costs.  Luckily they saw the light.  It changed sometime in 2008.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (16 Jul 2020)

LoboCanada said:
			
		

> This does not work.
> 
> If the CBSA is 'aiming' at early-mid 20somethings to join straight from Uni/College, then this allowance would work in that specific demographic. If the CBSA want recruits with more life experience and maturity (a tad older generally speaking), then these policies serve to dissuade an applicant.
> 
> ...



From what i seen i wonder if the senior management there wants malleable and not to bright people so they can manipulate them. The downside of that is you get officers who seem to think viewing childporn on a work computer was a good idea(they were fired, used as a case study for my management course). Not to mention borrow a boat from another federal agency and then return it without reporting the damage you did to it or offer to pay for repairs. 
Now instead hire vets who have seen to many gong shows already and many know what professionalism is about and you might get a lot of push back on dumb ideas.


----------



## ModlrMike (17 Jul 2020)

For the win:

"Maybe if we offer Justin Trudeau a speaking fee we can convince him to testify at Finance Committee on the WE scandal. - Pierre Poilievre


----------



## Jarnhamar (17 Jul 2020)

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/lilley-we-charity-listed-real-estate-holdings-worth-43-7-m-in-2018

Over $40 million in real estate, wonder if that's all in Toronto.



And weird how that $19 million the WE "could" have been paid from the liberals jumped to "could be $43 million".
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-we-charity-could-have-received-up-to-435-million-minister-tells-mps/


And finally someone's tweet


> This would have been to cover a second 20K students. But this makes ZERO sense. With only 40k participants, max the program could have cost was $240M (40K x $5000 in payments to students + 40M admin to WE and partners). * How was the other $670M to be spent?*



Classic lol


----------



## Haggis (17 Jul 2020)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Now instead hire vets who have seen to many gong shows already and many know what professionalism is about and you might get a lot of push back on dumb ideas.



CBSA has a significant number of vets working in the training system, many of whom are used to dealing with the type of recruits the CAF has had over the past decade or so. There are also some quite senior managers there now who are vets so things are getting better.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (17 Jul 2020)

Good, they were highly unimpressive bunch to work with, back in the 90's. i am a bit biased as one dam near got us killed by not listening.


----------



## Jarnhamar (17 Jul 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> There are also some quite senior managers there now who are vets so things are getting better.



"Vets" or _Vets?_

 ;D


----------



## Jarnhamar (18 Jul 2020)

*Liberal MPs filibuster ethics committee meeting, delaying decision on WE Charity probe* 
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.5653606


Looks like the English version of SNC. 




*WE organization under scrutiny for not registering as lobbyist before pitching proposals to Trudeau Liberals* 
https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/we-organization-under-scrutiny-for-not-registering-as-lobbyist-before-pitching-proposals-to-trudeau-liberals/wcm/787cddf2-a3c3-4c24-9708-7163e5f2485d/


Shocking.


----------



## Haggis (18 Jul 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> "Vets" or _Vets?_
> 
> ;D


LOL... I guess I told you that story.

To be clear.....military vets,  not the Dr. Pol types.


----------



## Jarnhamar (20 Jul 2020)

*Trudeau a no-show in House after saying he would answer questions about WE*
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-trudeau-a-no-show-in-house-after-saying-he-would-answer-questions/


----------



## Remius (22 Jul 2020)

I don’t know if anyone is watching the committee testimony from Bill Morneau but how he does not resign from after this is beyond me. 

Conflict of interest with his daughter working there. 

free 40,000 dollar trip he forgot to pay back and only remembered to do so the day he testifies. 


Time to go and possibly time for a criminal investigation.

What a crap show.


----------



## suffolkowner (22 Jul 2020)

If I was a Liberal MP I would be thinking long and hard about replacing Trudeau and Morneau. Who know what other skeletons are in the closet? I know they got elected under the Trudeau banner but you can just as easily get unelected when the personality cult falls.


----------



## Jarnhamar (22 Jul 2020)

Remius said:
			
		

> free 40,000 dollar trip he forgot to pay back and only remembered to do so the day he testifies.



LOL ya. Quite possible he just remembered it differently though. 



> Time to go and possibly time for a criminal investigation.
> 
> What a crap show.



I got a kick how he wouldn't admit what he did was illegal until the ethics act. 

What a shit show is right. 

Did I hear correctly that the 900 million was going to a shell company that's part of WEs real estate section? That's not shady at all.

When do we hear about Trudeau's mom or Morneaus daughter buying one of WEs Toronto buildings.


----------



## Cloud Cover (22 Jul 2020)

Morneau might have to resign. Trudeau isn’t going anywhere. The horror of having Catherine McKenna as a finance minister ought to start a market meltdown...


----------



## Remius (22 Jul 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> LOL ya. Quite possible he just remembered it differently though.
> 
> I got a kick how he wouldn't admit what he did was illegal until the ethics act.
> 
> ...



You heard correctly.

At least with a minority parliament the Liberals can’t just shut down the committee.


----------



## Jarnhamar (22 Jul 2020)

Remius said:
			
		

> At least with a minority parliament the Liberals can’t just shut down the committee.



They'll just do what they did with the SNC investigation and back door deal with the other parties to scuttle the investigation.


----------



## Remius (22 Jul 2020)

They had a majority back then though didn’t they?  No back door was required.  Latest is that the PM will be testifying now.


----------



## PuckChaser (22 Jul 2020)

Global broke the story this morning: https://globalnews.ca/news/7203337/trudeau-we-charity-foundation-real-estate-holding-company/

Gist is, the "contribution agreement" was made to WE Charity Foundation, which was created in 2018 and got charitable status in 2019 and its sole stated purpose was to manage real estate holdings. Those are the same real estate holdings ($43M) financed under high risk loans that experts have described as "never seeing those sorts of deals before, ever". Conveniently, the contribution agreement was going to pay them upwards of $40M to managed the program.

How many coincidences does it take here? This is Sponsorship 2.0, and if Mike Duffy was charged with Breach of Trust for a bunch of housing claims, I cannot see how this doesn't fall under the exact same provision for at least Morneau if not the Prime Minister. Here's a pretty good outline of that specific criminal charge http://criminalnotebook.ca/index.php/Breach_of_Public_Trust_(Offence)


----------



## Jarnhamar (22 Jul 2020)

I was in question period the day before Trudeau's wife was diagnosed with Covid19. March if I'm not mistaken. The Conservatives kept asking what deal Trudeau made with the bloc party leader in a one on one meeting they had that caused the bloc to stop the ethics committee from testifying about SNC and making their findings public. 

I'd have to go back through the transcripts for the exact wording.


----------



## stellarpanther (22 Jul 2020)

I hate to say it but even with this latest scandal which I'm not overly excited or even following that close since I don't think it was that big of a deal, but listening to Scheer talk makes me think that I would still vote Liberal if it was Scheer as leader of the CPC.  I can't understand why they don't get someone else to stand in until they vote for a permanent leader.  My BP goes up as soon as I see him on TV and that's before he starts running his mouth.


----------



## Jarnhamar (22 Jul 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> I hate to say it but even with this latest scandal which I'm not overly excited or even following that close since I don't think it was that big of a deal, but listening to Scheer talk makes me think that I would still vote Liberal if it was Scheer as leader of the CPC.  I can't understand why they don't get someone else to stand in until they vote for a permanent leader.  My BP goes up as soon as I see him on TV and that's before he starts running his mouth.



Attitudes like this is why the Liberal party can basically get away with murder.

A fucked up shady 900 million deal to a shady real estate shell company,  blatent conflict of interest, accepting gifts, and more, and you don't like scheers voice.


----------



## stellarpanther (22 Jul 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Attitudes like this is why the Liberal party can basically get away with murder.
> 
> A ****ed up shady 900 million deal to a shady real estate shell company,  blatent conflict of interet, accepting gifts, and more, and you don't like scheers voice.



It's much much more than his voice that I can't stand but regarding the so called scandal, I guess I think all politicians do thinks that benefit themselves as well as others.  I'm sure there's more to this story and I'm missing part of it but so what if his wife or the Finance Ministers daughter worked for the company, I don't care.  If there's some theft going on or some of the money was being funneled to their private bank accounts then I would have a problem and if that if happening please tell me.  I've never been a fan of not being allowed to do something because of optics.


----------



## Jarnhamar (22 Jul 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> It's much much more than his voice that I can't stand



I get that. You keep deflecting this conversation and other conversations about liberals, Trudeau specifically, to talk about scheer. 



> but regarding the so called scandal



You've already decided it's not a scandal or a big deal. No need for an investigation. 



> but so what if his wife or the Finance Ministers daughter worked for the company, I don't care.



Or ministers were accepting gifts and so on. 

I was going to explain ethics and conflict of interest to you but it's clear your mind is made up. 

It's too bad more Canadians don't care.


----------



## PuckChaser (22 Jul 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> It's much much more than his voice that I can't stand but regarding the so called scandal, I guess I think all politicians do thinks that benefit themselves as well as others.  I'm sure there's more to this story and I'm missing part of it but so what if his wife or the Finance Ministers daughter worked for the company, I don't care.  If there's some theft going on or some of the money was being funneled to their private bank accounts then I would have a problem and if that if happening please tell me.  I've never been a fan of not being allowed to do something because of optics.



Let me put it to you this way. I have Sect 32 authority, and do up a sole source contract for a service that plenty of other companies can do but I fudge the document anyway. I fail to disclose one of my kids works at the company and I've personally appeared at events hosted by that company and have had a vacation paid for by said company. Someone finds all this out. I can almost guarantee you that at very least I'm losing my DoA and will never handle government funds again, but more likely I'm being charged with a myriad of things under Code Service Discipline/Criminal Code of Canada. My career in the CAF is probably over.

Now replace me with Morneau and tell me this isn't a big deal? I sincerely hope you never steward government funds, because optics of a fair and open competition/spending is literally the entire reason we have rules. At minimum Morneau has broken the Conflict of Interest Act, and could be criminal conduct. This isn't a $16 orange juice or a forgotten ownership of a villa or even housing expenses. Its a BILLION Canadian taxpayer dollars funneled to "charity" who's made election-styled ads supporting Trudeau.

No big deal though, you hate Scheer's voice.


----------



## ballz (23 Jul 2020)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> but more likely I'm being charged with a myriad of things under Code Service Discipline/Criminal Code of Canada. My career in the CAF is probably over.



As a Comptroller, I'd be referring that one to the police pretty quick, and I'd guess you're getting a Criminal charge for breach of trust, and so at that point your career is definitely over, probably even if you're not convicted given that administrative law only requires balance of probabilities.

Which is why I can't figure how the frig the RCMP seems to not have investigated SNC and they better be investigating this one. 

While I thinK SNC is far worst and more dangerous, this one is a lot simpler to understand than SNC and so it seems to be getting more airtime / being taken more seriously by your average Joe than I would have anticipated.


----------



## Remius (23 Jul 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> I hate to say it but even with this latest scandal which I'm not overly excited or even following that close since I don't think it was that big of a deal, but listening to Scheer talk makes me think that I would still vote Liberal if it was Scheer as leader of the CPC.  I can't understand why they don't get someone else to stand in until they vote for a permanent leader.  My BP goes up as soon as I see him on TV and that's before he starts running his mouth.



You know what?  I don’t disagree.  I’m not a fan of Scheer’s either.  He’s asked Trudeau to resign so many times too early and so often it’s become a refrain of a boy who cries wolf. 

But despite that this stinks a lot.  We’ll see what Trudeau has to say today about his involvement but at the very least he needs to ask and insist on Morneau’s resignation over this. 

This more than just optics.  And this should transcend any dislike for Scheer.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (23 Jul 2020)

Remius said:
			
		

> We’ll see what Trudeau has to say today about his involvement but at the very least he needs to ask and insist on Morneau’s resignation over this.



Unfortunately, that is not an option. Trudeau couldn't fire Moreau over this without immediately attracting a comparison to his own conduct in relation to the Agga Khan holiday thing of his. It would lead to a "PM doesn't hold himself to same standard as his ministers" situation.

Any competent opponent of the PM would be able to use that in a debate to create a "You had a choice, sir. You could have said no!" moment. And I believe that the next PC leader will be MacKay, who is a competent politician.


----------



## OldSolduer (23 Jul 2020)

The Finance Minister's "apology" sounded like "I'm only sorry I got caught and things will be much worse for you peons". 

There's very few people that can write a cheque for 41,000 dollars and be smug about it.

"Let them eat cake" is the attitude of this arrogant government.


----------



## Weinie (23 Jul 2020)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> The Finance Minister's "apology" sounded like "I'm only sorry I got caught and things will be much worse for you peons".
> 
> There's very few people that can write a cheque for 41,000 dollars and be smug about it.
> 
> "Let them eat Jos. Louis cake" is the attitude of this arrogant government.



"No cake for you"


----------



## Haggis (23 Jul 2020)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, that is not an option. Trudeau couldn't fire Moreau over this without immediately attracting a comparison to his own conduct in relation to the Agga Khan holiday thing of his. It would lead to a "PM doesn't hold himself to same standard as his ministers" situation.


You can expect the PM to forgive this oversight as Minister Morneau made things right at the first opportunity.  He will also hold this up as a "teachable moment" for all members of the Liberal Caucus to pay more attention to detail in the future (i.e. "Clean up your houses right now!). 



			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Any competent opponent of the PM would be able to use that in a debate to create a "You had a choice, sir. You could have said no!" moment. And I believe that the next PC leader will be MacKay, who is a competent politician.


You can't have a debate if the house isn't sitting. And by the time the next election is called, this will all have been forgotten.


----------



## dapaterson (23 Jul 2020)

There are adequate mechanisms outside the house for a competent opposition to raise issues of competency and ethics.  Note that the old whore himself made the "you had a choice, sir" attack outside the House of Commons.

Lacking a competent opposition for a considerable length of time (but one that will chug milk from a carton for emphasis), this government gets an easier ride than they should.


----------



## stellarpanther (23 Jul 2020)

Ok, I like to admit when I'm wrong about something so based on what I'm reading online, the Finance Minister should do the right thing and resign.  I haven't seen enough to say Trudeau should go.


----------



## daftandbarmy (23 Jul 2020)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> There are adequate mechanisms outside the house for a competent opposition to raise issues of competency and ethics.  Note that the old ***** himself made the "you had a choice, sir" attack outside the House of Commons.
> 
> Lacking a competent opposition for a considerable length of time (but one that will chug milk from a carton for emphasis), this government gets an easier ride than they should.



But they have God on their side, right?  :


----------



## dapaterson (23 Jul 2020)

Is Mammon a god?


----------



## Haggis (23 Jul 2020)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> There are adequate mechanisms outside the house for a competent opposition to raise issues of competency and ethics.  Note that the old ***** himself made the "you had a choice, sir" attack outside the House of Commons.



Outside the HoC, such issues and accusations are not subject to Parliamentary privilege. And they are also  subject to selective journalism and may not see the light of day.


----------



## daftandbarmy (23 Jul 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Outside the HoC, such issues and accusations are not subject to Parliamentary privilege. And they are also  subject to selective journalism and may not see the light of day.



Don't you guys mean the 'Tent of Commons'?


----------



## ModlrMike (23 Jul 2020)

And yet I remember someone had to resign over $16 worth of OJ.


----------



## Remius (23 Jul 2020)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> And yet I remember someone had to resign over $16 worth of OJ.



That was essentially the last straw.  It was not just 16$ worth of OJ.  It was three nights at the savoy at 600$ a night for three nights, the 250$ smoking fine she charged taxpayers, the 17,000$ in limo rides, the    questionable fundraiser for broadcasters before some changes in laws related to them etc etc etc. 

Morneau is in good company there.


----------



## OldSolduer (24 Jul 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> Ok, I like to admit when I'm wrong about something so based on what I'm reading online, the Finance Minister should do the right thing and resign.  I haven't seen enough to say Trudeau should go.



Pardon me but your "I love JT" Tshirt is on backwards.

Really - you haven't seen enough. What more will it take?  :facepalm:


----------



## daftandbarmy (24 Jul 2020)

Should a Prime Minister get a 'personal day', like, ever? 

I guess 'when in doubt, chicken out' must be his mantra....  :rofl:


Fresh off the WE corruption scandal, Justin Trudeau takes a personal day

Justin Trudeau has been criticized before for his Liberal use of personal days. In 2018, the Conservative Party created a website that highlighted whether the prime minister was on a vacation or not.

Similarly, in June of last year, the prime minister was lampooned for taking a personal day when he should've been attending the repatriation of a fallen Canadian soldier.  

"He chose the date at which the House of Commons would convene, and he's not showing up for work today," concluded the leader of the opposition on the topic.


https://thepostmillennial.com/fresh-off-the-we-corruption-scandal-justin-trudeau-takes-a-personal-day


----------



## Jarnhamar (24 Jul 2020)

Political parties run such successful campaigns to turn other parties into boogymen that members will put up with practically anything.



Speaking of WE I remember reading that a bunch of big wigs in the company started leaving as soon as the Liberals awarded them that contract. I thought it was weird that they would leave after landing such an expensive and hi profile job.

Maybe they were afraid of the laundry and inevitable spotlight.

Virgin suspends WE Charity donations, Telus drops partnership, as sponsors review ties 
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-major-sponsors-review-ties-to-we-charity-telus-drops-multiyear/


----------



## PuckChaser (24 Jul 2020)

Investigative reporter Justin Ling from Vice outlines what WE Charity actually was: A business to sell access to impressionable children/young adults through the guise of charitable works in third world countries. Its a long article, but it will make your blood boil.

https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/pkyqwb/justin-trudeau-billion-dollar-we-charity-scandal-is-a-story-of-power-branding-and-kielburger-charity


----------



## Remius (24 Jul 2020)

WE had had a lot of governance issues for a while.  They treat their employees pretty badly.


----------



## Lumber (24 Jul 2020)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Investigative reporter Justin Ling from Vice outlines what WE Charity actually was: A business to sell access to impressionable children/young adults through the guise of charitable works in third world countries. Its a long article, but it will make your blood boil.
> 
> https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/pkyqwb/justin-trudeau-billion-dollar-we-charity-scandal-is-a-story-of-power-branding-and-kielburger-charity



No, that's not what WE charity is and that's not what article says. Did you even read the whole thing? WE Charity is the larger of the entities and it DOES do charitable work overseas. You make it sound like it's nothing more than a facade designed to get it's owners and hteir friends rich, which it does not. "ME to WE" is the corporate entity that tries to raise funds for WE charity by, as the article states, opening shops, selling sustainably made goods, opening WE schools, and being the ones to actually run WE days. (so a "WE" event run by "ME to WE"). As the article states, they "offered brands a chance to tap into a network of hyper-engaged, well-intentioned youth." I.e. donate 1 million and you can have a 6-minute speaking role at WE day where you can advertise your new fair-trade and sustainable widgets. Does it sound like they are being corporate sellouts prostituting out their good intentions? Sure. But is it in the end raising funds for a good cause? Yes.

I think the last few paras summarize it really well:



> From its inception, WE has worked hard to cultivate an ethos around itself. To great effect, it has parlayed its commitment to international development, volunteerism, and social awareness. In the process, it has brought onboard an array of multi-billion dollar partners to finance its operations.
> 
> At its core, WE offered brands a chance to tap into a network of hyper-engaged, well-intentioned youth. The Faustian bargain meant that WE’s millions in donations would build clinics and schools half a world away, in exchange for advertising products and services to a captive, and otherwise difficult to reach, audience.


----------



## Lumber (24 Jul 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Attitudes like this is why the Liberal party can basically get away with murder.
> 
> A ****ed up shady 900 million deal to a shady real estate shell company,  blatent conflict of interest, accepting gifts, and more, and you don't like scheers voice.



I forced my wife to watch a 7 minute video on youtube on the WE scandal to try and make her understand why this conflict of interest is really bad (to be fair to her, the video didn't actually do a good job of explaining why conflicts of interest are bad in general, nor why this case specifically is really bad. The video just sort of explained the facts like we're all supposed to just get it).

Anyways, her response was essentially "so what, it doesn't matter who in charge they all do this, would you rather have a conservative government? F**k... now we're going to have a conservative government." (to be clear, not that you have any right or need to know, neither of us voted liberal in the last election)


----------



## PuckChaser (24 Jul 2020)

Lumber said:
			
		

> No, that's not what WE charity is and that's not what article says. Did you even read the whole thing?
> 
> I think the last few paras summarize it really well:



Your quote proved my point. They were selling access to children and teenagers, and built a few schools. Oxfam, UNICEF, SOS Children's Villages all can do the exact same thing as WE Charity without the corporate branding on its charitable works. Did you even read the article? Why would they have graphs and spreadsheets about positive views of companies who work with them, if the charity work spoke for itself?


----------



## Lumber (24 Jul 2020)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Your quote proved my point. They were selling access to children and teenagers, and built a few schools. Oxfam, UNICEF, SOS Children's Villages all can do the exact same thing as WE Charity without the corporate branding on its charitable works. Did you even read the article? Why would they have graphs and spreadsheets about positive views of companies who work with them, if the charity work spoke for itself?



It didn't speak for itself. Apparently, those bros are NOT actually very good at charity work. So, they sold their souls to corporate ownership.

Your disparaging a kid who couldn't make enough profit at their lemonade stand until Minute Maid offered to sponsor them in exchange for only selling Minute Maid lemonade and having a big corporate sign at their booth. Who cares! The kid is happy and making enough money know to get new streamers on their bike!


----------



## stellarpanther (24 Jul 2020)

Just read an article in which the CPC and Bloc is saying that if Morneau and Trudeau don't resign, they could face a snap election in the fall.  Personally I think making people vote now will tick off many voters and the results will be the same as they are now with the Liberals possibly getting a majority.  The only thing Scheer is doing by demanding their resignations is making noise.  It's not going to happen and he knows it.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/trudeau-and-morneau-should-resign-or-risk-snap-election-opposition-1.5037639


----------



## PuckChaser (24 Jul 2020)

Lumber said:
			
		

> It didn't speak for itself. Apparently, those bros are NOT actually very good at charity work. So, they sold their souls to corporate ownership.
> 
> Your disparaging a kid who couldn't make enough profit at their lemonade stand until Minute Maid offered to sponsor them in exchange for only selling Minute Maid lemonade and having a big corporate sign at their booth. Who cares! The kid is happy and making enough money know to get new streamers on their bike!



No, I'm disparaging crony capitalism at its worst. Niave children and teenagers were marketed to corporations without their knowledge or consent when they really just wanted to help out people who are less advantaged than they are. Kielburger and the Liberals have used the good deeds of kids as a way to sell them @#$@ing car insurance or cell phones. There's something to be said for informed consent.

You must not have a child in a school that's all aboard for the WE Charity. I'm disgusted that my kids were quietly marketed to by using their desire to do good in this world.



			
				stellarpanther said:
			
		

> Just read an article in which the CPC and Bloc is saying that if Morneau and Trudeau don't resign, they could face a snap election in the fall.  Personally I think making people vote now will tick off many voters and the results will be the same as they are now with the Liberals possibly getting a majority.  The only thing Scheer is doing by demanding their resignations is making noise.  It's not going to happen and he knows it.
> 
> https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/trudeau-and-morneau-should-resign-or-risk-snap-election-opposition-1.5037639



CTV missed this quote when making their first paragraph, the BQ are the ones talking election. Tories don't want one right now. 



> Scheer said that with the House currently not sitting in a manner that would allow for a confidence vote, and given his party is still in the process of electing his replacement, now is not the time to explore the snap election route.


----------



## Lumber (24 Jul 2020)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> No, I'm disparaging crony capitalism at its worst. Niave children and teenagers were marketed to corporations without their knowledge or consent when they really just wanted to help out people who are less advantaged than they are. Kielburger and the Liberals have used the good deeds of kids as a way to sell them @#$@ing car insurance or cell phones. There's something to be said for informed consent.



A bad deed, done for good reasons, is still worth a half-nickle and a trollie ride to the flee circus.



			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> CTV missed this quote when making their first paragraph, the BQ are the ones talking election. Tories don't want one right now.



Politics 100% aside, this is not the time for an election.

Unless you're the US, then please god let there be an election.


----------



## ballz (24 Jul 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> It's not going to happen and he knows it.



It wasn't very long these kind of ethical lapses guaranteed a resignation.... my how the times have changed.


----------



## Haggis (24 Jul 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> Just read an article in which the CPC and Bloc is saying that if Morneau and Trudeau don't resign, they could face a snap election in the fall.



The PM could also trigger an election himself.  With the CPC essentially leaderless and in disarray and the Bloc and NDP to broke to campaign effectively, this would be his ticket back to a crushing majority.


----------



## ballz (24 Jul 2020)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Politics 100% aside, this is not the time for an election.
> 
> Unless you're the US, then please god let there be an election.



The CPC doesn't want an election right now, even with this WE scandal the Liberals are polling near majority territory, and they don't have a leader. Scheer said it outright, whether to go for a snap election is a decision that will be left for the incoming leader. They're instead trying to make the Liberal Party implode on itself under Trudeau's leadership, which is probably the right move right now. At first I was thinking "don't try and coax them into a mutiny or else they'll batten down the hatches," but now I'm not so sure about that.

I'm not sure what the Bloc is reading in Quebec sentiments that make them think it'd be an advantageous time for them either.

Edit: The wrong move was calling for his resignation too early, a mistake they made with SNC and have now repeated. There's still lots of time to build more and more outrage before taking that shot. Like perhaps after the Ethics Commissioner rules on it, or at least after the committee hearings which I am quite sure are going to be spectacular.... a Prime Minister and Chief of Staff being put in front of a Parliamentary committee to testify under oath? Just think of the possible fireworks of Pierre Pollievre questioning Justin Trudeau and he'll have nowhere to hide.


----------



## ballz (24 Jul 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> The PM could also trigger an election himself.  With the CPC essentially leaderless and in disarray and the Bloc and NDP to broke to campaign effectively, this would be his ticket back to a crushing majority.



I am quite positive they were planning on it... this WE scandal may have put that plan on the backburner.


----------



## stellarpanther (24 Jul 2020)

Rethinking my comment and reading other comments. maybe Trudeau should call an election now while they still have fairly good numbers.  He can once again apologize for the WE misunderstanding and the error in judgement but remind everyone that he had the best intensions at heart.  He can say the country can't afford to have the opposition playing politics and causing distraction while we continue to deal with a devastating pandemic because it's downright shameful for them doing this.  I think he might just get a majority.  
He has my vote as of now.


----------



## brihard (25 Jul 2020)

ballz said:
			
		

> The CPC doesn't want an election right now, even with this WE scandal the Liberals are polling near majority territory, and they don't have a leader. Scheer said it outright, whether to go for a snap election is a decision that will be left for the incoming leader.



No it won’t. The incoming CPC leader will be as incapable as the outgoing one of forcing an election. The balance of power is such that the CPC, NDP, and Bloc all need to agree it’s time to force an election. The LPC are in as safe a position as they possibly can be in a minority government. No matter who the leader of the opposition is, what counts is still the number of seats and votes they command when it comes to a confidence matter.


----------



## Stoker (25 Jul 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> Rethinking my comment and reading other comments. maybe Trudeau should call an election now while they still have fairly good numbers.  He can once again apologize for the WE misunderstanding and the error in judgement but remind everyone that he had the best intensions at heart.  He can say the country can't afford to have the opposition playing politics and causing distraction while we continue to deal with a devastating pandemic because it's downright shameful for them doing this.  I think he might just get a majority.
> He has my vote as of now.



Misunderstanding? Best intentions at heart? Downright shameful? What's shameful is suspending full parliament and getting caught like the rules don't apply to him or other members of the Liberal Party.  Put it this way, if you worked for me and behaved like them you would be on the way out of the CAF on your ass. The fact that enough people think like you and are willing to forgive and forget is why this country is heading towards an abyss.


----------



## stellarpanther (25 Jul 2020)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Anyways, her response was essentially "so what, it doesn't matter who in charge they all do this, would you rather have a conservative government? F**k... now we're going to have a conservative government." (to be clear, not that you have any right or need to know, neither of us voted liberal in the last election)



Your wife sounds like a very smart woman.  They all try to do whatever they can for their own self interests.  I don't have much trust in any of them but that might just be me.  I have trust issues.


----------



## ballz (25 Jul 2020)

Brihard said:
			
		

> No it won’t. The incoming CPC leader will be as incapable as the outgoing one of forcing an election. The balance of power is such that the CPC, NDP, and Bloc all need to agree it’s time to force an election. The LPC are in as safe a position as they possibly can be in a minority government. No matter who the leader of the opposition is, what counts is still the number of seats and votes they command when it comes to a confidence matter.



I should have been more precise with my language, I understand the mechanism / what pieces need to be in place. By "go for" I meant that it will be up to the new leader whether or not that's something they want to attempt / go after / make a play for / etc., not that he'd be in a position to be able to make that happen all on his own like flipping a switch.


----------



## stellarpanther (25 Jul 2020)

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> Misunderstanding? Best intentions at heart? Downright shameful? What's shameful is suspending full parliament and getting caught like the rules don't apply to him or other members of the Liberal Party.  Put it this way, if you worked for me and behaved like them you would be on the way out of the CAF on your ***. The fact that enough people think like you and are willing to forgive and forget is why this country is heading towards an abyss.



Unless you're the CDS or CAFCWO, some how I doubt I would be on my way out.  I've seen people do some pretty bad stuff, steal the boss's stamp and make thousands of dollars in CF52 claims, get caught, found guilty, loose the leaf but not pay back the money.  Another guy flipped the RSM's desk because he got yelled at and instead got 3 months off for stress leave.  I'd be surprised if I even got called into the captains cubicle. lol  This stuff happens all the time, it's just that they have nothing else to complain about right now so they're harping on this.  Move on already, this story is getting boring.  This also isn't about me, it's about Scheer having a deep hate of Trudeau.  Let's not make this personal.


----------



## Jarnhamar (25 Jul 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> Rethinking my comment and reading other comments. maybe Trudeau should call an election now while they still have fairly good numbers.  He can once again apologize for the WE misunderstanding and the error in judgement but remind everyone that he had the best intensions at heart.  He can say the country can't afford to have the opposition playing politics and causing distraction while we continue to deal with a devastating pandemic because it's downright shameful for them doing this.  I think he might just get a majority.
> He has my vote as of now.



I suspect there was never any doubt. Respctfully, your eagerness to look the other way and almost gleefully ignore this dishonourable behavior by Trudeau and friends is fuel for corruption in our government. 




			
				stellarpanther said:
			
		

> Unless you're the CDS or CAFCWO, some how I doubt I would be on my way out.  I've seen people do some pretty bad stuff, steal the boss's stamp and make thousands of dollars in CF52 claims, get caught, found guilty, loose the leaf but not pay back the money.  Another guy flipped the RSM's desk because he got yelled at and instead got 3 months off for stress leave.  I'd be surprised if I even got called into the captains cubicle. lol  This stuff happens all the time, it's just that they have nothing else to complain about right now so they're harping on this.  Move on already, this story is getting boring.


I've been to some pretty shitty places in the world, I think I'd rather live there than the world you seem to live in. It seems very rotten.


----------



## NAVCEN (25 Jul 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> Rethinking my comment and reading other comments. maybe Trudeau should call an election now while they still have fairly good numbers.  He can once again apologize for the WE misunderstanding and the error in judgement but remind everyone that he had the best intensions at heart.  He can say the country can't afford to have the opposition playing politics and causing distraction while we continue to deal with a devastating pandemic because it's downright shameful for them doing this.  I think he might just get a majority.
> He has my vote as of now.



Let me get this straight, in an another thread regarding TD you had no problem telling a CO that they were not entitled to a request due to it not being within the rules. So what is the difference here? The PM and FM both have violated clear rules and regulations of public servants and as you should know , best intentions nor ignorance are valid reasons for breaking those directives. Just because other parties do this is not a reason why we shouldn't hold these officials to account. 
This nepotism, scratching of backs and quid pro quo actions of senior ministers have to stop. The general public's faith in government has been on a downward trend for years and actions like this where there are clear violations of directives just cements the public opinion against government.

Shoulder shrugging attitudes like yours does nothing to make government better for the people and enticing better quality people to run for public office.


----------



## Remius (25 Jul 2020)

NAVCEN said:
			
		

> Shoulder shrugging attitudes like yours does nothing to make government better for the people and enticing better quality people to run for public office.



It actually makes things worse and encourages the worst people to run.


----------



## Lumber (25 Jul 2020)

NAVCEN said:
			
		

> This nepotism, scratching of backs and quid pro quo actions of senior ministers have to stop. The general public's faith in government has been on a downward trend for years and actions like this where there are clear violations of directives just cements the public opinion against government.



There's a difference between naive conflict of interest, and actual conscious corruption. From everything I've read, the Trudeaus have been supporters of WE charity for a long time, not because they are giving them kick backs, but because they actually believe it is a good charity. Say what you will about the leadership and governing skills of Prime Minister, but he actually does actauly beleive charity.

I'm not saying there was NOT corruption, I'm just saying you haven't proved to me that they weren't just really stupid in not seeing the conflict of interest here.


----------



## Jarnhamar (25 Jul 2020)

NAVCEN said:
			
		

> Let me get this straight, in an another thread regarding TD you had no problem telling a CO that they were not entitled to a request due to it not being within the rules. So what is the difference here?



Yup. Apply ethics and rules to some people and happily ignore it when dealing with others. How many of us have seen that in the CAF?  It's disgusting behavior wherever you see it.


----------



## Stoker (25 Jul 2020)

Lumber said:
			
		

> There's a difference between naive conflict of interest, and actual conscious corruption. From everything I've read, the Trudeaus have been supporters of WE charity for a long time, not because they are giving them kick backs, but because they actually believe it is a good charity. Say what you will about the leadership and governing skills of Prime Minister, but he actually does actauly beleive charity.
> 
> I'm not saying there was NOT corruption, I'm just saying you haven't proved to me that they weren't just really stupid in not seeing the conflict of interest here.



I think you have a good point and I think in some cases its just stupidity and perhaps some arrogance mixed in. Naivety or not after multiple instances I personally don't think they should be leading the country.


----------



## NAVCEN (25 Jul 2020)

Lumber said:
			
		

> There's a difference between naive conflict of interest, and actual conscious corruption. From everything I've read, the Trudeaus have been supporters of WE charity for a long time, not because they are giving them kick backs, but because they actually believe it is a good charity. Say what you will about the leadership and governing skills of Prime Minister, but he actually does actauly beleive charity.
> 
> I'm not saying there was NOT corruption, I'm just saying you haven't proved to me that they weren't just really stupid in not seeing the conflict of interest here.



Stupidity from the PM is not surprising. Actually I'll be kinder than that, innocence is a more correct term. But that Morneau seems to have never even read the Conflict of Interest documents prior to assuming the role of Minister of Finance.(Charlie Angus asked him the question in committee and Morneau said he can't recall reading it. :facepalm

The WE foundation started off okay but it seems to have turned into a a bit of a personality cult. It now has enough of a stink on it that it is losing sponsors left, right, and centre.


----------



## Jarnhamar (25 Jul 2020)

[quote author=Lumber] 

I'm not saying there was NOT corruption, I'm just saying you haven't proved to me that they weren't just really stupid in not seeing the conflict of interest here.
[/quote]

Being "just really stupid" shouldn't be a viable defense legally or morally for our elected officials.

I don't accept "didn't know any better" from children, I shouldn't hold the prime minster to a lower standard than a child.


----------



## Lumber (25 Jul 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Being "just really stupid" shouldn't be a viable defense legally or morally for our elected officials.
> 
> I don't accept "didn't know any better" from children, I shouldn't hold the prime minster to a lower standard than a child.



Did I say we should excuse them? No. I said put down the pitchforks and stop yelling about corruption and Laurentian elitist cronyism. (not you specifically) Call a spade a spade, don't call it a back-hoe infected with pure evil (bonus points if you get that reference).


----------



## Good2Golf (25 Jul 2020)

I am skeptical they didn’t know they were acting around or past the edge of ethical behaviour. Public servants and commercial businesses are held to ethical standards through actual legislation.  Employees of commercial companies can be charged in Canadian courts for unethical behaviour even outside of Canada for contravening the Canadian Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act (Federal Act that tues to the Canadian Criminal Code for enforcement) and serve jail time, so we should expect no less from our elected officials.  Especially when the PM puts it in each Cabinet Minister’s mandate letter, as previously note. 

‘Just being stupid’ is absolutely NOT an acceptable excuse for those elected by the people to represent them and disburse their hard earned and heavily taxed dollars responsibly and in full compliance with both legislative and ethical principles.

Stop excusing irresponsible and unethical behaviour. Apologies....especially consistently repeated apologies, do not clear the sheet to allow repeats of such behaviour again and again. 

Regards
G2G


----------



## Jarnhamar (25 Jul 2020)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Did I say we should excuse them? No.



The problem is so many people ARE ready to. He's too stupid to know any better. It doesn't effect me so I don't care. He's still better than _a conservative_. It's not like he killed someone.

Corruption is corruption. He's not selling kids on the internet but it's millions upon millions of taxpayer dollars getting used and abused. Friends and friendly companies get rich. It _is_ Laurentian elitism.

"Do better" is the clarion call of the day but as long as we let this stuff happen we aren't doing better.



> Call a spade a spade, don't call it a back-hoe infected with pure evil (bonus points if you get that reference).


----------



## stellarpanther (25 Jul 2020)

NAVCEN said:
			
		

> Let me get this straight, in an another thread regarding TD you had no problem telling a CO that they were not entitled to a request due to it not being within the rules. So what is the difference here? The PM and FM both have violated clear rules and regulations of public servants and as you should know , best intentions nor ignorance are valid reasons for breaking those directives. Just because other parties do this is not a reason why we shouldn't hold these officials to account.
> This nepotism, scratching of backs and quid pro quo actions of senior ministers have to stop. The general public's faith in government has been on a downward trend for years and actions like this where there are clear violations of directives just cements the public opinion against government.
> 
> Shoulder shrugging attitudes like yours does nothing to make government better for the people and enticing better quality people to run for public office.



As far as I know an ethics committee investigation has been launch but I don't believe a ruling has been made.  Since when did it become guilty until proven innocent?  I also don't think it's a big deal, we all get to have an opinion here.  I can just as easily say that attitudes like yours is why there is so much bickering in politics.  Focus on the big stuff and so far from what I've seen this isn't that big of a deal.  I really don't care if the kid of the Finance Minister received a job for it.


----------



## NAVCEN (25 Jul 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> As far as I know an ethic committee investigation has been launch but I don't believe a ruling has been made.  Since when did it become guilty until proven innocent?  I also don't think it's a big deal, we all get to have an opinion here.  I can just as easily say that attitudes like yours is why there is so much bickering in politics.  Focus on the big stuff and so far from what I've seen this isn't that big of a deal.  If really don't care if the kid of the Finance Minister received a job for it.



1. Both men apologized for their errors. To me that usually means they did wrong. For the PM it's the 3rd time, for Morneau it's his second. I'm seeing a trend here.
2. "Never pass a fault"


----------



## stellarpanther (25 Jul 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I suspect there was never any doubt. Respctfully, your eagerness to look the other way and almost gleefully ignore this dishonourable behavior by Trudeau and friends is fuel for corruption in our government.
> 
> I've been to some pretty shitty places in the world, I think I'd rather live there than the world you seem to live in. It seems very rotten.



Are you doubting what I say and accusing me of making this stuff up?  Go work at DMCA for 2 years and look at the reports that come in and then look at the decisions.  There are a lot of people on here that may be higher in rank than me and think they know everything and maybe they are very good at there job but that doesn't mean they know everything.  Too many people in the CAF think their rank and position give them more power than they actually have and it pisses me off sometimes to hear.  I make my comments based on what I've seen.  You'd be very surprised what some people do even at the lower ranks and it doesn't cost them there job nor should it necessarily.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (25 Jul 2020)

Wait...the CAF folks piss you off but the men/women who are in charge of those people dont?


----------



## suffolkowner (25 Jul 2020)

For me it's not too hard to pass judgement on this pair, and from what I've read there's enough Liberal MP's willing to go there too they're just waiting on Chrystia Freeland to come onside. Maybe Trudeau and Morneau survive this but this WE charity has got a hell of a stench to it. In the end without a viable Conservative alternative this is what we are stuck with and right now I think the perception is that Conservative party is too far to the right


----------



## stellarpanther (25 Jul 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I agree it's the world we're living in.



So if this is the way society is going, do we not have a responsibility to meet societies expectations and meet their wishes?


----------



## stellarpanther (25 Jul 2020)

NAVCEN said:
			
		

> 1. Both men apologized for their errors. To me that usually means they did wrong. For the PM it's the 3rd time, for Morneau it's his second. I'm seeing a trend here.
> 2. "Never pass a fault"



They made a used poor judgement.  That's not the same as unethical behavior.


----------



## Jarnhamar (25 Jul 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> So if this is the way society is going, do we not have a responsibility to meet societies expectations and meet their wishes?



Nope. History is full of times when societies took wrong turns. Going along with it because everyone else is enables abuse of power, abuse of rights and a whole bunch of other bad things.


----------



## Jarnhamar (25 Jul 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> Are you doubting what I say and accusing me of making this stuff up?



The problem is I believe you. 
And in saying that I think people with attitudes like yours (that you've expressed here) is why behavior like this continues to happen.

Criticizing military leadership for not knowing the policy/trying to go around it while giving a pass to the Liberals for the same behavior. Same boat as Scheer criticizing politicians for dual citizenship with France.


----------



## stellarpanther (25 Jul 2020)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Wait...the CAF folks piss you off but the men/women who are in charge of those people dont?



If you're talking to me can you quote what I said please and then I will comment.


----------



## suffolkowner (25 Jul 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> They made a used poor judgement.  That's not the same as unethical behavior.



I'm not sure where the line between poor judgement and unethical behaviour is and it's obvious Trudeau and Morneau are having the same problem. Guess what when you constantly make poor judgements maybe there is a deeper problem there like maybe an ethical problem


----------



## stellarpanther (25 Jul 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Nope. History is full of times when societies took wrong turns. Going along with it because everyone else is enables abuse of power, abuse of rights and a whole bunch of other bad things.



Maybe you should remember that it's the taxpayer who pays our salary.  If the majority of them want some thing that's how it should be.


----------



## Jarnhamar (25 Jul 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> Maybe you should remember that it's the taxpayer who pays our salary.  If the majority of them want some thing that's how it should be.



Like the majority of Canadians voted for the Conservatives in the last election?


----------



## YZT580 (25 Jul 2020)

pardon my 2 cents but aren't these the same liberals who had no difficulty identifying and condemning Harper's people for hitching a ride on a defence helicopter, buying expensive orange juice and renting limousines?  If they can see these faults in others they certainly understand the meaning of conflict of interest.  They just don't believe it applies to them.  The key word was others. And I still want to know where the other 700 million was going to be spent after the students got 200.  Unless someone can find a purpose for all that extra cash that to me may be an even bigger issue.


----------



## Jarnhamar (25 Jul 2020)

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> I'm not sure where the line between poor judgement and unethical behaviour is and it's obvious Trudeau and Morneau are having the same problem. Guess what when you constantly make poor judgements maybe there is a deeper problem there like maybe an ethical problem



In their case I guarantee they're making these decisions and with the full knowledge of what they're doing is wrong and they're balancing it against the damage control of getting caught offering up a quick apology and counting on the apathy of their voter base.


----------



## stellarpanther (25 Jul 2020)

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> I'm not sure where the line between poor judgement and unethical behaviour is and it's obvious Trudeau and Morneau are having the same problem. Guess what when you constantly make poor judgements maybe there is a deeper problem there like maybe an ethical problem



Ok, but should this not be an issue for the voters to decide?  The SNC problem was ruled an ethical violation and yet the voters still put the Liberals back in power.  In my opinion, most voters either didn't think it was a problem or maybe they didn't like it but it's not something that was important to them.  The other option is that they felt the Liberals are still the best option to lead the country.  

Many people have given reasons why they don't like the Liberals, I don't like the CPC foreign policy, IMO they seem to always kiss up to the United States and do whatever they want.  I don't want us joining every misguided war the US gets into and Cons have never seen one they don't want to be a part of.  No thank you, and that's whether I'm still serving or not.


----------



## stellarpanther (25 Jul 2020)

YZT580 said:
			
		

> pardon my 2 cents but aren't these the same liberals who had no difficulty identifying and condemning Harper's people for hitching a ride on a defence helicopter, buying expensive orange juice and renting limousines?  If they can see these faults in others they certainly understand the meaning of conflict of interest.  They just don't believe it applies to them.  The key word was others. And I still want to know where the other 700 million was going to be spent after the students got 200.  Unless someone can find a purpose for all that extra cash that to me may be an even bigger issue.



Or the Cons think it's ok for them to be involved in things that are a conflict of interest but the country must grind to a halt if another party does it.  They're a bunch of hypocrites.


----------



## Jarnhamar (25 Jul 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> yet the voters still put the Liberals back in power.



The voting system that the Liberals promised to change but reneged did that.


----------



## stellarpanther (25 Jul 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Like the majority of Canadians voted for the Conservatives in the last election?



The Cons didn't have a problem with how things worked when they had a majority.


----------



## stellarpanther (25 Jul 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> The voting system that the Liberals promised to change but reneged did that.



As a voter and new member of the Liberal party, I don't want them to change anything.


----------



## Good2Golf (25 Jul 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> As a voter and new member of the Liberal party, I don't want them to change anything.



Except their promise to reform the electoral process, of course. :nod:


----------



## Jarnhamar (25 Jul 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> As a voter and new member of the Liberal party, I don't want them to change anything.


I definitely think you could find a 2nd career with the LPC after you retired. Good luck with your new party status


----------



## suffolkowner (25 Jul 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> Ok, but should this not be an issue for the voters to decide?  The SNC problem was ruled an ethical violation and yet the voters still put the Liberals back in power.  In my opinion, most voters either didn't think it was a problem or maybe they didn't like it but it's not something that was important to them.  The other option is that they felt the Liberals are still the best option to lead the country.
> 
> Many people have given reasons why they don't like the Liberals, I don't like the CPC foreign policy, IMO they seem to always kiss up to the United States and do whatever they want.  I don't want us joining every misguided war the US gets into and Cons have never seen one they don't want to be a part of.  No thank you, and that's whether I'm still serving or not.



Ultimately it is up to the voters to decide, thus my disappointment with the Conservative party for not offering a viable policy/leadership alternative. I'm not going to let the Liberal cabinet/caucus off the hook, they can put an end to this anytime they want. As an aside I've always been much more in favour of Conservative foreign policy than Liberal.


----------



## Jarnhamar (25 Jul 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> The Cons didn't have a problem with how things worked when they had a majority.



I'll explain.

The Liberals promised voting reform.
The Liberals got elected.
The Liberals went back on their promise.
Had the Liberals not went back on their promise they wouldn't be sitting on the throne.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (25 Jul 2020)

The respective Political Tribes in this Country (Left and Right) have their heads so far up their Party's rear end, they are all going to be doing their very own blackface impression very soon.

It's a sad day when anyone can sit here and defend someone misappropriating the amount of money we are talking about here.  It's ENRON like in it's Scheer criminality (see what I did there).  

The only reason it's being even tolerated is because the Cons are currently being dominated by a bunch of social wackos who think abortion and gay marriage are the pressing issues of our time.

The NDP could potentially offer an alternative but they are too busy trying to collect handouts like a street bum and have a leader that has about as much depth as my toilet crossword puzzle.

You all continue to argue about the colour of the curtains you want in your window.  I'll continue to sit back, drink some beer and see what else 2020 has in store for us.


----------



## Stoker (25 Jul 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> As a voter and new member of the Liberal party, I don't want them to change anything.



 :rofl:


----------



## PuckChaser (25 Jul 2020)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Did I say we should excuse them? No. I said put down the pitchforks and stop yelling about corruption and Laurentian elitist cronyism. (not you specifically) Call a spade a spade, don't call it a back-hoe infected with pure evil (bonus points if you get that reference).



You and Merriam Webster should have a chat, apparently you have different definitions of corruption. This is literally the definition of corruption. Let's call a spade a spade, it seems you're unable.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/corruption?src=search-dict-hed


----------



## Weinie (25 Jul 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> Are you doubting what I say and accusing me of making this stuff up?  Go work at DMCA for 2 years and look at the reports that come in and then look at the decisions.  *There are a lot of people on here that may be higher in rank than me and think they know everything and maybe they are very good at there job but that doesn't mean they know everything.  Too many people in the CAF think their rank and position give them more power than they actually have and it pisses me off sometimes to hear.*  I make my comments based on what I've seen.  You'd be very surprised what some people do even at the lower ranks and it doesn't cost them there job nor should it necessarily.



This is your fallback position every time that you face criticism or feedback from this forum. You are entitled to an opinion, just as others are entitled to challenge it. You have made your partisan leanings known. Opinion is different from informed opinion.



			
				stellarpanther said:
			
		

> I make my comments based on what I've seen.



Good, have you seen this? Maybe it will change your comments.

https://nationalpost.com/news/world/trudeau-runs-afoul-of-federal-ethics-rules-yet-again-missing-deadline-for-financial-statement


----------



## Halifax Tar (25 Jul 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> Many people have given reasons why they don't like the Liberals, I don't like the CPC foreign policy, IMO they seem to always kiss up to the United States and do whatever they want.  I don't want us joining every misguided war the US gets into and Cons have never seen one they don't want to be a part of.  No thank you, and that's whether I'm still serving or not.



Can you provide some examples of this please ?


----------



## PuckChaser (25 Jul 2020)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Can you provide some examples of this please ?



LPC spin and talking points usually don't have examples, much like any other partisan barb. Facts get in the way. I'm still waiting for Harper to put troops, on the streets, with guns and make gay marriage and abortion illegal again.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (25 Jul 2020)

I merged the Stellarpanther and Jarnhamar's jousting from elsewhere in to this thread.


----------



## Jarnhamar (25 Jul 2020)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> I merged the Stellarpanther and Jarnhamar's jousting from elsewhere in to this thread.


Appreciate that thanks.


----------



## YZT580 (25 Jul 2020)

note: Afghanistan was a liberal war inherited by the cons.  The fact that we ended up with some decent kit at the end of it all was a result of Harper and co. assuming control.  Back to the debate.


----------



## dapaterson (25 Jul 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Like the majority of Canadians voted for the Conservatives in the last election?


There was no majority in the last election.  There was a plurality.


----------



## PuckChaser (25 Jul 2020)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> There was no majority in the last election.  There was a plurality.



Hasn't been one since Mulroney. Then we're looking at Diefenbaker and a slew of 2nd World War elections. In our system, plurality is what we get but most people are just using majority as a colloquial term.


----------



## Jarnhamar (25 Jul 2020)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> There was no majority in the last election.  There was a plurality.


Right, my mistake. 

Would it be accurate to say that despite some CPC members voting for Bernie's PPC and despite NDP (and perhaps others) voting stratigically for the Liberals to block the CPC, the CPC still had the most votes?


----------



## dapaterson (25 Jul 2020)

The CPC received more votes than any other party, but did not receive a majority of votes.

In a proportional representation system, that would have translated into a plurality of seats; in a riding based system, it highlights the inefficiency of their vote distribution, and a need to appeal to groups outside Alberta and Saskatchewan.


----------



## brihard (25 Jul 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Right, my mistake.
> 
> Would it be accurate to say that despite some CPC members voting for Bernie's PPC and despite NDP (and perhaps others) voting stratigically for the Liberals to block the CPC, the CPC still had the most votes?



I got curious and looked at the impact PPC made. Assuming every PPC vote came directly from the CPC, had PPC not existed, CPC would have had 6 more seats- that is to say, PPC can be fairly credited with having probably cost 6 seats in the election. I think all 6 went Liberal, but I no longer recall 100%. In any case, even had all six of those seats gone CPC it wouldn't have even impacted the balance of power.

PPC were a pressure relief for some of the crazies, but had zero impact on the result in terms of what each party can do in Parliament. Any one of the opposition parties would still suffice to prop up the minority government.


----------



## stellarpanther (25 Jul 2020)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Except their promise to reform the electoral process, of course. :nod:



I might be wrong but wasn't that something they talked about 6 years ago?  I don't think they continued saying they were going to do that while campaigning in the last election.


----------



## stellarpanther (25 Jul 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I definitely think you could find a 2nd career with the LPC after you retired. Good luck with your new party status



Thank you  ;D


----------



## brihard (25 Jul 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> I might be wrong but wasn't that something they talked about 6 years ago?  I don't think they continued saying they were going to do that while campaigning in the last election.



Correct. They made the promise, then abandoned it when they got elected the first time, then stayed mute on it when they ran for reelection.


----------



## stellarpanther (25 Jul 2020)

Weinie said:
			
		

> This is your fallback position every time that you face criticism or feedback from this forum. You are entitled to an opinion, just as others are entitled to challenge it. You have made your partisan leanings known. Opinion is different from informed opinion.
> 
> Good, have you seen this? Maybe it will change your comments.
> 
> https://nationalpost.com/news/world/trudeau-runs-afoul-of-federal-ethics-rules-yet-again-missing-deadline-for-financial-statement



Considering most of us don't know each other, none of us really have any idea whether or not an opinion is informed based on what they post here.  What I don't like is that some people seem to feel others are wrong for their personal opinion on certain topics.
From a work perspective, I do my job and often get praise regardless of my opinions that I sometimes share at work.  As one of my CWO's once told me.  As long as I do my job and do as I'm instructed, that's fine.  I remember one conversation ending with, "you'd be shocked about some of my personal believes about all the stupidity we have around here", he gave a wink and that was that.  That happened about 5 years or so ago.


----------



## Weinie (25 Jul 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> Considering most of us don't know each other, none of us really have any idea whether or not an opinion is informed based on what they post here.  *What I don't like is that some people seem to feel others are wrong for their personal opinion on certain topics.*
> *From a work perspective, I do my job and often get praise regardless of my opinions that I sometimes share at work.*  As one of my CWO's once told me.  As long as I do my job and do as I'm instructed, that's fine.  I remember one conversation ending with, "you'd be shocked about some of my personal believes about all the stupidity we have around here", he gave a wink and that was that.  That happened about 5 years or so ago.


If you feel you should get praise on this forum regardless of your opinions, you are either dangerously naive, or do not understand the nature of debate. War stories aside, your premise was that the WE fiasco was as a result of poor judgement. Most on this forum disagree, citing a demonstrated record of ethical shortcomings by the current PM. Your sources on how you formed your opinion are scant, while others have pointed to real, historical, in Hansard, censoring of the PM by the Ethics Commissioner.


----------



## RangerRay (25 Jul 2020)

Lots of similarities between Trudeau and Trump. Both are privileged and entitled and have no idea how common folk live. Both are ethically challenged, to say the least. Both vomit out word salad that is nonsensical. Both view opposition as illegitimate. Both favour highly centralized executive power (just like every PM since PET). Both believe rules don’t apply to them. The only real difference is one is more photogenic than the other.


----------



## RangerRay (25 Jul 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> I don't like the CPC foreign policy, IMO they seem to always kiss up to the United States and do whatever they want.



But the Liberal foreign policy of grabbing our ankles and saying to China “Thank you sir, may I have another!” is better?


----------



## OldSolduer (25 Jul 2020)

RangerRay said:
			
		

> But the Liberal foreign policy of grabbing our ankles and saying to China “Thank you sir, may I have another!” is better?



There is an undercurrent of anti USA Sentiment and all things American in Canada and there always has been.

Our largest trading partner and the longest undefended border in the world, but we as a nation choose to look down our noses at them and presume to lecture America on how it should act on the world stage.

Maybe we should stop the holier than thou attitude and work with them. 

I love your comment btw RangerRay


----------



## BeyondTheNow (25 Jul 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> Considering most of us don't know each other, none of us really have any idea whether or not an opinion is informed based on what they post here.  What I don't like is that some people seem to feel others are wrong for their personal opinion on certain topics.
> From a work perspective, I do my job and often get praise regardless of my opinions that I sometimes share at work.  As one of my CWO's once told me.  As long as I do my job and do as I'm instructed, that's fine.  I remember one conversation ending with, "you'd be shocked about some of my personal believes about all the stupidity we have around here", he gave a wink and that was that.  That happened about 5 years or so ago.



You’re correct. That’s why you’ll note that the majority of our regular users can debate relatively contentious topics without resorting to the ‘it’s my opinion and I’m entitled to it’ angle. (How many other users have you seen on this site lately resort to that manner of justification when their views are questioned?) Rather, they’ve built up a substantial reputation of knowing their facts and forming their opinions based off multiple reputable and easily searchable sources, substantial professional experience which they’ve shared in specific instances, or have referred to in the past. They’ve also routinely proven that their judgement and advice is sound and can be relied upon. This community has learned over time who’s informed and who still has learning to do.

I’ve personally noted that you’ve been making a concerted effort to think of your responses and to remain open to differing points of view recently. But Wienie is not out of place by pointing out your manner of replies to others lately when challenged in threads with more complex content. ‘It’s my opinion and I’m entitled to it’ simply isn’t a reasonable and valid response. It’s a defensive reaction to being challenged. 

Many users are engaging with you, showing patience and simply expecting you to match the level of tone, discussion and content that they’re bringing to the table. That’s not an unreasonable expectation.


----------



## stellarpanther (25 Jul 2020)

Weinie said:
			
		

> If you feel you should get praise on this forum regardless of your opinions, you are either dangerously naive, or do not understand the nature of debate. War stories aside, your premise was that the WE fiasco was as a result of poor judgement. Most on this forum disagree, citing a demonstrated record of ethical shortcomings by the current PM. Your sources on how you formed your opinion are scant, while others have pointed to real, historical, in Hansard, censoring of the PM by the Ethics Commissioner.



Did you hear me asking for praise on this forum?  No and you won't.  As far as if people disagreeing with me, why would I even care especially since I don't even know any of you.  There is either a big misunderstanding here or you are turning this into something it's not.  One thing I am curious about though is whether or not you've ever looked at Reddit?  I don't have an account there but I've looked at a few posts and that place makes some of my opinions look timid.
Either way, I'm not here looking for praise or people to agree with me because just as many of the posters here may disagree with my believes, I am just as strongly opposed to many of the opinions I read here and the only difference is I don't criticize someone for them and certainly don't spend even 2 seconds to try to play gottcha games like a few here do.


----------



## stellarpanther (25 Jul 2020)

BeyondTheNow said:
			
		

> I’ve personally noted that you’ve been making a concerted effort to think of your responses and to remain open to differing points of view recently. But Wienie is not out of place by pointing out your manner of replies to others lately when challenged in threads with more complex content. ‘It’s my opinion and I’m entitled to it’ simply isn’t a reasonable and valid response. It’s a defensive reaction to being challenged.
> 
> Many users are engaging with you, showing patience and simply expecting you to match the level of tone, discussion and content that they’re bringing to the table. That’s not an unreasonable expectation.



You right that I have been making an effort to think my thoughts through and I sometimes I go back and reword a post.  I like to debate certain topics that I feel strong about and ask questions about other topics that I may have minimal knowledge about but am still curious.  I also try not to insult any poster for their opinion and beliefs but I will admit that maybe at times, I'm a little thin skinned when I take something as criticism,  Politics both Canada, US and Internationally is an area I've had interest in since I was a teenager and I feel strongly about my position and sometimes get carried away.


----------



## Good2Golf (25 Jul 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> I might be wrong but wasn't that something they talked about 6 years ago?  I don't think they continued saying they were going to do that while campaigning in the last election.



No, you’re right. I thought it was still in the Red Book in2019, just unspoken, but it was removed as a campaign item. Maybe they should put it back in.  They had a majority in 2015 with it.


----------



## Halifax Tar (25 Jul 2020)

> stellarpanther said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Just wondering if this was lost in the chaffe... I am pretty paitent though.


----------



## stellarpanther (25 Jul 2020)

WRT to foreign policy, the Liberals as everyone knows allowed several Syrian refugees to enter Canada, the CPC stated they were against that.
- The CPC wants a get tough approach with China just as Trump has done, if Trudeau would have done this, I don't think we would have received a lot of the PPE we did.  

- We shouldn't suck up to China and we're not IMO, but taking a tough approach with China is not in our best interests, especially now,

- Trudeau has stated that he will not recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel as Trump has done, the Cons have said they would.

Since Harper, Canada seems to have taken on more of a role of peace making or even war fighting as opposed to Peacekeeping, Libya comes to mind.  Over the years, Canada had developed a strong and respected reputation around the world.  Talking to a couple European friends, we don't have that same level of respect like we used to and part of it is because we are looked at as going along with the U.S. on everything instead of coming up with our own opinions.  The decision on Huawei will be interesting but my money is that Canada will cave into U.S. pressure just as the UK ended up doing.

There's also other things I don't like between the 2 party's.  Trudeau is in favor of foreign aid, the Cons have stated they would reduce it.  

The Cons are just way to far to the right for me.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (25 Jul 2020)

Let's see: NORAD was negotiated and decided under Louis St-Laurent, a Liberal. St-Laurent was the same PM who had answered the American's call to provide Canadian forces for the Korean War. PM Chretien (I believe he was a Liberal too, but I could be wrong /SARC OFF) committed Canada beside the US in Afghanistan, and was also the PM who greatly increased our commitment there in order to be unable to provide any force for the IRAQ war. All of these were made by the Liberal PM's without consulting Parliament.

The only wars a Conservative PM chose to join were, meanwhile, (1) the First Gulf War where PM Mulroney accepted to participate in the American led coalition to liberate Koweit from Saddam's invasion, an operation authorized by the UN under it's charter obligation to defend member countries' territorial integrity; and, (2) PM Harper's decisions to continue Canada's participation in Afghanistan and to provide some forces to participate in operations against ISIS. However, in PM Harper's case, he had the matters debated in Parliament before any final decision was made.

As regards the Americans, it is important to remember that our joint defence of North America is a simple and logical result of our shared geography, history (recent one anyway) and political systems. For the same reasons, except geography but adding economics, our national interests nearly align most of the time, which again makes it logical that we would be found taking the same view and approaches to most international matters.


----------



## Stoker (25 Jul 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> WRT to foreign policy, the Liberals as everyone knows allowed several Syrian refugees to enter Canada, the CPC stated they were against that.
> - The CPC wants a get tough approach with China just as Trump has done, if Trudeau would have done this, I don't think we would have received a lot of the PPE we did.
> 
> - We shouldn't suck up to China and we're not IMO, but taking a tough approach with China is not in our best interests, especially now,
> ...



You mean China the country where the virus originated and the virus China wasn't upfront to the world about having until months later. Or China the country Trudeau sent planeloads of PPE to or China that sent defective PPE back to Canada. Perhaps if China was a decent world nation they would of warned the world sooner and we wouldn't need that much PPE from China in the first place.


----------



## Halifax Tar (25 Jul 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> WRT to foreign policy, the Liberals as everyone knows allowed several Syrian refugees to enter Canada, the CPC stated they were against that.
> - The CPC wants a get tough approach with China just as Trump has done, if Trudeau would have done this, I don't think we would have received a lot of the PPE we did.
> 
> - We shouldn't suck up to China and we're not IMO, but taking a tough approach with China is not in our best interests, especially now,
> ...



Was that meant to be the reply too: 



			
				Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Can you provide some examples of this please ?
> 
> Just wondering if this was lost in the chaffe... I am pretty paitent though.


  

?


----------



## Jarnhamar (25 Jul 2020)

[quote author=stellarpanther] 

- Trudeau has stated that he will not recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel as Trump has done, the Cons have said they would.
[/quote]

Is this something that actually resonates with you?
Is this important to you?


----------



## stellarpanther (25 Jul 2020)

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> You mean China the country where the virus originated and the virus China wasn't upfront to the world about having until months later. Or China the country Trudeau sent planeloads of PPE to or China that sent defective PPE back to Canada. Perhaps if China was a decent world nation they would of warned the world sooner and we wouldn't need that much PPE from China in the first place.



Yes the same China that despite originally sending defective PPE, corrected the problem and the same China that the world continues to try to purchase PPE from.  The same China that we sell a lot of goods to.  I suppose we could have it your preferred way and vote in the Cons and let them suck up the the good ol USA who pretends to be our ally but has no problem screwing us over on trade or anything else and imposes tariffs on us if we don't bend over and do what they want.  Even when we do give in, they make the threat again.  The same great country that has stated that in the event of a missile attack, they will not defend us.  At least China isn't being two faced about things.  

Ranger boy... are you still sure you want to talk about grabbing your ankles because if you do, you have a great so called ally waiting to give you another?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (25 Jul 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> Yes the same China that despite originally sending defective PPE, corrected the problem and the same China that the world continues to try to purchase PPE from.  The same China that we sell a lot of goods to.  I suppose we could have it your preferred way and vote in the Cons and let them suck up the the good ol USA who pretends to be our ally but has no problem screwing us over on trade or anything else and imposes tariffs on us if we don't bend over and do what they want.  Even when we do give in, they make the threat again.  The same great country that has stated that in the event of a missile attack, they will not defend us.  At least China isn't being two faced about things.



I'm seldom at a loss for words, but


----------



## Lumber (25 Jul 2020)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Can you provide some examples of this please ?
> 
> Just wondering if this was lost in the chaffe... I am pretty paitent though.



I actually lol'd at this


----------



## stellarpanther (25 Jul 2020)

I want to add that my opinion is not something I've always had but only since Trump, I don't really believe the US or at least not at all levels is truly acting as an ally.  Pre-Trump, I had nothing but good feelings and all positive things to say.  I sincerely hope it goes back to that.  I have family over there so I obviously want the best for them but he needs to treat his allies a little better.  It's not just Canada he's doing that to.  There are plenty of articles currently online discussing Europe's concern about whether they can still depend on the Americans.  My opinion was strongly influenced by many of those articles and from what we've seen here in this country since Trump.


----------



## stellarpanther (25 Jul 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Is this something that actually resonates with you?
> Is this important to you?



It's certainly not the most important thing I think about but it is a big one when thinking about foreign policy.  Most of the recent conflicts have been in the middle east and that is certainly something that will pour a lot of gasoline on an already big fire.


----------



## Stoker (26 Jul 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> Yes the same China that despite originally sending defective PPE, corrected the problem and the same China that the world continues to try to purchase PPE from.  The same China that we sell a lot of goods to.  I suppose we could have it your preferred way and vote in the Cons and let them suck up the the good ol USA who pretends to be our ally but has no problem screwing us over on trade or anything else and imposes tariffs on us if we don't bend over and do what they want.  Even when we do give in, they make the threat again.  The same great country that has stated that in the event of a missile attack, they will not defend us.  At least China isn't being two faced about things.
> 
> Ranger boy... are you still sure you want to talk about grabbing your ankles because if you do, you have a great so called ally waiting to give you another?



Or the same China who have two Canadian Citizens under arrest for last few years on BS charges. We share the largest undefended border with the US, they are our biggest trading partner and militarily we are partners in Norad and Nato so why the hell not shouldn't we co-operate with them. Its not a perfect relationship but they are far from invading us or building islands off the coast. The same can't be said for China. You must have lots of Huawei stock don't you?


----------



## Halifax Tar (26 Jul 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> I want to add that my opinion is not something I've always had but only since Trump, I don't really believe the US or at least not at all levels is truly acting as an ally.  Pre-Trump, I had nothing but good feelings and all positive things to say.  I sincerely hope it goes back to that.  I have family over there so I obviously want the best for them but he needs to treat his allies a little better.  It's not just Canada he's doing that to.  There are plenty of articles currently online discussing Europe's concern about whether they can still depend on the Americans.  My opinion was strongly influenced by many of those articles and from what we've seen here in this country since Trump.





			
				stellarpanther said:
			
		

> I want to add that my opinion is not something I've always had but only since Trump, I don't really believe the US or at least not at all levels is truly acting as an ally.  Pre-Trump, I had nothing but good feelings and all positive things to say.  I sincerely hope it goes back to that.  I have family over there so I obviously want the best for them but he needs to treat his allies a little better.  It's not just Canada he's doing that to.  There are plenty of articles currently online discussing Europe's concern about whether they can still depend on the Americans.  My opinion was strongly influenced by many of those articles and from what we've seen here in this country since Trump.



You didnt answer, or maybe are not willing to answer, my clarifying question.  But I will as you another anyways.  Just so you're aware, it is the Liberals who get us into fights for the most part, Afghanistan included.  It was the Conservative's who got us out. 

Now onto my question:

Is the US actually treating its Allies poorly ?  Or is the US simply fed up with propping up other countries monitarily and militarily; who then turn around and bash the hand the protects and feeds them ?  Why should the US look after other countries ?  Thats not alliance that is dependance.


----------



## Jarnhamar (26 Jul 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> It's certainly not the most important thing I think about but it is a big one when thinking about foreign policy.  Most of the recent conflicts have been in the middle east and that is certainly something that will pour a lot of gasoline on an already big fire.



That sort of seems as non-committal as Trudeau refusing to vote (opposed to voting no).

I get the feeling that if Trudeau wanted to recognize Jerusalem as Israels capital and the Conservatives were against it you would be here arguing why it's such a good idea to recognize it as such but I digress.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (26 Jul 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> That sort of seems as non-committal as Trudeau refusing to vote (opposed to voting no).
> 
> I get the feeling that if Trudeau wanted to recognize Jerusalem as Israels capital and the Conservatives were against it you would be here arguing why it's such a good idea to recognize it as such but I digress.



So you're saying he's a good American?  Vote party and not idea??


----------



## Jarnhamar (26 Jul 2020)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> So you're saying he's a good American?  Vote party and not idea??



I don't think there's any illusion he's going to vote for the Liberal party regardless of anything they do or don't do.

The anti-American, pro-China seems standard for the party.


----------



## Lumber (26 Jul 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> The anti-American, pro-China seems standard for the party.



I disagree with your assertion that the LPC is anti American. Anti-republican and anti-trump, sure but anti-American?

For your second part, I don't get it. I've seen on thai site a few people claiming that the LPC in general and Trudeau specifically are ardently pro-China to the point of cowtowing and even boot licking. I have 9 news apps on my phone, so I see a lot of different stories, and I've never gotten the impression that the LPC was this was visavis China. What gives?


----------



## mariomike (26 Jul 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> - Trudeau has stated that he will not recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel as Trump has done, the Cons have said they would.



What do Jewish-Canadians say?



> In the 2017 American Jewish Congress ( AJC ) Survey of American Jewish Opinion, done in September 2017, it was found that 16% of American Jews polled supported an immediate move of the embassy to Jerusalem, 36% wanted to move the embassy at a later date in conjunction with Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, 44% opposed moving the embassy, and 4% said they weren't sure.
> https://www.ajc.org/survey2017


----------



## PPCLI Guy (26 Jul 2020)

Lumber said:
			
		

> I disagree with your assertion that the LPC is anti American. Anti-republican and anti-trump, sure but anti-American?
> 
> For your second part, I don't get it. I've seen on thai site a few people claiming that the LPC in general and Trudeau specifically are ardently pro-China to the point of cowtowing and even boot licking. I have 9 news apps on my phone, so I see a lot of different stories, and I've never gotten the impression that the LPC was this was visavis China. What gives?



https://tnc.news/2020/04/22/just-the-facts-liberal-partys-connections-to-chinas-communist-regime/


----------



## PPCLI Guy (26 Jul 2020)

For more:

https://globalnews.ca/news/7113426/canada-threat-from-china/


----------



## Halifax Tar (26 Jul 2020)

Lumber said:
			
		

> I disagree with your assertion that the LPC is anti American. Anti-republican and anti-trump, sure but anti-American?
> 
> For your second part, I don't get it. I've seen on thai site a few people claiming that the LPC in general and Trudeau specifically are ardently pro-China to the point of cowtowing and even boot licking. I have 9 news apps on my phone, so I see a lot of different stories, and I've never gotten the impression that the LPC was this was visavis China. What gives?



Hasnt JT been recorded as expressiong admiration for the Chinese form of government or some such thing ?


----------



## PPCLI Guy (26 Jul 2020)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Hasnt JT been recorded as expressiong admiration for the Chinese form of government or some such thing ?



From the posted link above:



> 2013 – Liberal leader Justin Trudeau said he admired China’s dictatorship.
> “There’s a level of admiration I actually have for China. Their basic dictatorship is actually allowing them to turn their economy around on a dime.”


----------



## Jarnhamar (26 Jul 2020)

Lumber said:
			
		

> I disagree with your assertion that the LPC is anti American. Anti-republican and anti-trump, sure but anti-American?



Maybe semantics but you probably have a point. Trump makes a very easy and convenient figurehead to rally against no disagreement here. 
At the same time I've found whether Trump was in the picture or not the Liberal party have ran on a "We're not American" platform for years and use any negative opinions of the US, at home or abroad, to sell what they're pitching. I've found Liberal voters often seem to hold "not American!" as a major identifier.

So yes maybe not anti-American per say but the LPC and Liberals are quick to associate American with negative and take advantage of it any way they can. 
Conservative = American, American = bad.



> For your second part, I don't get it.


I'll shamelessly purloin the points from PPCLI Guy's article.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (26 Jul 2020)

Of course there is always this:

http://www.ufcw.ca/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=30248:harper-sells-canada-to-china&catid=9553&Itemid=98&lang=en



> Harper sells Canada to China
> 
> Toronto  – September 22, 2014 – Late on a Friday afternoon, while Parliament was not sitting, Con boss Harper quietly announced that his government had ratified the Canada-China Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (FIPA). Most Canadians have no idea what FIPA is. It was secretly negotiated between the two countries, there has been no public debate, nor has there been any debate in Parliament.
> 
> ...


----------



## Jarnhamar (26 Jul 2020)

> It was secretly negotiated between the two countries, there has been no public debate, nor has there been any debate in Parliament.



Shit like that isn't acceptable at all. I really liked Harper (except towards the end of his tenure) but the more I hear about this stuff the more pissed I get.


----------



## MilEME09 (26 Jul 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> crap like that isn't acceptable at all. I really liked Harper (except towards the end of his tenure) but the more I hear about this stuff the more pissed I get.



Laws are only made by people, i bet creative lawyers could get us out of it.


----------



## Lumber (26 Jul 2020)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Of course there is always this:
> 
> http://www.ufcw.ca/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=30248:harper-sells-canada-to-china&catid=9553&Itemid=98&lang=en



I just vomited in my mouth a little. 

This is too horrible to be entirely accurate (I hope). I will. Investigate further.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (26 Jul 2020)

Lumber said:
			
		

> I just vomited in my mouth a little.
> 
> This is too horrible to be entirely accurate (I hope). I will. Investigate further.



I know I wouldn't believe anything my Union put out so further investigation is probably warranted.


----------



## dapaterson (26 Jul 2020)

Text of FIPA is online at: https://www.international.gc.ca/trade-commerce/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/china-chine/fipa-apie/index.aspx?lang=eng


----------



## stellarpanther (26 Jul 2020)

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> Or the same China who have two Canadian Citizens under arrest for last few years on BS charges. We share the largest undefended border with the US, they are our biggest trading partner and militarily we are partners in Norad and Nato so why the hell not shouldn't we co-operate with them. Its not a perfect relationship but they are far from invading us or building islands off the coast. The same can't be said for China. You must have lots of Huawei stock don't you?



I'm not saying we shouldn't cooperate with them but I also don't think we should bend over for them either.  You do realize those 2 Canadians that are being held are because of the Meng issue that the US could end tomorrow if they wanted to don't you?


----------



## Stoker (26 Jul 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> I'm not saying we shouldn't cooperate with them but I also don't think we should bend over for them either.  You do realize those 2 Canadians that are being held are because of the Meng issue that the US could end tomorrow if they wanted to don't you?



Sorry it sounds like you are abdicating cooperation at the level of appeasement. The two Canadians are pawns because we are fulfilling our extradition obligations as would any country and China is trying to pressure us. Its not like Meng or Huawei is an innocent party either.  How about answering Halifax Tars questions?


----------



## stellarpanther (26 Jul 2020)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> You didnt answer, or maybe are not willing to answer, my clarifying question.  But I will as you another anyways.  Just so you're aware, it is the Liberals who get us into fights for the most part, Afghanistan included.  It was the Conservative's who got us out.
> 
> Now onto my question:
> 
> Is the US actually treating its Allies poorly ?  Or is the US simply fed up with propping up other countries monitarily and militarily; who then turn around and bash the hand the protects and feeds them ?  Why should the US look after other countries ?  Thats not alliance that is dependance.



I do believe the US is treating it's allies poorly and I don't believe they are not just propping us up.  It's not for the US to tell other countries how much of their GDP to spend, each country gets to decide on how to spend it's money.  If the US wasn't going around the world sticking it's nose into everything there we would have less problems.  You know as well as I do that MANY people feel that way.


----------



## stellarpanther (26 Jul 2020)

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> How about answering Halifax Tars questions?



I did.  Are you his agent or something?


----------



## PPCLI Guy (26 Jul 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> You know as well as I do that *MANY people *feel that way.



Your frequent use of this approach undermines the validity of your argument....and makes you sound quite Trumpian.

Many people think the Earth is flat
Many people think Elvis is alive
Many people think Obama was born in Kenya
Many people think that statements made in support of an argument do not have to be rooted in fact.
Many people think that invoking the thoughts of many people makes their argument stronger.

All of those people are demonstrably wrong.


----------



## Stoker (26 Jul 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> I do believe the US is treating it's allies poorly and I don't believe they are not just propping us up.  It's not for the US to tell other countries how much of their GDP to spend, each country gets to decide on how to spend it's money.  If the US wasn't going around the world sticking it's nose into everything there we would have less problems.  You know as well as I do that MANY people feel that way.



So you rather the US pay for everything while everyone else including us has a free lunch?


----------



## Jarnhamar (26 Jul 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> I do believe the US is treating it's allies poorly and I don't believe they are not just propping us up. * It's not for the US to tell other countries how much of their GDP to spend*, each country gets to decide on how to spend it's money.  If the US wasn't going around the world sticking it's nose into everything there we would have less problems.  You know as well as I do that MANY people feel that way.



It's silly to think the US isn't going to want a say in how_ their_ money gets spent when these countries are begging the US for protection and money and equipment and training.

The Liberal government is doing the same with CERB and the provinces.


----------



## Stoker (26 Jul 2020)

Stellerpanther, if the US pulled all their forces back to a level say what Canada is currently doing and committing to what do you think will happen? All the US is doing is asking for the rest of their allied countries to pay their fair share.


----------



## stellarpanther (26 Jul 2020)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Your frequent use of this approach undermines the validity of your argument....and makes you sound quite Trumpian.
> 
> Many people think the Earth is flat
> Many people think Elvis is alive
> ...



Maybe it does but I'm saying it because most of people probably here or at least the majority that are posting are clearly to the right when it comes to politics.  I'm starting to find it annoying when I post something and then someone else posts back with something sarcastic and then someone else awards mil points it begins to piss me off.


----------



## stellarpanther (26 Jul 2020)

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> Sorry it sounds like you are abdicating cooperation at the level of appeasement. The two Canadians are pawns because we are fulfilling our extradition obligations as would any country and China is trying to pressure us. Its not like Meng or Huawei is an innocent party either.  How about answering Halifax Tars questions?



The Canada China relationship began to sour with the Meng issue which is really just another thing Trump is doing to try to stir up shit.  Unfortunately we caught put in the middle of it.  I don't look at is as appeasement.  The US likes to act as a bully around the world and really that's all that needs to be said.  If I don't say it as articulately as others or don't provide enough details sorry but it's my educated opinion.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (26 Jul 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> I do believe the US is treating it's allies poorly and I don't believe they are not just propping us up.  It's not for the US to tell other countries how much of their GDP to spend, each country gets to decide on how to spend it's money.  If the US wasn't going around the world sticking it's nose into everything there we would have less problems. You know as well as I do that MANY people feel that way.



Your ignorance of geopolitics laid bare for all to see.

I don't personally feel that China should be our enemy purely because I view our relationship with them as transactional.  I also view it as foolish to pick a fight you cant hope to win with a superior force.  That's not being weak, that's just common sense.  Whether we like it or not, China is a peer competitor with the United States and should be recognized and treated as such.

However, also know though that we are divided by the World's largest body of water and we have plenty of other Countries on China's side of the World that also have interests that align with ours.  So we can afford to use additional brinksmanship when dealing with China.  It also makes sense to not do anything with them that undermines our relationship with the other very powerful Country that exists right next door to us.

Likewise, whether you personally like it or not, we live beside the most powerful Country in the World.  Just that fact alone necessitates we develop an incredibly close working relationship with that Country, it's also a bonus that many/most of our interests are also mutually exclusive.  It also dictates that we must align with this Country on many issues or face consequences. Again, that's just smart politics and sensible strategy.

I personally view Russia as a bigger immediate threat than China. Unlike China which has shown a willingness to want to at least be part of the International System, Russia is a Rogue State that is strong and uses that strength to act like a real destabilizing force in the World.  They have shown that they have the ability to undermine our interests and should be challenged because of it.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (26 Jul 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> Maybe it does but I'm saying it because most of people probably here or at least the majority that are posting are clearly to the right when it comes to politics.  I'm starting to find it annoying when I post something and then someone else posts back with something sarcastic and then someone else awards mil points it begins to piss me off.



I disagree, I have several acquaintance's that have left the site because it was more left then right.  As someone who leans to the right, I find the site has enough 'left' in it to keep me grounded and informed so I don't go off sounding like an airhead.   I like to be corrected, and/or debated.  Sometimes I'm even right.....


----------



## stellarpanther (26 Jul 2020)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Your ignorance of geopolitics laid bare for all to see.
> 
> I don't personally feel that China should be our enemy purely because I view our relationship with them as transactional.  I also view it as foolish to pick a fight you cant hope to win with a superior force.  That's not being weak, that's just common sense.  Whether we like it or not, China is a peer competitor with the United States and should be recognized and treated as such.
> 
> ...



I guess you'd be surprised to learn that I have a degree in Political Science.  You are entitled to your opinion but it's just that an opinion.  What are your qualifications to make your statement other than you disagree with what you've said and other have said?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (26 Jul 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> I guess you'd be surprised to learn that I have a degree in Political Science.  You are entitled to your opinion but it's just that an opinion.  What are your qualifications to make your statement other than you disagree with what you've said and other have said?



He's been outside of Ottawa??


----------



## stellarpanther (26 Jul 2020)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Your ignorance of geopolitics laid bare for all to see.
> 
> I don't personally feel that China should be our enemy purely because I view our relationship with them as transactional.  I also view it as foolish to pick a fight you cant hope to win with a superior force.  That's not being weak, that's just common sense.  Whether we like it or not, China is a peer competitor with the United States and should be recognized and treated as such.
> 
> ...



- Do you think it was acceptable for Trump to renegotiate NAFTA and when it wasn't moving fast enough, impose tariff's?
- Is it acceptable for the Trump to threaten other countries with Tariff's if they don't increase spending in NATO?
- Is it acceptable for a close ally to threaten private companies and basically force them to close up in allied countries putting people out of work.

The fact is the US bullies countries and with Trump the level has greatly increased.  If anyone disagrees with this they are the ones who are truly ignorant in global affairs.


----------



## stellarpanther (26 Jul 2020)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> He's been outside of Ottawa??



You're funny.  That should get you lots of mil points!


----------



## stellarpanther (26 Jul 2020)

This is starting to become too heated, I'm out on this thread.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (26 Jul 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> The Canada China relationship began to sour with the Meng issue which is really just another thing Trump is doing to try to stir up crap.  Unfortunately we caught put in the middle of it.  I don't look at is as appeasement.  The US likes to act as a bully around the world and really that's all that needs to be said.  If I don't say it as articulately as others or don't provide enough details sorry but it's my educated opinion.



Suggest you revisit some of the works you hopefully read in your Political Studies classes, a couple of ones for you:

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/28862.The_Prince

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/117031.On_War

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/10534.The_Art_of_War







There is a difference between Politics and Strategy though and the two are not mutually exclusive.  I know some people who studied Politics that focused entirely on ideology, or classical political philosophy.  I myself focused almost entirely on International Relations and Political Geography.



			
				stellarpanther said:
			
		

> This is starting to become too heated, I'm out on this thread.



That's too bad, we were just starting to get some good discussion going.


----------



## Stoker (26 Jul 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> This is starting to become too heated, I'm out on this thread.



Seen that coming two days ago


----------



## Jarnhamar (26 Jul 2020)

[quote author=Humphrey Bogart]I myself focused almost entirely on International Relations and Political Geography.

[/quote]

And yet your goto source isn't an argumentum ad populum.


----------



## Good2Golf (26 Jul 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> I guess you'd be surprised to learn that I have a degree in Political Science.



Yes, if you didn't cover key elements of Canadian-U.S. relations, including key bilateral treaties that include the almost half-century old:

*Treaty on Extradition Between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America*



> E101323 - CTS 1976 No. 3
> 
> CANADA AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
> 
> ...


----------



## Brad Sallows (26 Jul 2020)

Couple of questions.

1.  "There are plenty of articles currently online discussing Europe's concern about whether they can still depend on the Americans."

Why do Europeans still need to depend on the Americans?  Europe too small?  European countries still too incompetent and immature to avoid warring among themselves without Americans to keep them in line?

2.  Uighurs.  If their treatment at the hands of the Chinese government is insufficiently inhumane for Canada to increase its distance right now, what additional outrages must the Chinese government commit for Canada to do so?


----------



## Kat Stevens (26 Jul 2020)

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> Stellerpanther, if the US pulled all their forces back to a level say what Canada is currently doing and committing to what do you think will happen? All the US is doing is asking for the rest of their allied countries to pay their fair share.



Why should they volunteer to do their part when there are plenty of Americans out there ready to die for them? Maybe they're just not into that.


----------



## RangerRay (26 Jul 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> Ranger boy... are you still sure you want to talk about grabbing your ankles because if you do, you have a great so called ally waiting to give you another?



Judging from the immature name-calling and deduction of MilPoints for my "inappropriate" comment, I gather I must have struck a nerve.  More so than the Liberal habit of gross corruption.

You will not get any arguments from me with regards to the Trump Administration.  The sooner he is turned out to pasture and what passes as the Republican Party is razed to the ground and the earth salted, the better.  It has been a long time since it was the party of Reagan.

With regards to China, I guess you are okay with a totalitarian regime that engages in hostage diplomacy when Canada fulfills its legal obligations under a lawful extradition request.

I guess you are okay with a totalitarian regime that engages in genocide in Xinjiang by placing over a million Uyghur muslims in concentration camps, and is engaging in forced sterilization and abortions, and mass surveillance of said population.

I guess you are okay with a totalitarian regime that engages in ethnic cleansing in Tibet.

I guess you are okay with a totalitarian regime that has broken international law in stamping out the final lights of freedom in Hong Kong.

I guess you are okay with a totalitarian regime that bullies its liberal democratic neighbours Japan, South Korea and India, and its other neighbours over territory and access to international waters.

I guess you are okay with a totalitarian regime that threatens to absorb a liberal democratic Taiwan by force, when they have made it clear that they are not interested in losing their freedoms.

I guess you are okay with a totalitarian regime that uses its United Front Work Department to engage in “elite capture” of Canadian political and corporate leaders, to make sure they are obsequious to their aggression.

I guess you are okay with a totalitarian regime that uses this same United Front Work Department to engage in intimidating Chinese-Canadian communities and dissidents into silence and spreading Beijing’s propaganda in said communities.

I guess you are okay with a totalitarian regime that hid a pandemic from the world and its population until it was ravaging the globe and could not be contained any longer.  The same regime that allowed people to travel internationally from the centre of said pandemic while it raged.

I guess you are okay with a totalitarian regime that uses its United Front Work Department to buy up all supplies of PPE in Canada prior to the pandemic being known here, shipping us defective PPE in return.

I guess you are okay with a regime that engages in espionage and election interference in Canada and other allies.

I could go on.

The fact is, Canada has no reason to kowtow to the Chinese Communist Party.  It is not an honest actor in the international community  There is no reason why, at the very least, we should not be enacting Magnitsky Act sanctions on select CCP officials engaging in oppression and genocide, kicking out “consular officials” engaged in intimidation and influence in Canada ,and working with our other traditional allies (UK, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea) who have also been the targets of Beijing’s intimidation campaigns.  We should also be engaging with other liberal democracies in Asia like Taiwan and India to increase our trade and stand up to Beijing’s bullying.

There is so much more we could do, but our government bows and scrapes before the most odious regime on the planet.

If that offends you, then sorry, not sorry.


----------



## Stoker (26 Jul 2020)

Target Up said:
			
		

> Why should they volunteer to do their part when there are plenty of Americans out there ready to die for them? Maybe they're just not into that.



I think the time is coming when the people who are dying for them no longer want to.


----------



## Halifax Tar (26 Jul 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> I did.  Are you his agent or something?



You did ?


----------



## PuckChaser (26 Jul 2020)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> You did ?



He did: https://army.ca/forums/threads/131371/post-1621479.html#msg1621479 Harder to see since he didn't quote your post and it got dogpiled afterwards.


----------



## Haggis (26 Jul 2020)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Hasnt JT been recorded as expressiong admiration for the Chinese form of government or some such thing ?



Indeed he has!  Admittedly, this was about six years ago.  I would now say he fears China more than admires them. But he is following some of their basic dictatorial practices by:

a. using an executive order to disarm the Canadian population (OIC 2020-96);

b. suspending open government and attempting to impose one-party rule (attempt to extend emergency pandemic spending powers until December 2021);

c. practicing a "do as I say, not as I do" leadership style over the Easter weekend;

d. awarding and rewarding the party faithful using public funds (WE); and, prior to the pandemic

e. attempting to subvert the course of justice on two separate occasions. (SNC Lavalin and VAdm Norman)

He may no longer admire the Chinese but he has certainly learned from them.


----------



## Kat Stevens (26 Jul 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Indeed he has!  Admittedly, this was about six years ago.  I would now say he fears China more than admires them. But he is following some of their basic dictatorial practices by:
> 
> a. using an executive order to disarm the Canadian population (OIC 2020-96);
> 
> ...



Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, after all.


----------



## Lumber (26 Jul 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Indeed he has!  Admittedly, this was about six years ago.  I would now say he fears China more than admires them. But he is following some of their basic dictatorial practices by:
> 
> a. using an executive order to disarm the Canadian population (OIC 2020-96);
> 
> ...



Objection! This is conjecture!

The rest of it, well, yea...


----------



## Haggis (26 Jul 2020)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Objection! This is conjecture!
> 
> The rest of it, well, yea...


I apologize deeply. 

Canada is a country where the rule of law is paramount. An open and transparent government is what Canadians expect.  

Here at Army.ca those expectations are expected. I sincerely apologize, once again. Sincerely.  I will do better. 

Army.ca members expect nothing less and nothing is what they can expect.


----------



## Lumber (27 Jul 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> I apologize deeply.
> 
> Canada is a country where the rule of law is paramount. An open and transparent government is what Canadians expect.
> 
> ...



What's this Army.ca you speak of? All my URLs start with "milnet.ca"?.


----------



## Haggis (27 Jul 2020)

Lumber said:
			
		

> What's this Army.ca you speak of? All my URLs start with "milnet.ca?.



One apology per 24 hour period. I don 't want to seem too Prime Ministerial.


----------



## Lumber (27 Jul 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> One apology per 24 hour period. I don 't want to seem too Prime Ministerial.



 :rofl:


----------



## Jarnhamar (27 Jul 2020)

One of the WE employees, former chair of the board of directions who quit, speaks up.

*Former WE Charity chair says she resigned over ‘concerning developments’ at the organization*
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-former-we-charity-chair-says-she-resigned-over-concerning/


It sounds like she was replaced by Greg Rogers who was one of the Kielburger's high school teachers . I've ready he was pretty light in the experience department too.


----------



## Rifleman62 (27 Jul 2020)

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-we-charity-contract-came-into-effect-may-5-ottawa-paid-most/?utm_medium=Referrer:+Social+Network+/+Media&utm_campaign=Shared+Web+Article+Links

*WE Charity contract called for Ottawa to pay $33-million in administration fees in its first weeks* G & M - 27 Jul 20

The deal that WE Charity struck with the federal government allowed it to collect the fee for administering the Canada Student Service Grant *within one week* of the Trudeau Liberals announcing the group would run the new program.

http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/

*The Libranos: WE HAVE A WINNER* - July 27, 2020 
Librano math: How the hell does a contract originally claimed to be worth $19-million by the Trudeau government get an advanced payment of $33-million?

*DING*DING*DING*DING*


----------



## RangerRay (27 Jul 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> This is starting to become too heated, I'm out on this thread.



Bummer.


----------



## Jarnhamar (27 Jul 2020)

*Agreement between WE and federal government set aside only $500 million for student grants: documents*
Program given a $900 million budget — but only $500 million earmarked for grants

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/we-charity-student-grants-trudeau-covid-pandemic-1.5664391

Phantom $400 million? Maybe it was a typo.


----------



## suffolkowner (27 Jul 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> *Agreement between WE and federal government set aside only $500 million for student grants: documents*
> Program given a $900 million budget — but only $500 million earmarked for grants
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/we-charity-student-grants-trudeau-covid-pandemic-1.5664391
> ...



unfortunately probably not a typo. Toronto real estate isn't cheap


----------



## daftandbarmy (27 Jul 2020)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-we-charity-contract-came-into-effect-may-5-ottawa-paid-most/?utm_medium=Referrer:+Social+Network+/+Media&utm_campaign=Shared+Web+Article+Links
> 
> *WE Charity contract called for Ottawa to pay $33-million in administration fees in its first weeks* G & M - 27 Jul 20
> 
> ...



I used to see those kind of advanced payments issued so that teeny tiny little not for profits who had great programs, but needed enough to hire an office person and an intake worker to get the ball rolling.

Global enterprises? Not so much...


----------



## Jarnhamar (27 Jul 2020)

Cant find it now but I thought I read some where WE already accepted millions. In the first week they were "picked".


----------



## Haggis (27 Jul 2020)

See reply 304 and the captioned article.  The WE brothers are also scheduled to testify before the Finance Committee ahead of the PM and his COS, Katie Telford. Let's see who throws who under the bus.


----------



## PuckChaser (27 Jul 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> See reply 304 and the captioned article.  The WE brothers are also scheduled to testify before the Finance Committee ahead of the PM and his COS, Katie Telford. Let's see who throws who under the bus.



I mean, its hard to argue that WE didn't know the program was going to be created: Wernick from PCO testified he got a detailed unsolicited proposal the day the program was announced. Depending on the detail, that implies it was something that would take multiple days to put together if it was a proper proposal. You don't just throw a plan for a $1B CAD program onto a bar napkin in an hour if you actually want to run it.


----------



## dapaterson (27 Jul 2020)

Wernick is a she at ESDC.  Plenty of problems without getting the facts wrong.


----------



## PuckChaser (27 Jul 2020)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Wernick is a she at ESDC.  Plenty of problems without getting the facts wrong.



Got confused with the Michael Wernick from PCO. Hard to keep straight how many public servants the Liberals are willing to throw under the bus after their union campaigned for them for the last decade.


----------



## daftandbarmy (28 Jul 2020)

WE Charity's plan to pay teachers to recruit students for grant program posed ethical dilemma for some

The professional code of conduct for teachers varies around the country, but in many places it appears the proposed $12,000 payments would violate the code

 A proposal by WE Charity to pay teachers $12,000 for recruiting student volunteers into the Canada Student Service Grant program would have put many teachers in violation of their professional code of conduct, experts say.

But even though the grant program is now being run by the federal government instead of WE, it’s unclear whether the $12,000 payments might still happen. A week after the National Post asked Employment and Social Development Canada if the teacher payments are happening, the department still hasn’t answered.

“It’s at the very least a moral conflict of interest, but it’s also in violation of many elementary (ethics) rules,” said Marc Boudreau, a labour lawyer and partner at Quebec firm Marceau Boudreau. “The question is: ‘Does the teacher have a personal interest in this situation?’ And the answer is yes, $12,000.”

“Absolutely there is a conflict of interest for teachers,” said Gilles LeVasseur, a law professor at the University of Ottawa. “If you recruited people as a teacher…and you never say ‘I’m doing it on a personal basis,’ you open yourself to disciplinary measures when there’s a violation of the code of conduct.”

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/we-charitys-plan-to-pay-teachers-to-recruit-students-for-grant-program-posed-ethical-dilemma-for-some


----------



## Haggis (28 Jul 2020)

Any predictions on how the PM and his COS will conduct themselves before the Finance Committee?

Combative or contrite?
Forthright or evasive?
Conciliatory or condescending?


----------



## PuckChaser (28 Jul 2020)

Evasive and condescending, as per their question period and media relations SOP.


----------



## Jarnhamar (28 Jul 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Any predictions on how the PM and his COS will conduct themselves before the Finance Committee?
> 
> Combative or contrite?
> Forthright or evasive?
> Conciliatory or condescending?




_Did I know it was breaking the rules? Well children are important and because of climate change they're at risk. The conservatives wouldn't have got the CERB out so fast so we wanted to get money in kids hand for their volunteer work._




Meanwhile
*
WE's history with Beijing, from endorsements in People's Daily to appearances at Chinese embassy*

WE flatly denies having become cozy with Beijing authorities, or that China’s abysmal human-rights record calls into question its involvement in the country
https://nationalpost.com/news/world/wes-history-with-beijing-from-endorsements-in-peoples-daily-to-appearances-at-chinese-embassy


----------



## Haggis (28 Jul 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> _Did I know it was breaking the rules? Well children are important and because of climate change they're at risk. The conservatives wouldn't have got the CERB out so fast so we wanted to get money in kids hand for their volunteer work._



Expected reply: "We note how you use the words "money" and "volunteer" in the same sentence, Prime Minister. The glaring incongruity of your statement is astounding."


----------



## Good2Golf (28 Jul 2020)

“Paid to volunteer” remains one of the oxyest of oxymorons...but hey, it’s 2020!

:not-again:

Regards
G2G


----------



## Jarnhamar (28 Jul 2020)

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/we-charity-founders-testify-at-parliamentary-committee-1.5665748


> Earlier in the day, the former chair of the *WE Charity board of directors told MPs on the Commons finance committee this afternoon that the board was told that speakers were not being paid for appearing at WE Day events — even though WE later confirmed that its for-profit arm had paid Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's mother and brother thousands of dollars for speaking at such events.*
> 
> *"The WE Charity board always understood that speakers were not paid by the charity or the related organizations to speak at WE Day. The board made direct inquiries on this issue," said Michelle Douglas, who worked at WE Charity for 15 years.  *
> 
> WE Charity confirmed earlier this month that Prime Minister Trudeau's mother Margaret was paid about $250,000 for speaking at 28 events by Me to WE, the charity's for-profit arm, while his brother Alexandre spoke at eight events and received about $32,000.




Past guest speakers for these WE events were told they don't get paid for speaking.
The _chair of WE Charity’s board of directors_ asked if guest speakers were paid and was told no.
Somehow  Sophie Gregoire-Trudeau, Margaret Trudeau and Alexandre Trudeau were all paid. 

I'm comfortable chalking that up to an accident. Some kind of clerical error. Well, 37 clerical errors.


----------



## Remius (28 Jul 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/we-charity-founders-testify-at-parliamentary-committee-1.5665748
> 
> Past guest speakers for these WE events were told they don't get paid for speaking.
> The _chair of WE Charity’s board of directors_ asked if guest speakers were paid and was told no.
> ...



Come on Jarn, the explanation was simple.  The speaking part wasn’t paid for.  They got paid for ancillary events before and after.  Speaking was all pro bono...

This thing gets worse and worse....


----------



## Jarnhamar (29 Jul 2020)

[quote author=Remius]

This thing gets worse and worse....
[/quote]

Like paying half a million for US political consultants and a hiring private investigation firm to dig up dirt on journalists being critical of them?

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/amp/politics/article-we-charity-spent-hundreds-of-thousands-on-us-political-consultants/?__twitter_impression=true


----------



## PPCLI Guy (29 Jul 2020)

Remius said:
			
		

> This thing gets worse and worse....



I just hope that the CPC can sort out their shit, and fast.....


----------



## Stoker (29 Jul 2020)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> I just hope that the CPC can sort out their crap, and fast.....



I agree but when the bill for all that Covid money and other spending comes due eventually, that will take them down I wager.


----------



## Jarnhamar (29 Jul 2020)

Sounds like a few army events I've been to. 
"It's not mandaroy... but you need to go". 

I wonder why WE employees were being pressured to goto Bill Morneaus party. 

Non disclosure agreements as well. 



> The guests posing for photos at a holiday party Bill Morneau held in his downtown Toronto riding in December 2018 were all smiles, but not everyone was having a good time.
> 
> *Several former employees of WE Charity have told CBC News they felt pressured to attend the event and claimed they were not told by their supervisors that the party would be hosted by the federal finance minister and MP for Toronto Centre.*
> 
> "None of us wanted to go," said a former employee, whom CBC News has agreed to refer to as Robin.


https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/we-charity-morneau-party-1.5667466



Better throw in some spying on children into the mix. 

* LILLEY: Committee learns WE hired investigators to spy on children of journalist* 
https://torontosun.com/news/national/lilley-committee-learns-we-hired-investigators-to-spy-on-children-of-journalist


----------



## OldSolduer (30 Jul 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Sounds like a few army events I've been to.
> "It's not mandaroy... but you need to go".
> 
> I wonder why WE employees were being pressured to goto Bill Morneaus party.
> ...



I've highlighted this as organized crime and political criminals use this tactic all the time. 

The Mob, bikers, cartels etc all used this tactic or variations.

In my mind the Kielbergers (I may not have spelled this right) need to be investigated - by a competent police agency (not the RCMP) and if charges are warranted march the little b@stards to jail very publicly.


----------



## PuckChaser (1 Aug 2020)

Great video from a Monteal lawyer/legal video YouTuber giving a summary of another Liberal scandal saying what it actually is: Corruption at the highest levels with Canada's political elite playing by different rules than normal Canadians.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAr7bpUCDBg


----------



## shawn5o (4 Aug 2020)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Got confused with the Michael Wernick from PCO. Hard to keep straight how many public servants the Liberals are willing to throw under the bus after their union campaigned for them for the last decade.



Hehe. I'm positive she happens to be Michael's sister


----------



## Jarnhamar (4 Aug 2020)

With WE in the news it's time for SNC to get back to work.

* Quebec company with no factory in Canada lands 10-year $133M sole-sourced federal deal to make PPE* 

Medicom has since received a $4M loan from the Government of Québec to build a new factory in Montréal and the contractor hired was SNC-Lavalin Group 

https://nationalpost.com/news/local-news/quebec-company-with-no-factory-snags-133m-contract-to-make-ppe/wcm/80650ebd-0967-44cd-a14b-bc4b8d46404a/


----------



## shawn5o (8 Aug 2020)

I guess the Liberal government just doesn't get  the memo about conflict of interests (optics).

...

Will The New Liberal Scandal Distract From The Current Liberal Scandal?

Spencer Fernando August 8, 2020

Perhaps the Liberals have stumbled onto their strategy for dealing with scandals: Have so many we can't keep track of them/

The Liberals have taken a huge hit politically from the ongoing WE Scandal. Every poll shows them losing support, with the Conservatives now within striking distance.

The Liberals pandemic bounce as a result of being in office during a crisis has evaporated, and [PM] Trudeau is returning to his previous status as a divisive, unpopular politician.

Amid the scandal, the Liberals have repeatedly failed to talk their way out of it, with each statement seeming more and more dishonest.

Yet, it seems they may have stumbled onto a way to deal with the scandal. Have another scandal to distract from the current one!

That's right, theres yet another Liberal scandal resulting from the use of tax dollars to seemingly benefit people connected to the upper echelon of the Liberal machine.

The Trudeau government gave an $84 million contract to a company to administer the CCP Virus crisis emergency rent assistance program for small businesses.

That company just so happens to employ Robert Silver, the husband of Katie Telford - Justin Trudeau's chief of staff.

While the PMO says Telford put in place an 'ethical screen' preventing her from having any direct role in matters regarding the company her husband works for, it has also been reported that Silver was part of a meeting between the company and the government, and the contract was extended shortly thereafter.

The big problem for the Liberals is that after seeing the WE Scandal unfold, very few people are inclined to believe them.

The trend of the Liberals seemingly exploiting this crisis for their own personal benefit has taken hold with Canadians, who are increasingly disgusted by the arrogance and elitism of Trudeau and his cronies.

So, while the Liberals may hope this new scandal will distract from the ongoing scandal, it's far more likely that this will deepen the already increasingly negative view Canadians have of the Liberal Party, and will cause more and more people to see this Liberal government as totally corrupt.

https://spencerfernando.com/2020/08/08/will-the-new-liberal-scandal-distract-from-the-current-liberal-scandal/

More at National Post

Trudeau government paying $84M to firm employing Katie Telford's husband to manage rent assistance aid program

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/trudeau-government-paying-dollar84m-to-firm-employing-katie-telfords-husband-to-manage-rent-assistance-aid-program/ar-BB17I4wJ?li=AAggNb9


----------



## PuckChaser (8 Aug 2020)

I dunno if I buy this one as a real scandal in the same vein as WE or SNC Lavalin. She had an ethics screen in place and recused herself from the decision making allegedly. If she was making indirect comments to try to swing the decision, that's another matter.

The problem for the Liberals is that they've screwed themselves by having so many ethical lapses that anything with casual appearance of impropriety is going to be magnified due to the established pattern of corrupt behaviour.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (8 Aug 2020)

I agree with Puckchaser on this one.

The big problem fro the Liberals is that if you multiply the occurrences, the public starts to think "Where there's smoke, there's fire" and don't care whether an actual breach occurred.

But even just with what we have as a set of factual developments lately, it is already starting to look as the Trudeau government (I won't say "Liberal government" as these type of gift to friends things really are up to the specific leader: Chretien was dirty, but Martin was clean) is using the huge (say it like Trump!   ) expenditures of COVID spending to recompense friends:

Fact 1: They tried to get no oversight from Parliament for almost the full normal duration of their elected term, even though they don't have a majority;
Fact 2: Somehow, the "civil service" discovers that only the WE charity, which has ties to the top two dogs in government, could deliver management of the youth 'volunteer" program (as if in a country like Canada, we don't have competent management companies);
Fact 3: Now, it seems that only (there is no info on whether multiple sources were sought or took part in a competition as required) an "independent" mortgage company that happens to have a relation with the chief of staff could manage a program to support owners of commercial properties.

I'm just stating the facts: I let people draw their conclusions on this one.


----------



## stellarpanther (8 Aug 2020)

I'm not so sure any of these so called scandals, are going to cause too much problem.  Getting the opinion of some other Liberal voters in the last few days, this WE thing isn't going to do much when it comes to an election.  As for SNC, Conservatives like to keep talking about it but it was brought up during the last election and as far as I'm concerned, it's over.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (9 Aug 2020)

So crime is ok if it fits your political liking?  It just "expires"?


----------



## YZT580 (9 Aug 2020)

doesn't expire if what you might do could be scary.


----------



## Jarnhamar (9 Aug 2020)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> So crime is ok if it fits your political liking?  It just "expires"?



Absolutely. Like I said Trudeau could get away with murder and his voters would feign just enough shock to not draw criticism then like their leader they would "move on".


----------



## shawn5o (9 Aug 2020)

Conrad Black has an interesting article on the WE scandal.

...

Conrad Black: WE scandal shows government's true character

The WE controversy appears to be more of the same juvenilism, tokenism and narcissism we've seen from this government

Conrad Black
Aug 07, 2020

Political scandals involving money have to be fairly rancid before I am much scandalized by them. Persevering readers will recall that I was underwhelmed by the SNC-Lavalin controversy, because I don’t think it is Canada’s business to regulate commercial practices in foreign countries, and I don’t take seriously United Nations guidelines on these matters, given that organization’s profound corruption. If the corporation had bribed Canadian officials, that would be a very serious matter, but I believe that the prime minister made the correct decision in declining a criminal prosecution when a settlement with a financial payment and change of corporate policy was an option, and he was right to try to retain the thousands of jobs in Quebec.

The WE controversy doesn’t quite make it as bribery, or even as patronage of the kind that grossly affronts the public good as Adscam did. But it is a shabby, sloppy and thoroughly distasteful business. As anyone who has followed it knows, the government agreed to hand a fee of over $40 million (probably much more from what I can deduce) to a huckster-booster operation run by the prime minister’s chums who had paid his family $300,000, in order to pay $10 an hour to many thousands of young volunteers who are unable to obtain ordinary work in the COVID-distressed economy. The idea of providing employment in community work for unemployed young people is a good one but there is absolutely no excuse for providing such a huge profit to an organization that juggles charitable and commercial activities in an apparently casual manner, and has got a long way on its political connections. I would absolve the Trudeau family and Finance Minister Bill Morneau of taking bribes, but they all should have known better than to get anywhere near this malodorous bouillabaisse of backscratching, log-rolling and questionable book-keeping. A lot of money is involved but it is a simple task of organization and the idea that only the Kielburgers could do it is bunk.

The Trudeau and Morneau families are both well-to-do and I think Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Bill Morneau are financially honest men, and I don’t have any objection to governments giving business to their friends if there is no loss to the taxpayers. As Quebec’s longest-serving premier, Maurice Duplessis, famously said to the leader of the Opposition (Georges-Émile Lapalme), “Who do you expect us to give it to, our enemies?” When asked by Lapalme with great moral outrage why the number of special sequential automobile licence plates had been extended from 2,000 to 4,000 (Duplessis’ personal limousines were numbers 1 and 2), he nonchalantly replied: “The people have renewed their confidence in us with such constancy and for so long, we have succeeded in doubling the number of our official friends.” He ran an efficient government, lowered taxes, balanced the budget and presided over great prosperity. His methods were high-handed but he was competent, successful and neither sanctimonious nor hypocritical.

What is irritating in the WE controversy is the extravagance of giving an exorbitant commission to the regime’s friends at the taxpayers expense without any pretense of looking at alternative methods of administering the workfare plan. It all has the appearance of a Trudeau-Morneau family affair and a very expensive celebration of the ethos of young frolicsome people exuberantly celebrating their jolly progressivism for the benefit of the Kielburgers, Canada’s most energetic hustlers, who affect material disinterest but cheerfully trouser over $40 million for their uncomplicated services. It may not be a legal or even strictly speaking an ethical problem, but it is no way to run the government of a serious country, particularly in severe times that have brought hardship to millions of homes.

It emphasizes this government’s greatest problem: an unserious approach to the magnificent challenge of making the absolute most out of this providentially well endowed and advantageously located country. Whatever his other limitations, former prime minister Jean Chrétien grasped and, in his way, expressed the grandeur of Canada: the incomparable St. Lawrence, the aptly named Great Lakes including the engineering marvel of the Seaway, the vast proverbially fruited plain of the Prairies, the mighty Rocky Mountains and the grand Pacific Ocean. Virtually every bounty of precious and non-precious metals, energy and forest products of every kind and every form of agriculture apart from tropical fruit spread generously over a splendid landscape; this would be a mouth-watering patrimony to all but a very few other nationalities in the world that are comparably blessed. And Canadians, too sensible and naturally reserved to be among the world’s more exciting nationalities, are relatively peaceable, tolerant, educated and diligent. It is the duty of any government of Canada to marshal all the strengths and assets of this nation and its people, to make this country a laboratory for intelligent legislation and governmental innovation, and to concentrate the attention of the whole nation on achieving the immense potential that every Canadian since Samuel de Champlain (and even Jacques Cartier nearly 500 years ago, despite his reference to the Lower St. Lawrence as “the land God gave to Cain) has recognized.

Champlain saw and managed to sell even to the cynical Cardinal Richelieu a great French realm in Canada. Carleton (Lord Dorchester) saw and managed after four years of lobbying to sell to King George III and his ministers a great bicultural realm in Canada. Robert Baldwin, Louis-Hippolyte LaFontaine, John A. Macdonald, George-Etienne Cartier and George Brown saw and sold to skeptical British statesman including Lord Palmerston, Benjamin Disraeli, William Ewart Gladstone and a more receptive Queen Victoria the only transcontinental, bicultural, parliamentary confederation in the history of the world. Compared to other countries, it has functioned well these 153 years. Macdonald bound the country together with a railway that was one of the wonders of the world. Wilfrid Laurier and Clifford Sifton induced astounding levels of immigration that kept pace with the vertiginous growth of the United States and produced the population for nine contiguous provinces from coast to coast. Robert Borden and Mackenzie King presided over world war efforts that raised Canada up to be one of the important countries in the whole world. Louis St. Laurent, Lester Pearson, Pierre Trudeau and Brian Mulroney all made important contributions to the steady advance of Canadian importance in the world. John Diefenbaker, Chrétien, Stephen Harper and others have all had their moments. A little grandeur and some panache go a long way in national leadership.

This government has distracted the country with nonsensical preoccupations with alarmist theories of climate and absurd pandering over gender issues, has made a shambles of native policy, legalized marijuana on a basis that is not competitive with the illegal providers, has not been innovative in responding to the coronavirus and is in arrears of most other advanced countries in rehabilitating the economy.

In all of the circumstances, the WE controversy appears to be more of the same juvenilism, tokenism and narcissism. I doubt if it is a crime, but it won’t do.
https://archive.fo/dwNEV#selection-2575.0-2585.21


----------



## mariomike (9 Aug 2020)

shawn5o said:
			
		

> Conrad Black has an interesting article on the WE scandal.



Hi 

We have an Articles and Large Posts forum you may wish to take advantage of,



> Articles and Large Posts
> https://army.ca/forums/index.php/board,141.0.html
> Lengthy posts and fully quoted articles are posted here. Link to these large posts in the regular boards.
> 
> ...


----------



## Donald H (9 Aug 2020)

Further to Conrad Black lauding it on, Canada is #1 in the world for quality of life, and for three years running! The US has slid down to 17th. And the top ten says something about our style of socially responsible capitalism. Be careful of what you wish for in a Conservative government.

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/canada-ranked-best-country-quality-life-2019


----------



## Jarnhamar (9 Aug 2020)

Donald H said:
			
		

> Further to Conrad Black lauding it on, Canada is #1 in the world for quality of life, and for three years running! The US has slid down to 17th. *And the top ten says something about our style of socially responsible capitalism. Be careful of what you wish for in a Conservative government.
> *
> https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/canada-ranked-best-country-quality-life-2019




In 2015 under the Conservative government, from your source, Canada was rated:

2nd best country;
2nd for citizenship; and
*1st for quality of life.*

That's after 9 years of a conservative government. 

So not exactly a LPC victory there.


----------



## Donald H (9 Aug 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> In 2015 under the Conservative government, from your source, Canada was rated:
> 
> 2nd best country;
> 2nd for citizenship; and
> ...



Thanks for your reply but I wasn't suggesting Canada's continuously high status on quality of life was attributable to the LPC. However, Canada and the next nine world leaders are always accused by the US as being either commies, socialists, or just too far left for their politics. And then there's the fact that the link shows the U.S has fallen to 17th.

Point being, the American way is less into providing social policy or what Conservatives often refer to as a free lunch.

In Canada I would say that we keep the pendulum somewhere close to the middle as a happy balance. Can it be said that we kick out the Libs or the Conservatives when they go too far to the left or the right?


----------



## Remius (9 Aug 2020)

Donald H said:
			
		

> Thanks for your reply but I wasn't suggesting Canada's continuously high status on quality of life was attributable to the LPC. However, Canada and the next nine world leaders are always accused by the US as being either commies, socialists, or just too far left for their politics. And then there's the fact that the link shows the U.S has fallen to 17th.
> 
> Point being, the American way is less into providing social policy or what Conservatives often refer to as a free lunch.
> 
> In Canada I would say that we keep the pendulum somewhere close to the middle as a happy balance. Can it be said that we kick out the Libs or the Conservatives when they go too far to the left or the right?



Just a note that the CPC is actually similar to the US Democrats if not more left of them.  Just something to consider when we compare apples and oranges.


----------



## Donald H (9 Aug 2020)

Remius said:
			
		

> Just a note that the CPC is actually similar to the US Democrats if not more left of them.  Just something to consider when we compare apples and oranges.



I'll second that. All the top ten countries on quality of life, and all of Canada's political parties are left of all of the US political parties.


----------



## stellarpanther (9 Aug 2020)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> So crime is ok if it fits your political liking?  It just "expires"?



Nice try..  When did the RCMP launch a criminal investigation and when did they lay charges?
It's innocent until PROVEN guilty not the other way around.


----------



## stellarpanther (9 Aug 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Absolutely. Like I said Trudeau could get away with murder and his voters would feign just enough shock to not draw criticism then like their leader they would "move on".



You have my word that if Trudeau is convicted of a crime, I will not vote Liberal if he is still the leader of the party.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (9 Aug 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> In 2015 under the Conservative government, from your source, Canada was rated:
> 
> 2nd best country;
> 2nd for citizenship; and
> ...



The extreme left and right wings of Canadian politics are the outside edges of the two yellow lines in the middle of the road.

That is a major contributor to our success.

Every election we have to choose between competent and boring, or boring and competent.  Such a difficult choice...#therestoftheworldwantsourproblems


----------



## Jarnhamar (9 Aug 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> You have my word that if Trudeau is convicted of a crime, I will not vote Liberal if he is still the leader of the party.



You mean you're not still considering Erin O'Toole if he wins?

Either way I think you're in luck because our government appears to have set up the rules in such a way that ethical violations (intimidation, accepting gifts, coercing and such) are slaps on the wrist and not _really_ criminal acts.


When Pierre Poilievre asked Justin Trudeau if he read the rules and laws on ethics after his 2nd ethical violation, contrary to standard government operating procedure of NOT answering questions, the Prime Minister surprisingly straight up admitted to reading the rules. It looked like he was trying to suppress a smirk. 
The unspoken question of course being why did he not recuse himself if he read the rules. Answer being either he's too stupid to comprehend the rules, or he just doesn't care because he knows people will vote for him anyways. Calculated risk.


----------



## Jarnhamar (9 Aug 2020)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> The extreme left and right wings of Canadian politics are the outside edges of the two yellow lines in the middle of the road.
> 
> That is a major contributor to our success.
> 
> Every election we have to chose between competent and boring, or boring and competent.  Such a difficult choice...#therestoftheworldwantsourproblems



We desperately need a party in the center.


----------



## stellarpanther (9 Aug 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> You mean you're not still considering Erin O'Toole if he wins?



I defiantly will strongly consider them if O'Toole wins but I have a gut feeling that it will be Mackay.   In my opinion, he's as bad as the group I'd like to see retire from politics.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (9 Aug 2020)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> The extreme left and right wings of Canadian politics are the outside edges of the two yellow lines in the middle of the road.



I bow to your wisdom.

 :bowdown:


----------



## OldSolduer (9 Aug 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> I defiantly will strongly consider them if O'Toole wins but I have a gut feeling that it will be Mackay.   In my opinion, he's as bad as the group I'd like to see retire from politics.



Really. Three ethics violations including a single source contract to the WE people to disburse almost $ 1 BILLION of taxpayer money. Really?????

There are none so blind as those that do not wish to see. 🤦‍♂️


----------



## Brad Sallows (9 Aug 2020)

If everyone refused to vote for any candidate or party which did something wrong, everyone would vote for no-one.

Everyone's in the same bucket.  Some rationalize for Trump, some for Biden, some for Scheer, some for Trudeau.


----------



## stellarpanther (9 Aug 2020)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Really. Three ethics violations including a single source contract to the WE people to disburse almost $ 1 BILLION of taxpayer money. Really?????
> 
> There are none so blind as those that do not wish to see. 🤦‍♂️



An accusation is just that, an accusation.  That's part of the problem these days when an accusation is treated the same as being guilty.  As far as I know, but please correct me if I'm wrong, the ethics commissioner only found Trudeau in violation of the ethics act for the SNC issue.  There was nothing else.  What are the other 2 the ethics commissioner found that he violated?
Would I be correct in assuming that if there is enough evidence that a person committed a crime, we should just skip the trial and just handout a sentence?


----------



## YZT580 (9 Aug 2020)

all Peter did was borrow a helicopter and the opposition, particularly the NDP but the liberals as well, demanded his resignation for using military equipment for personal use.  That really doesn't compare with paying off your friends with an obscene amount of money, accepting free vacations (helicopter rides included) and propositioning a young reporter.  Compared to the liberals, Peter has a lot to learn about governing.


----------



## ballz (9 Aug 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> An accusation is just that, an accusation.  That's part of the problem these days when an accusation is treated the same as being guilty.  As far as I know, but please correct me if I'm wrong, the ethics commissioner only found Trudeau in violation of the ethics act for the SNC issue.  There was nothing else.  What are the other 2 the ethics commissioner found that he violated?
> Would I be correct in assuming that if there is enough evidence that a person committed a crime, we should just skip the trial and just handout a sentence?



He was found guilty for two items, the Aga Khan fiasco and SNC. It's pretty much a certainty he gets a third one on this case, because it's pretty black & white.

Morneau was found guilty for not disclosing his French villa, and he's also pretty much guaranteed at least one conviction related to WE.

No one is saying "guilty until proven innocent," but opinions aren't legal standards, the burden of proof for opinions is the balance of probabilities.

If there was a clear-as-day video of Justin Trudeau murdering someone but he got off on some weird legal technicality in court,, I sure hope you can understand why people would cast their vote knowing he murdered someone, not pretend he's innocent simply because it wasn't proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

So your insistence we should pretend he's innocent regarding WE is just ludicrous. We're not jurors weighing evidence to the legal standard of proof.


----------



## stellarpanther (10 Aug 2020)

I guess in the end people who do not support the Liberals will jump on anything they can.  I personally do not have a problem with anything they have done up to now.  If that means I support crime or corruption or whatever else, then I guess I do because for now, I still support the Liberals and Trudeau.  Recent surveys have shown that if an election was held tomorrow, the Liberals would win with a good chance at getting a majority.  If the Cons want to have a chance, I would suggest that they start talking about what they would do instead of spending all their camera time whining and attacking.


----------



## PuckChaser (10 Aug 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> I guess in the end people who do not support the Liberals will jump on anything they can.  I personally do not have a problem with anything they have done up to now.  If that means I support crime or corruption or whatever else, then I guess I do because for now, I still support the Liberals and Trudeau.  Recent surveys have shown that if an election was held tomorrow, the Liberals would win with a good chance at getting a majority.  If the Cons want to have a chance, I would suggest that they start talking about what they would do instead of spending all their camera time whining and attacking.



The Conservatives don't want to target you. Your post makes it completely clear you're a partisan Liberal and nothing they do will change your vote. That's fine, btw. Everyone gets a vote that counts no more or less than any other individual in Canada. They'd be stupid to waste money trying to draw people with the same attitude away. They'll target the swing votes, who do actually think a federal government should have just a little bit of ethical conduct and are tired of being dragged into progressive hard-left politics.

Funny you should mention the polls. As much as we like to thumb our nose at the House of Commons, Question Period generates news headlines, which in turn influence people's ideas of the Government/Opposition. Its awfully convenient that Trudeau has suspended Parliament, but yet his polling numbers have dropped almost completely back to where they were when he suspended Parliament for "safety" reasons. Only the sunniest of polls have them in majority territory, a majority of them have them squarely back in minority zone with only 4 more seats on average than they won in the 2019 election. https://338canada.com/ They're also polling against an interim leader of the Opposition and an ineffective NDP.

No one wants an election now, and it actually works into the favour of the Conservatives to wait. Let the Ethics Commissioner declare another broken law, and let the RCMP/OPP work on a breach of trust investigation. The new Conservative leader will let those hammers fall and trigger non-confidence based on them. Then you can go ahead and pretend they don't matter while the rest of us who hate corruption vote against them.


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 Aug 2020)

[quote author=stellarpanther] If that means I support crime or corruption or whatever else, then I guess I do 
[/quote]

Something to be proud of for sure.


----------



## stellarpanther (10 Aug 2020)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> The Conservatives don't want to target you. Your post makes it completely clear you're a partisan Liberal and nothing they do will change your vote. That's fine, btw. Everyone gets a vote that counts no more or less than any other individual in Canada. They'd be stupid to waste money trying to draw people with the same attitude away. They'll target the swing votes, who do actually think a federal government should have just a little bit of ethical conduct and are tired of being dragged into progressive hard-left politics.
> 
> Funny you should mention the polls. As much as we like to thumb our nose at the House of Commons, Question Period generates news headlines, which in turn influence people's ideas of the Government/Opposition. Its awfully convenient that Trudeau has suspended Parliament, but yet his polling numbers have dropped almost completely back to where they were when he suspended Parliament for "safety" reasons. Only the sunniest of polls have them in majority territory, a majority of them have them squarely back in minority zone with only 4 more seats on average than they won in the 2019 election. https://338canada.com/ They're also polling against an interim leader of the Opposition and an ineffective NDP.
> 
> No one wants an election now, and it actually works into the favour of the Conservatives to wait. Let the Ethics Commissioner declare another broken law, and let the RCMP/OPP work on a breach of trust investigation. The new Conservative leader will let those hammers fall and trigger non-confidence based on them. Then you can go ahead and pretend they don't matter while the rest of us who hate corruption vote against them.



Well first you'd better hope the other party's go along with the non-confidence vote.  The other party's would rather the Liberals be in power instead of the Conservatives any day.  If you think the Cons are any better as far as ethical violations, you are fooling yourself.  Did you read the earlier post reminding us of MacKay's helicopter ride.  What the Cons are best at, much more than any other party by far is being a bunch of hypocrites.


----------



## stellarpanther (10 Aug 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Something to be proud of for sure.



Whatever...  :not-again:


----------



## PuckChaser (10 Aug 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> Well first you'd better hope the other party's go along with the non-confidence vote.  The other party's would rather the Liberals be in power instead of the Conservatives any day.  If you think the Cons are any better as far as ethical violations, you are fooling yourself.  Did you read the earlier post reminding us of MacKay's helicopter ride.  What the Cons are best at, much more than any other party by far is being a bunch of hypocrites.


3 ethics violations to none, Conservatives are being shut out by the Liberals right now...


----------



## ballz (10 Aug 2020)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> 3 ethics violations to none, Conservatives are being shut out by the Liberals right now...



It's actually 4 (I think... clearly getting hard to keep track :stirpot

Dominic Leblanc got one as well when he was a Cabinet Minister in 2018 (Fisheries & Oceans). Contrary to SP's assertion that people will just jump over the Liberals for anything, that one was not a huge scandal because his wife had 60 first cousins and they were not close with that one, he had seen him 10 times in the previous 15 years at various family gatherings. People were suitably less outraged.


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 Aug 2020)

1. Feign a non-partisan position. 
2. Downplay unethical/rule breaking/criminal behavior, pass it off as not a big deal.
3. Misconstrue facts and numbers. 
4. Turn conversation around to butwhataboutconservatives.
5. Repeat step 4 until the discussion is effectively sidelined.


----------



## PMedMoe (10 Aug 2020)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> 3 ethics violations to none, Conservatives are being shut out by the Liberals right now...



Are any of these ethics violations?

https://thinkpol.ca/2019/10/20/robocalls-ethics-violations-scheer-scandals/

https://www.thestar.com/news/federal-election/2015/08/14/a-conservative-collection-of-harper-government-scandals.html

https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2015/08/10/Harper-Abuses-of-Power-Final/


----------



## Halifax Tar (10 Aug 2020)

Find me a party in this country without "scandal". 

It all comes down to which party represents your beliefs in what governance should look like.  I bet we are all willing to put up with some "scandal" so long as our political positions and leanings are being push forward. 

The Liberal party sucks right now and if you can still stand behind them my first line 100% represents you.  While the Cons are trying to fight their way out of the own closet by punching themselves in the nuts.  The offer no alternative right now, and MacKay and Lewis arent it.  MacKay is old stock Harper con who will be easy pickin's for sound bites and Lewis is way too socially conservative to win in this country.  

The center is open for the taking, its vote rich and will keep you in power.  Yet both the Libs and Cons seems to be pulling away from it at best speed.  Shes a screwed up situation right now and we have no one to blame but ourselves.


----------



## dapaterson (10 Aug 2020)

An interesting article in Macleans about the limits of polling: they're consistently underestimating Conservative votes in AB/SK.  This has little impact on seat forecasts due to the overwhelming CPC support in those locations, but understates popular vote projections.  An interesting piece of introspection and identification of areas to research and improve.

https://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/338canada-how-polls-keep-underestimating-the-conservative-vote/


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 Aug 2020)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Are any of these ethics violations?



We need to collectively stop looking at the behavior of previous parties anytime the current party breaks the rules. Start punishing sitting governments when they break the rules and maybe future parties won't be so inclined to do so.


----------



## Good2Golf (10 Aug 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> We need to collectively stop looking at the behavior of previous parties anytime the current party breaks the rules. Start punishing sitting governments when they break the rules and maybe future parties won't be so inclined to do so.



...but whatabout.... ???


----------



## stellarpanther (10 Aug 2020)

I don't care if a thousands accusations are made or proven.  An ethical violation isn't a crime  If a person is charged and convicted of a crime, then I'll pay attention.  Otherwise it's just the opposition making noise.  What else do you Cons have to convert me?
I find it interesting that when I first joined the CAF, they were all hardcore PC's, now at least in my unit (I don't go around conducting polls), it was hard to find someone who supported them.  Even CAF mbr's were saying saying, while the Cons might be the best for equipping the military, the CAF is not my whole life.  It's certainly not like the old days.


----------



## Good2Golf (10 Aug 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> An ethical violation isn't a crime  If a person is charged and convicted of a crime, then I'll pay attention.  Otherwise it's just the opposition making noise.



...and unethical conduct.


----------



## Remius (10 Aug 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> We need to collectively stop looking at the behavior of previous parties anytime the current party breaks the rules. Start punishing sitting governments when they break the rules and maybe future parties won't be so inclined to do so.



Not going to happen . 

Look at the Trudeau blackface and groping issues.  The same people that give him a pass are the same ones not willing to take Scheer at his word that he wouldn't reopen the abortion debate or give trump a pass on his past transgressions.

Same as those that profess religious virtues but are ok with what Trump does are pro life but pro death penalty etc etc etc.  

As someone mentioned, as long as your politics or enough of it is being brought forward people will still vite one way regardless.

How many CPC people here would vote liberal if the shoe was on the other foot?  Right.


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 Aug 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> I don't care if a thousands accusations are made or proven.  An ethical violation isn't a crime



An excellent view into the LPC ethos, thanks.


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 Aug 2020)

[quote author=Remius]

How many CPC people here would vote liberal if the shoe was on the other foot?  Right.
[/quote]

Ergo we need more options. None of the governments deserve to lead Canada IMO (including the conservatives).


----------



## PMedMoe (10 Aug 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> We need to collectively stop looking at the behavior of previous parties anytime the current party breaks the rules. Start punishing sitting governments when they break the rules and maybe future parties won't be so inclined to do so.



And perhaps stop looking at the behaviour of someone before they were ever in office.

And I'm not trying to defend anyone's behaviour, just saying you can't have it both ways.   :2c:


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (10 Aug 2020)

I'd vote Liberal in a heartbeat with Mr. Harper at the helm,....probably even Paul Martin.


----------



## Weinie (10 Aug 2020)

ballz said:
			
		

> It's actually 4 (I think... clearly getting hard to keep track :stirpot
> 
> Dominic Leblanc got one as well when he was a Cabinet Minister in 2018 (Fisheries & Oceans). Contrary to SP's assertion that people will just jump over the Liberals for anything, that one was not a huge scandal because his wife had 60 first cousins and they were not close with that one, he had seen him 10 times in the previous 15 years at various family gatherings. People were suitably less outraged.



It's New Brunswick. Everyone has 60 first cousins.


----------



## QV (10 Aug 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> ...What are the other 2 the ethics commissioner found that he violated?



Now I know you're not informed.


----------



## QV (10 Aug 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> I personally do not have a problem with anything they have done up to now.  If that means I support crime or corruption or whatever else, then I guess I do because for now, I still support the Liberals and Trudeau.



That is absolutely your right. And with that, I weigh everything else you say.


----------



## Halifax Tar (10 Aug 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> I personally do not have a problem with anything they have done up to now.  If that means I support crime or corruption or whatever else, then I guess I do because for now, I still support the Conservatives
> 
> I personally do not have a problem with anything they have done up to now.  If that means I support crime or corruption or whatever else, then I guess I do because for now, I still support the NDP
> 
> I personally do not have a problem with anything they have done up to now.  If that means I support crime or corruption or whatever else, then I guess I do because for now, I still support the Greens



I took the Liberal part of your post out.  Now how does that sound.


----------



## Remius (10 Aug 2020)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> The Conservatives don't want to target you. Your post makes it completely clear you're a partisan Liberal and nothing they do will change your vote. That's fine, btw. Everyone gets a vote that counts no more or less than any other individual in Canada. They'd be stupid to waste money trying to draw people with the same attitude away. They'll target the swing votes, who do actually think a federal government should have just a little bit of ethical conduct and are tired of being dragged into progressive hard-left politics.



Some people seem to take issue with his position and being a partisan Liberal.  So I’m not sure it’s all that fine for some here. To be honest Stellar is taking the same position many were doing here when it was the Conservatives in power and getting into trouble.  

You highlight a very serious problem the CPC has and had in the last election.  They ignored certain voting blocks with the same thought process you indicated and it cost them.  If you aren’t trying to convince everyone to vote for you you’ll never get their support and you will lose them forever.  Not a good strategy.

 I’m a swing voter.  But I’d sooner vote for a third party or pick the least bad of the two because neither is showing much for me to be overly supportive of.  But I’ll pick the most inclusive of the two if it boils down to it.


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 Aug 2020)

[quote author=Remius]But I’ll pick the most inclusive of the two if it boils down to it.
[/quote]
How so?


----------



## stellarpanther (10 Aug 2020)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> I'd vote Liberal in a heartbeat with Mr. Harper at the helm,....probably even Paul Martin.



I certainly wouldn't rule out what you said.  I was just starting to get interested in politics when Brian Mulroney was PM, but I was a supporter and voted PC back then.  It's only these last 2 elections that I voted Liberal.  Prior to that I went back and forth.  Other than I don't think we ca afford some of the  ideas the NDP propose, I would give them a chance if I thought they could win even a minority government


----------



## shawn5o (10 Aug 2020)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Are any of these ethics violations?
> 
> https://thinkpol.ca/2019/10/20/robocalls-ethics-violations-scheer-scandals/
> 
> ...




All liberal friendly media. Whataboustism, eh


----------



## shawn5o (10 Aug 2020)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> 3 ethics violations to none, Conservatives are being shut out by the Liberals right now...



A hat-trick


----------



## Halifax Tar (10 Aug 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> I certainly wouldn't rule out what you said.  I was just starting to get interested in politics when Brian Mulroney was PM, but I was a supporter and voted PC back then.  It's only these last 2 elections that I voted Liberal.  Prior to that I went back and forth.  Other than I don't think we ca afford some of the  ideas the NDP propose, I would give them a chance if I thought they could win even a minority government



Your didnt reply to me... Here I will try again, or will these be like before ? 



> Quote from: stellarpanther on Yesterday at 23:08:40
> I personally do not have a problem with anything they have done up to now.  If that means I support crime or corruption or whatever else, then I guess I do because for now, I still support the Conservatives
> 
> I personally do not have a problem with anything they have done up to now.  If that means I support crime or corruption or whatever else, then I guess I do because for now, I still support the NDP
> ...


----------



## stellarpanther (10 Aug 2020)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Your didnt reply to me... Here I will try again, or will these be like before ?



Sorry but maybe I'm not seeing something.  You have a couple quotes from me but what's your question?  What am I supposed to reply to?


----------



## PMedMoe (10 Aug 2020)

shawn5o said:
			
		

> All liberal friendly media. Whataboustism, eh



And what about Conservative friendly media?  Can we quote that?  Oh wait....   :


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 Aug 2020)

Good summary by Pierre Poilievre in the video.
* 
Liberals defend decision to have Crown corporation run COVID-19 rent program* 
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/liberals-defend-decision-to-have-crown-corporation-run-covid-19-rent-program/ar-BB17N5Eb


----------



## stellarpanther (10 Aug 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Good summary by Pierre Poilievre in the video.
> *
> Liberals defend decision to have Crown corporation run COVID-19 rent program*
> https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/liberals-defend-decision-to-have-crown-corporation-run-covid-19-rent-program/ar-BB17N5Eb



If the Liberals would have chosen CRA to run it the Cons would have complained that they didn't use CMHC... They would complained regardless of who they used because that's what they do and a large part of why I don't like them.  They complain and criticize EVERYTHING!
Going forward on this topic to do want to ask something and that is that we not make it personal.  I find that I need to defend my reasons why I have voted Liberal in the last two elections.


----------



## Halifax Tar (10 Aug 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> Sorry but maybe I'm not seeing something.  You have a couple quotes from me but what's your question?  What am I supposed to reply to?



You dont see the blind bias in those statements ?


----------



## Halifax Tar (10 Aug 2020)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> And what about Conservative friendly media?  Can we quote that?  Oh wait....   :



I would love to see any that arent the Rebel.  News and media is basically fortress Left.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (10 Aug 2020)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> You dont see the blind bias in those statements ?



Followed immediately by this:



			
				Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I would love to see any that arent the Rebel.  News and media is basically fortress Left.



Everyone has biases.  Other peoples biases are not inherently of less value than yours, and yours are not inherently more noble than theirs.  It is simply human nature.  Is there any chance that SP will change your biases?  Probably no greater than the chance that you will change theirs....


----------



## Halifax Tar (10 Aug 2020)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Followed immediately by this:
> 
> Everyone has biases.  Other peoples biases are not inherently of less value than yours, and yours are not inherently more noble than theirs.  It is simply human nature.  Is there any chance that SP will change your biases?  Probably no greater than the chance that you will change theirs....



Absolutely the difference is a person with cognitive thought and maturity can recognize that and work to keep it in check by exposing themselves to opposing positions and weighing their intellectual and empirical validity; while understanding our beliefs should not be "set in stone" set of commandments (pun sort of intended); but instead a set of values that develops, grows, changes and deepens with education.  Blind allegiance to anything is a waste. 

I can tell you I have voted NDP and Green to Liberal to Conservative and then back to Liberal and then back to conservative again.  I know where I have bias, hence the reason I have a real hard time aligning with a party in this country.  

As for the media, if you truly think we are fed straight fact and not political opinion or slant by the MSM then we have reached an impasse because that is simply not true.  The MSM in Canada is just the Rebel on the other (left) side of the spectrum.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (10 Aug 2020)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Absolutely the difference is a person with cognitive thought and maturity can recognize that and work to keep it in check by exposing themselves to opposing positions and weighing their intellectual and empirical validity; while understanding our beliefs should not be "set in stone" set of commandments (pun sort of intended); but instead a set of values that develops, grows, changes and deepens with education.  Blind allegiance to anything is a waste.



Completely agree.



> I can tell you I have voted NDP and Green to Liberal to Conservative and then back to Liberal and then back to conservative again.  I know where I have bias, hence the reason I have a real hard time aligning with a party in this country.



I don't think I have ever voted Green, but have covered off all of the other bases.  



> As for the media, if you truly think we are fed straight fact and not political opinion or slant by the MSM then we have reached an impasse because that is simply not true.  The MSM in Canada is just the Rebel on the other (left) side of the spectrum.



I concur that most media betray their biases - I just don't accept the lumping of them all together, with a spectrum that goes from Rebel to MSM...


----------



## Halifax Tar (10 Aug 2020)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Completely agree.
> 
> I don't think I have ever voted Green, but have covered off all of the other bases.
> 
> I concur that most media betray their biases - I just don't accept the lumping of them all together, with a spectrum that goes from Rebel to MSM...



We can agree to a difference of opinion ?


----------



## Remius (10 Aug 2020)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Absolutely the difference is a person with cognitive thought and maturity can recognize that and work to keep it in check by exposing themselves to opposing positions and weighing their intellectual and empirical validity; while understanding our beliefs should not be "set in stone" set of commandments (pun sort of intended); but instead a set of values that develops, grows, changes and deepens with education.  Blind allegiance to anything is a waste.
> 
> I can tell you I have voted NDP and Green to Liberal to Conservative and then back to Liberal and then back to conservative again.  I know where I have bias, hence the reason I have a real hard time aligning with a party in this country.
> 
> As for the media, if you truly think we are fed straight fact and not political opinion or slant by the MSM then we have reached an impasse because that is simply not true.  The MSM in Canada is just the Rebel on the other (left) side of the spectrum.



Well said.  But in Stellarpanther’s défense he has stated his bias.  He is t even denying it.  Not sure why anyone is so hung up on his position.  He like many others don’t see the WE thing as a big deal.  

The media covered it pretty well in my opinion.  Anything wrong with how they covered it? 

The fact is that Trudeau will weather this.  People are more concerned with COVID, schools reopening and more importantly that we are not what is happening south of us.  As long as those things are there Trudeau and team look good.  Not saying they are but against that backdrop anyone looks good.


----------



## Halifax Tar (10 Aug 2020)

Remius said:
			
		

> Well said.  But in Stellarpanther’s défense he has stated his bias.  He is t even denying it.  Not sure why anyone is so hung up on his position.  He like many others don’t see the WE thing as a big deal.
> 
> The media covered it pretty well in my opinion.  Anything wrong with how they covered it?
> 
> The fact is that Trudeau will weather this.  People are more concerned with COVID, schools reopening and more importantly that we are not what is happening south of us.  As long as those things are there Trudeau and team look good.  Not saying they are but against that backdrop anyone looks good.



I question the tenacity with which they hold the Liberal Party's feet to the fire on many issues as well as their selection of "experts" when covering various subjects.


----------



## Stoker (10 Aug 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> I guess in the end people who do not support the Liberals will jump on anything they can.  I personally do not have a problem with anything they have done up to now.  If that means I support crime or corruption or whatever else, then I guess I do because for now, I still support the Liberals and Trudeau.  Recent surveys have shown that if an election was held tomorrow, the Liberals would win with a good chance at getting a majority.  If the Cons want to have a chance, I would suggest that they start talking about what they would do instead of spending all their camera time whining and attacking.



Stellarpanther, its amazing how ethics go out the window when it comes to politics and more importantly what a voter will allow or justify. You as a CAF member must of had some ethical training at some point in your career, we have coursing, and defence ethics to show us our moral compass. You as a admin type who is in or was in a position of trust should know the important of ethics in your job. From some of the statements you have made about your willingness to overlook decisions costing the tax payer potentially billions I am concerned about how you apply your justification to ignore clear violations and wonder how it applies to your current job?


----------



## QV (10 Aug 2020)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I question the tenacity with which they hold the Liberal Party's feet to the fire on many issues as well as their selection of "experts" when covering various subjects.



Say it with me:  "The fake news media is the enemy of the people."

I know you want to.


----------



## Remius (10 Aug 2020)

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> Stellarpanther, its amazing how ethics go out the window when it comes to politics and more importantly what a voter will allow or justify. You as a CAF member must of had some ethical training at some point in your career, we have coursing, and defence ethics to show us our moral compass. You as a admin type who is in or was in a position of trust should know the important of ethics in your job. From some of the statements you have made about your willingness to overlook decisions costing the tax payer potentially billions I am concerned about how you apply your justification to ignore clear violations and wonder how it applies to your current job?



Let’s not muddle political support with our own work standards.  None of us or at least me and a few think that politicians are ethical in what they do.  My expectations are low as far as how ethical those in power are.    Maybe that’s why some give them a pass for certain things?


----------



## Brad Sallows (10 Aug 2020)

Ethical breaches are always going to happen.  How voters react is simply a matter of rationalizing political preferences.  So for some the WE matter is no big deal, and Duffy's expensing habits were ultimate horror.  Or vice versa.

The only worry is that a plurality might tolerate anything in the pursuit of political preferences.


----------



## Stoker (10 Aug 2020)

Remius said:
			
		

> Let’s not muddle political support with our own work standards.  None of us or at least me and a few think that politicians are ethical in what they do.  My expectations are low as far as how ethical those in power are.    Maybe that’s why some give them a pass for certain things?



Perhaps its expected to be hypocritical when it comes to believing in your party and leader and what you do in your job and what standards you hold them to? I personally try and weigh their current actions on who I prefer to vote for rather than what was done in the past. Stellarpanthers blind obedience to the current Liberal brand is very telling what sort of person he is. I just hope he separates his work and what he's willing to let go politically.


----------



## Cloud Cover (10 Aug 2020)

I thought Jack Layton set a reasonable bar. Same with Jim Flaherty.


----------



## Remius (10 Aug 2020)

CloudCover said:
			
		

> I thought Jack Layton set a reasonable bar. Same with Jim Flaherty.



Some do.  Some take the job seriously.  

Others not so much.


----------



## stellarpanther (10 Aug 2020)

shawn5o said:
			
		

> A hat-trick



Well if it's a joke to you then it can't be that big of a deal.


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 Aug 2020)

Remius said:
			
		

> Let’s not muddle political support with our own work standards.  None of us or at least me and a few think that politicians are ethical in what they do.  My expectations are low as far as how ethical those in power are.    Maybe that’s why some give them a pass for certain things?



Politicians shouldn't get a pass for unethical behavior because people set a low bar or low expectations for them in the first place. 

People give passes to behavior like this because they're not directly impacted. It's a different story when unethical behavior impacts them.


----------



## Remius (10 Aug 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Politicians shouldn't get a pass for unethical behavior because people set a low bar or low expectations for them in the first place.
> 
> People give passes to behavior like this because they're not directly impacted. It's a different story when unethical behavior impacts them.



I’m not saying that they should get a pass.  But they do.  

Your second point is pretty accurate.


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 Aug 2020)

$380M sole sourced contract to provide masks. 

_ "three times the figure publicly disclosed — on a promise of speedy delivery weeks ago, though it didn’t have a factory in Canada_ 

So whos family member is it this time? 

 https://torontosun.com/news/national/company-awarded-380m-in-contracts-but-fails-to-provide-masks-blacklocks-reporter/wcm/01bb8b51-f920-4cc7-bda6-d0711efce453/


----------



## PMedMoe (10 Aug 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> So whos family member is it this time?



Founder and CEO is a Ronald Reuben.

https://www.diac.ca/directory/408/amd-medicom-inc/


----------



## stellarpanther (11 Aug 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> $380M sole sourced contract to provide masks.
> 
> _ "three times the figure publicly disclosed — on a promise of speedy delivery weeks ago, though it didn’t have a factory in Canada_
> 
> ...



Did you ever think we need the masks fast and don't have the time to wait around for the bidding process.  In case you forgot, we have a health pandemic going on.  I'm sure the Cons will be all over this as well because for them, it's all about politics and not about health.


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Aug 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> Did you ever think we need the masks fast and don't have the time to wait around for the bidding process.  In case you forgot, we have a health pandemic going on.  I'm sure the Cons will be all over this as well because for them, it's all about politics and not about health.



Need the masks fast you say? I agree.

Guess how many masks have been delivered from this $380 million contract that was signed off in April if I'm not mistaken.

Just guess.


----------



## stellarpanther (11 Aug 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Need the masks fast you say? I agree.
> 
> Guess how many masks have been delivered from this $380 million contract that was signed off in April if I'm not mistaken.
> 
> Just guess.



Well since you worded it that why let me guess; zero?


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Aug 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> Well since you worded it that why let me guess; zero?



I see you've played this game before


----------



## Stoker (11 Aug 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> $380M sole sourced contract to provide masks.
> 
> _ "three times the figure publicly disclosed — on a promise of speedy delivery weeks ago, though it didn’t have a factory in Canada_
> 
> ...



Guess you can do what you want when you have no pesky spending rules or regular meetings of parliament :


----------



## shawn5o (11 Aug 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> Well if it's a joke to you then it can't be that big of a deal.



Meh. Its just politics


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (11 Aug 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> Did you ever think we need the masks fast and don't have the time to wait around for the bidding process.  In case you forgot, we have a health pandemic going on.  I'm sure the Cons will be all over this as well because for them, it's all about politics and not about health.



Ok,...stop.  Put all the political stuff out of the picture...…..you want to make widgets, and there are widget factories already available in country, do you [a] call the widget factories and say 'we need..." or [b} sole source to a company that yes, can build widgets, but doesn't have a factory capable of making them yet?    If someone says [b} then they are a major league idiot.

Now apply the politics back in and guess who picked [b}?  Now lets consider ST's quote," In case you forgot, we have a health pandemic going on.", and one can only conclude that our health is not the factor here, so we must look elsewhere under those rocks and stones.   Guess who's job that is?  Could it be the official oppositions job?   So you don't want the Govt. doing their job properly, nor do you want the opposition to do their job properly...…..I sure hope we never get the kind of Govt. that thinking richly deserves.


----------



## YZT580 (11 Aug 2020)

from what I have read, the company already makes masks: in China.  They closed their Montreal factory a couple of years ago and moved all their operations off-shore.  So We are footing the bill for them to come home as it were.  Ford offered to send Quebec some masks made here in Ontario instead.


----------



## dapaterson (11 Aug 2020)

From what I can see: It's up to $380M (including taxes) so about $330M (before taxes) for 44M masks per year for ten years, which comes out to about 75 cents per mask for a guaranteed supply made in Canada.


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Aug 2020)

_ PMO, Morneau won't say if Katie Telford's husband communicated with them since joining private mortgage company_ 

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/pmo-morneau-wont-say-if-katie-telfords-husband-communicated-with-them-since-joining-private-mortgage-company/ar-BB17NR8r?li=AAggNb9


----------



## Remius (11 Aug 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> Did you ever think we need the masks fast and don't have the time to wait around for the bidding process.  In case you forgot, we have a health pandemic going on.  I'm sure the Cons will be all over this as well because for them, it's all about politics and not about health.



Given the past ethical breaches why would the opposition not question anything they do?  It is their job after all.  But part of the problem is that if they decry everything, then when important stuff happens they sound like a broken record.  The CPC has had a hard time communicating with the Canadian people. 

There is something to be said about taking advantage of certain situations.  The LPC is certainly willing to try in my mind.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (11 Aug 2020)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> From what I can see: It's up to $380M (including taxes) so about $330M (before taxes) for 44M masks per year for ten years, which comes out to about 75 cents per mask for a guaranteed supply made in Canada.



...and maybe just in time for the pandemic to be over.


----------



## stellarpanther (11 Aug 2020)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Ok,...stop.  Put all the political stuff out of the picture...…..you want to make widgets, and there are widget factories already available in country, do you [a] call the widget factories and say 'we need..." or [b} sole source to a company that yes, can build widgets, but doesn't have a factory capable of making them yet?    If someone says [b} then they are a major league idiot.
> 
> Now apply the politics back in and guess who picked [b}?  Now lets consider ST's quote," In case you forgot, we have a health pandemic going on.", and one can only conclude that our health is not the factor here, so we must look elsewhere under those rocks and stones.   Guess who's job that is?  Could it be the official oppositions job?   So you don't want the Govt. doing their job properly, nor do you want the opposition to do their job properly...…..I sure hope we never get the kind of Govt. that thinking richly deserves.



No, actually I do want them to do there job properly but I want them to do it in a way that doesn't make them come across as whiny little snots, and to do it in a better why.  The way I see it all they do is whine and complain.  I'm not going to spend the time pulling up quotes because I'm sure everyone has heard them already but I hate the constant sarcasm and bad mouthing that comes out of the PC and especially from Scheer's mouth.  If they would do it in a more professional manner I wouldn't be as critical as I am towards their party.


----------



## Stoker (11 Aug 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> No, actually I do want them to do there job properly but I want them to do it in a way that doesn't make them come across as whiny little snots, and to do it in a better why.  The way I see it all they do is whine and complain.  I'm not going to spend the time pulling up quotes because I'm sure everyone has heard them already but I hate the constant sarcasm and bad mouthing that comes out of the PC and especially from Scheer's mouth.  If they would do it in a more professional manner I wouldn't be as critical as I am towards their party.



From what I have seen you're not going to change your attitude towards the Conservatives regardless of what they change, you're a dyed in the wool Liberal who will forgive and excuse pretty much everything they do because they're doing it for the "greater" good. If you are talking about unprofessionalism have a look at your own Liberals and some of the stuff they do. Talk about being a hypocrite.


----------



## QV (11 Aug 2020)

Remius said:
			
		

> The CPC has had a hard time communicating with the Canadian people.



The obvious barrier to that is the LPC friendly media.  Imagine.


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Aug 2020)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> From what I can see: It's up to $380M (including taxes) so about $330M (before taxes) for 44M masks per year for ten years, which comes out to about 75 cents per mask for a guaranteed supply made in Canada.



I'm not sure why the contract turned out to be 3 times the amount that was publicly announced (bit of a trend it seems) but I think it's great to have a guaranteed Canadian supply and not have to count on China. I don't think the LPC can take a crap without trying to sole source a toilet paper contract to their friends so I think they fully deserve all the scrutiny they're getting.


----------



## dapaterson (11 Aug 2020)

Not having the docs in front of me, a can only surmise that the contract is for a fixed amount around $120m with options that may be exercised that would take it up to $380m.  Not unusual, and provides an out if things do not work out.


----------



## stellarpanther (11 Aug 2020)

QV said:
			
		

> The obvious barrier to that is the LPC friendly media.  Imagine.



I wouldn't agree with that but I'll give you CBC and the Toronto Star.  CTV is fairly neutral with Global and even the National Post coming across as slightly Conservative leading.  The Toronto Sun is PC all the way  

That seems to be the Canadian way in the last decade or so; always blame someone else for the problem.


----------



## Remius (11 Aug 2020)

QV said:
			
		

> The obvious barrier to that is the LPC friendly media.  Imagine.



No.  They also shoot themselves in the foot so many times. They are their own worst enemy.


----------



## stellarpanther (11 Aug 2020)

My opinion is that all of the Party's genuinely want to do what's best for Canadians but where they get themselves into trouble is when they try to see if there is a way they can help the Party out at the same time.  
I doubt they often make a move without considering how it will affect them politically in the future.


----------



## QV (11 Aug 2020)

Remius said:
			
		

> They also shoot themselves in the foot so many times. They are their own worst enemy.



No.  Compare the majority of media coverage and headlines etc, of blackface, Norman, SNC, WE, and all the other unbelievable issues this PM has been embroiled in only four years.  And then compare how the media reported on Scheer during the run up.  There us just enough criticism of the LPC so there is the appearance they're reporting all the while they really skewer the CPC.  With that, the average low information voter has a choice: the progressive, feminist, global citizens, but so-so on ethics LPC, or a much worse right wing, environment ruining, anti abortion, and anti LGBTQ+ CPC.   
   
And BTW it won't matter who the CPC leader is, the majority of the media will make that person out to be way worse than any Liberal party leader.  The very fact the LPC is willing to pour hundreds of millions into the media and the CPC might do the opposite will ensure this.


----------



## Remius (11 Aug 2020)

QV said:
			
		

> No.  Compare the majority of media coverage and headlines etc, of blackface, Norman, SNC, WE, and all the other unbelievable issues this PM has been embroiled in only four years.  And then compare how the media reported on Scheer during the run up.  There us just enough criticism of the LPC so there is the appearance they're reporting all the while they really skewer the CPC.  With that, the average low information voter has a choice: the progressive, feminist, global citizens, but so-so on ethics LPC, or a much worse right wing, environment ruining, anti abortion, and anti LGBTQ+ CPC.
> 
> And BTW it won't matter who the CPC leader is, the majority of the media will make that person out to be way worse than any Liberal party leader.  The very fact the LPC is willing to pour hundreds of millions into the media and the CPC might do the opposite will ensure this.



Again.  Those things were covered by the media.  Extensively btw.  

The CPC comes out swinging but punches itself in the balls every time.  If you can’t express and clarify your views on abortion and gay rights, and get caught on your own hypocrisy when attacking the governing party, you will lose the PR war.  Regardless of things like SNC (very niche internal stuff to most Canadians), Norman (which no one outside the military even cared about) or blackface (when the CPC is already fighting a less than inclusive image problem).  

Sorry, but if the CPC can’t accept that it mismanaged it’s own message then it’s going to keep making that mistake.  They chose identity politics two elections ago and let themselves fall into that trap again in the last one.  You can only blame the media for so much.  The LPC weaponized those issues and outmanoeuvred the CPC. 

https://www.tvo.org/article/election-post-mortem-part-1-a-conservative-insider-explains-how-his-party-got-it-so-wrong

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/baird-scheer-conservative-2019-election-1.5426800

So nothing there in those analysis about the media.  Mostly a mea culpa on the CPC’s part.  

But the easy thing for CPC supporters is to just blame the media.


----------



## Donald H (11 Aug 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> My opinion is that all of the Party's genuinely want to do what's best for Canadians but where they get themselves into trouble is when they try to see if there is a way they can help the Party out at the same time.
> I doubt they often make a move without considering how it will affect them politically in the future.



And my two cents worth of opinion is that the task at hand is to improve and correct the Liberal party. Mainly because the Conservative philosophy has proven to be the wrong way throughout the world's leading socially responsible countries. The American way, which is a close cousin of the Conservative's way is failing quickly now. 

Just imagine a country that doesn't have affordable and high quality health care for all their people. Then consider the priorities of the Fraser Institute in Canada and the Conservative mindset of allying with them.

Fortunately for Canada there will always be the NDP expressing an agenda that's closest to the Liberals. The NDP doesn't need to be elected to be useful.


----------



## Brad Sallows (11 Aug 2020)

>I'll give you CBC

The publicly funded public broadcaster.  That's problematic, isn't it?


----------



## Brad Sallows (11 Aug 2020)

>the Conservative philosophy has proven to be the wrong way throughout the world's leading socially responsible countries.

Except for the ones that decided a more classically liberal (conservative) economy was a pre-requisite for paying for the "socially responsible" add-ons.


----------



## Rifleman62 (11 Aug 2020)

How long will it take SNC to build a new factory, purchase mfg eqpt, install, train new employees to shipping the PPE?

Sole source contract over 10 years to a Quebec company, without a mfg facility, worth over a quarter of a billion dollars, during a pandemic. 

Starting from scratch. Possibly an AB or SK company could have done the same.


----------



## Donald H (11 Aug 2020)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >the Conservative philosophy has proven to be the wrong way throughout the world's leading socially responsible countries.
> 
> Except for the ones that decided a more classically liberal (conservative) economy was a pre-requisite for paying for the "socially responsible" add-ons.



You may have a valid point with those socalled 'add ons' Brad, but you would have to be more specific.

As a general rule the American way is all about their huge income inequality and my point is that the Conservative agenda closely echos their priorities. 

I don't exclude their Dem party from criticism, as they are just as much establishment as their Repubs. However, this isn't about them, it's about us and our tending toward maintaining the high quality of life that's similar to the next 9 countries.

Here's an extreme for you to consider: Norway's prison system compared to the US prison system. Where does Canada need to fit in there?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (11 Aug 2020)

Donald H said:
			
		

> However, this isn't about them, it's about us and our tending toward maintaining the high quality of life that's similar to the next 9 countries.



Well my quality of life would rock also if I could just keep borrowing, and spending, as much money as I wanted to my whole life,...….screw future generations of little Monkhouse's.


----------



## brihard (11 Aug 2020)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Well my quality of life would rock also if I could just keep borrowing, and spending, as much money as I wanted to my whole life,...….screw future generations of little Monkhouse's.



A lot of people do, though, at least to the extent that it's comaprable. Our debt to GDP ratio is under 100%- comparable to a family that earns $130k a year maintaining a mortgage / home equity line of credit around $120-130k in order to fund investments, real estate, lifestyle spending, etc. Lots of people do exactly that. They carry debt until they're dead, though of course in the context of an actual person, yes their estate has to settle it- usually it's able to, e.g., from selling a residence. While the government doesn't have equivalent equity to draw from, they do have a tremendously high borrowing capacity based on the market's confidence in the value of Canadian government debt as a safe investment.

While to absolute numbers are huge, the numbers as they relate to the government's ability to service and carry debt are not alarming. We're doing better than most of the rest of the G7.


----------



## Brad Sallows (11 Aug 2020)

How do we know that debt-to-GDP is not alarming, beyond the claims of people saying it is so - no class of which (politicians, economists, activists), it must be noted, have been consistently correct with economic prognostications?

Debt to GDP is higher now than it was in the mid-80s.

Conservatives and progressives both have paths to QOL; it is false to claim that one group does and the other does not.  Conservatives tend to pursue growing the pie; progressives tend to pursue dividing it differently.  But anyone who understands compounding also can understand which path is preferable.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (11 Aug 2020)

Brihard said:
			
		

> A lot of people do, though, at least to the extent that it's comaprable. Our debt to GDP ratio is under 100%- comparable to a family that earns $130k a year maintaining a mortgage / home equity line of credit around $120-130k in order to fund investments, real estate, lifestyle spending, etc. Lots of people do exactly that. They carry debt until they're dead, though of course in the context of an actual person, yes their estate has to settle it- usually it's able to, e.g., from selling a residence. While the government doesn't have equivalent equity to draw from, they do have a tremendously high borrowing capacity based on the market's confidence in the value of Canadian government debt as a safe investment.
> 
> While to absolute numbers are huge, the numbers as they relate to the government's ability to service and carry debt are not alarming. We're doing better than most of the rest of the G7.



You missed the point...…someone is going to have to "settle it",....our future Canadians.  

 "We're doing better then most"??  Aren't you the one that rails against 'whataboutism'??


----------



## RangerRay (11 Aug 2020)

Re: Ethics in government. 

Throughout my adult life, I have voted for the “conservative/free enterprise “ option wherever I lived. Usually Reform/Tory federally or BC Liberal in BC. I would be open to voting Liberal federally if they went back to their liberal roots and stopped being a party of Beijing kow-towing Laurentian elites. 

Back when I lived in BC, I voted consistently for the BC Liberals, who were really the most recent incarnation of the Liberal-Conservative free enterprise coalition that has governed since the 1940’s. 

However, with each election I was decreasingly enthusiastic about voting for them. They soon lost their moral compass and acted increasingly unethically and corruptly. I continued to vote for them because they weren’t the Socialist Horde. 

It eventually got to the point where the rot became too much that I determined that for the next election, I would vote for the NDP just to get the BC Liberals defeated so they could rebuild. In the end, I moved to another province before I could make that vote. 

My point is, although I favour parties that occupy a certain space on the political spectrum, ethics and corruption are a bigger issue for me. I will vote for the complete opposite if it means a cleaner government for a time, and an opportunity for the party I normally support to renew itself.


----------



## brihard (11 Aug 2020)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> You missed the point...…someone is going to have to "settle it",....our future Canadians.
> 
> "We're doing better then most"??  Aren't you the one that rails against 'whataboutism'??



I didn’t miss the point. Yes, it needs to get ‘settled’ - generally through bing renewed with new government bonds. At present rates it’s sustainable.

If you think a comparison to other G7 countries is ‘whataboutism’, you haven’t fully grasped the concept. I’m not throwing a red herring in here to distract. I’m adding the contextual clue that, in contrast with fiscal policies and public debt of other major economies, we’re in pretty decent shape.

Canada’s public debt is still well within the bounds of what the financial system seems willing to consider prudent, as evidence by the government maintaining a very solid credit rating. This is determined by those whose entire education and career is dedicated to understanding money on the macro scale, and who are trusted to advise the biggest money managers on the prudence of lending to any given borrower. I put some stock in that.

While I don’t *like* seeing our government debt increasing, that doesn’t detract from the objective fact that those whose job it is to manage money do not appear particularly alarmed by our country’s financial state.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (12 Aug 2020)

Brihard said:
			
		

> I didn’t miss the point. Yes, it needs to get ‘settled’ - generally through bing renewed with new government bonds. At present rates it’s sustainable.
> 
> If you think a comparison to other G7 countries is ‘whataboutism’, you haven’t fully grasped the concept. I’m not throwing a red herring in here to distract. I’m adding the contextual clue that, in contrast with fiscal policies and public debt of other major economies, we’re in pretty decent shape.
> 
> ...



Government debt isn't the problem in Canada, it's household debt that is the issue.  Many are overleveraged and it is ultimately a drain on long term growth.


----------



## brihard (12 Aug 2020)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Government debt isn't the problem in Canada, it's household debt that is the issue.  Many are overleveraged and it is ultimately a drain on long term growth.



Yup, and this long period of extremely low interest, coupled with the financial pressures of the pandemic, will only exacerbate that. I know there’s been a lot of angst at the increased criteria for the mortgage stress test, but it’s probably prudent.

I recognize I’m in a privileged position to say that, my wife and I having two government jobs and being completely financially secure. I don’t want him ownership to be harder for others to achieve. But I do fear a lot of people from our generation who’ve never experienced interest over 5% getting themselves in over their heads.


----------



## FSTO (12 Aug 2020)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Yup, and this long period of extremely low interest, coupled with the financial pressures of the pandemic, will only exacerbate that. I know there’s been a lot of angst at the increased criteria for the mortgage stress test, but it’s probably prudent.
> 
> I recognize I’m in a privileged position to say that, my wife and I having two government jobs and being completely financially secure. I don’t want him ownership to be harder for others to achieve. But I do fear a lot of people from our generation who’ve never experienced interest over 5% getting themselves in over their heads.



Not this cat, my entire life is contained in a 10x15ft Ottawa Dymon storage room. I have zero credit card debt, no mortgage and no vehicle payment. So this deployment is all bank. 

Once I get back to Canuckistan I'll be purchasing a motorbike and doing a Civil War tour (if the Covid allows it). Then upon retirement (early 2022), I'll be buying a Motorhome and live the nomadic lifestyle for a few years.


----------



## Jarnhamar (12 Aug 2020)

FSTO said:
			
		

> Not this cat, my entire life is contained in a 10x15ft Ottawa Dymon storage room. I have zero credit card debt, no mortgage and no vehicle payment. So this deployment is all bank.
> 
> Once I get back to Canuckistan I'll be purchasing a motorbike and doing a Civil War tour (if the Covid allows it). Then upon retirement (early 2022), I'll be buying a Motorhome and live the nomadic lifestyle for a few years.



Tiny side bar, what kind of bike are you thinking of picking up?

I'd love to pick up a motorhome, something about them is really fascinating. Never afford it though. 

I don't know anything about money and financing but I have a few friends in their early to middle 30s and the stress of buying a home seems pretty bad.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (12 Aug 2020)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Yup, and this long period of extremely low interest, coupled with the financial pressures of the pandemic, will only exacerbate that. I know there’s been a lot of angst at the increased criteria for the mortgage stress test, but it’s probably prudent.
> 
> I recognize I’m in a privileged position to say that, my wife and I having two government jobs and being completely financially secure. I don’t want him ownership to be harder for others to achieve. But I do fear a lot of people from our generation who’ve never experienced interest over 5% getting themselves in over their heads.



I doubt you will ever see interest rates rise like that again.  It would instantly bankrupt many and leave the Government holding the mess.  If anything, we may eventually see negative interest rates.



			
				FSTO said:
			
		

> Not this cat, my entire life is contained in a 10x15ft Ottawa Dymon storage room. I have zero credit card debt, no mortgage and no vehicle payment. So this deployment is all bank.
> 
> Once I get back to Canuckistan I'll be purchasing a motorbike and doing a Civil War tour (if the Covid allows it). Then upon retirement (early 2022), I'll be buying a Motorhome and live the nomadic lifestyle for a few years.



This is my way.  My spouse and I live in a one bedroom.  After PLD, I am paying $500.00 a month for my apartment.  The vast majority of my money just gets pumped in to the markets.

I've been diversifying lately in to Crytpo and Gold as well, have a small portion of my portfolio allocated to those commodities.


----------



## Halifax Tar (12 Aug 2020)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> I doubt you will ever see interest rates rise like that again.  It would instantly bankrupt many and leave the Government holding the mess.  If anything, we may eventually see negative interest rates.
> 
> This is my way.  My spouse and I live in a one bedroom.  After PLD, I am paying $500.00 a month for my apartment.  The vast majority of my money just gets pumped in to the markets.
> 
> I've been diversifying lately in to Crytpo and Gold as well, have a small portion of my portfolio allocated to those commodities.



Slight derail but you can explain the underlined and highlighted portion ?  It this essentially being paid to borrow ?  I dont understand the concept!  Thanks in advance! 

Like the previous posters my wife and I are in government jobs (Federal and Provincial) we are very lucky, but we also worked hard to get into the position we are financially.


----------



## Donald H (12 Aug 2020)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Government debt isn't the problem in Canada, it's household debt that is the issue.  Many are overleveraged and it is ultimately a drain on long term growth.



So with any criticism of Canada maybe we should have a look at the link I posted earlier on this thread, once again-

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/canada-ranked-best-country-quality-life-2019

-so we can have a look at the factors that go into making the decision on which countries excel and which don't.



> A good job market
> Affordability
> Economic stability
> Family friendly
> ...



The countries following closely behind Canada should be an indication of what our priorities should be to maintain our high standing.

All this is of course, in the opinion of those who publish this kind of statistical information.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (12 Aug 2020)

Well this raises the stakes,......not sure they want this though.
https://globalnews.ca/news/7268645/we-charity-bloc-quebecois-fall-election/

"Bloc Quebecois Leader Yves-Francois Blanchet says Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Finance Minister Bill Morneau and Katie Telford, the prime minister’s chief of staff, must resign.
If they do not, he vows to try to force an election this fall.
Blanchet’s remarks on Wednesday came as the House of Commons is set to return for one of its four scheduled summer sittings amid the coronavirus pandemic, which also comes as the government is engulfed in controversy over the WE Charity scandal.
It also comes amid questions being raised about a rent relief contract that an arms-length Crown corporation awarded to a company that employs the husband of Katie Telford, Trudeau’s chief of staff."

MORE AT LINK


----------



## Brad Sallows (12 Aug 2020)

>All this is of course, in the opinion of those who publish this kind of statistical information. 

Only if you agree with their premises.  Some people value liberty more than safety.


----------



## Brad Sallows (12 Aug 2020)

>[Negative interest rates] It this essentially being paid to borrow ?

Yes; sometimes it is expressed as "being paid to store".  Mainly it is something done by a central bank with respect to major institutions, not by major institutions with respect to small account holders.  The point is to encourage spending and other investment rather than saving.


----------



## Brad Sallows (12 Aug 2020)

>Bloc Quebecois Leader...

So much for the hypothesis that the CPC would be alone.


----------



## shawn5o (12 Aug 2020)

Brihard said:
			
		

> I didn’t miss the point. Yes, it needs to get ‘settled’ - generally through bing renewed with new government bonds. At present rates it’s sustainable.
> 
> If you think a comparison to other G7 countries is ‘whataboutism’, you haven’t fully grasped the concept. I’m not throwing a red herring in here to distract. I’m adding the contextual clue that, in contrast with fiscal policies and public debt of other major economies, we’re in pretty decent shape.
> 
> ...



Hi Brihard

While true that our government has a solid credit rating, S & P Global Ratings kept the AAA rate, it was downgraded by Fitch Ratings Inc to AA+ with a stable outlook. Perhaps stable would be a better term than solid.


----------



## stellarpanther (12 Aug 2020)

If they want an election lets have one.  I often read comments like the public doesn't have any appetite for an elect but why not?  I like all the election drama and I like going out to vote.  If they lose they lose but I will laugh my ass off if the Liberals win a majority.


----------



## GR66 (12 Aug 2020)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Well this raises the stakes,......not sure they want this though.
> https://globalnews.ca/news/7268645/we-charity-bloc-quebecois-fall-election/
> 
> "Bloc Quebecois Leader Yves-Francois Blanchet says Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Finance Minister Bill Morneau and Katie Telford, the prime minister’s chief of staff, must resign.
> ...



Might make sense for the Bloc.  The Liberals have been stung by multiple ethics issues, the NDP is invisible and the Conservatives are in disarray and without a leader.  Great opportunity for them to increase their seat count in Quebec at the expense of all three other parties.  If the national vote splits go the right way they may even have the opportunity to once again become Her Majesty's (dis-)Loyal Opposition.


----------



## shawn5o (12 Aug 2020)

All this talk about libs vs. cons. All I know for sure that the LPC is not the liberal party of Pearson. It has gone far-left closer to the NDP. As for the cons, all they do well is form a circular firing squad and shoot each other. However, this article lists the bad liberals attiitude towards Canadians who criticize lib policies.

7 Examples Of The Liberals Demonizing Canadians & Purposely Stoking Anger
https://spencerfernando.com/2020/08/11/7-examples-of-the-liberals-demonizing-canadians-purposely-stoking-anger/

The Trudeau Liberals have been the most divisive government in Canadian history, regularly trying to turn Canadians against each other by demonizing people and bringing hypocrisy to a massive level.

While the Liberals try pretending they are victims of this anger, they are the ones purposely stoking the anger the most, in pursuit of their selfish political benefit.

Here are seven examples of the Liberals demonizing Canadians and purposely stoking anger:

- Trudeau Excludes Conservatives from crisis talks, disenfranchises millions

“Trudeau excluded Andrew Scheer and the Conservatives from CCP Virus Crisis talks, insulting and disenfranchising everyone who voted Conservative (the party that won the popular vote).”

- Bill Morneau called Lisa Raitt a “neanderthal.”

“WATCH this exchange in Ottawa yesterday, where conservative Lisa Raitt challenges finance minister Bill Morneau over his fake-feminist budget, Morneau responds by saying he finds her questions “OFFENSIVE” and then goes on to call her a “NEANDERTHAL.” What a pathetic little man.”

-Ahmed Hussen called Lisa MacLeod “un-Canadian” for opposing illegal border crossings.

“After Lisa MacLeod – the Ontario Minister Responsible for Immigration – made clear that the Ford government wants border enforcement, and had the toughness to criticize the fact that illegal crossers are cutting in line ahead of those following legal processes, Hussen went on the attack.

He called MacLeod “Un-Canadian,” and insanely accused her of “fear mongering,” even though he’s obviously the one trying to scare and divide Canadians by demonizing those of us who want the border secured.”

-Catherine McKenna implies Conservatives aren’t People or Canadians

“Across Canada, people agree that climate change is a threat to our country. I don’t understand why the Conservatives are hesitant to join Canadians in the fight against climate change. We’ll keep working with Canadians as we move forward with our practical and affordable plan.”

McKenna’s rhetoric here is very dangerous.

Note how she says “people agree” that climate change is a threat. Then, she says Conservatives won’t “join Canadians” to fight against it.

Do you see what she’s doing here?
She is using rhetoric to imply that Conservatives are neither people, nor Canadian.

-Trudeau attacks Albertans, says Canada “belongs” to leaders from Quebec

“Trudeau said Canada “belongs” to leaders from Quebec, while saying “Canada isn’t doing well right now because it’s Albertans who control our community and socio-democratic agenda. It doesn’t work.”

-Trudeau demonizes Canadian construction workers

“While in Argentina, Justin Trudeau did some more disgusting virtue-signalling.
He was talking about ‘gender budgets’ when he started to demonize construction workers.
He implied that having “male construction workers” in a “rural areas” had “social impacts.”

As if it wasn’t clear enough where Trudeau was going with his sexist rhetoric, he later said “women entrepreneurs make better choices.””

-Gerald Butts compares Trudeau critics to ‘Nazis’

Butts did this while working for the Liberal government. Trudeau did nothing.


----------



## Donald H (12 Aug 2020)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >All this is of course, in the opinion of those who publish this kind of statistical information.
> 
> Only if you agree with their premises.  Some people value liberty more than safety.



Can you expand on what you mean Brad? The factors listed which are judged to constitute a high quality of life are defining liberty.

A good job market
Affordability
Economic stability
Family friendly
Income equality
Politically stable
Safety
Well-developed public health system
Well-developed public education system

That is, none of the countries in question are occupied by a foreign enemy.
I may be wrong but I take it from that comment that you suggest Liberal party supporters are more concerned with safety then they are concerned with liberty. Are you associating 'safety' with a lack of gun related violence?

The last 5 of the factors listed seem to be pointedly devised to discredit the US and/or conservatism.


----------



## Stoker (12 Aug 2020)

It appears all leaders were in the house today, all except the PM. He's taken the opportunity to spend time at the cottage.


----------



## Brad Sallows (12 Aug 2020)

Anything requiring intervention necessarily infringes on liberty.  Some interventions, like police intervening to halt a crime, are at one extreme of what people find tolerable (vs intolerable).  Interventions designed to level outcomes (eg. income equality) are tolerated less, and generally require tyranny to achieve.  And safety, or security, is a pursuit with no end.  There is always more safety that can be achieved by adding more safeguards and restrictions.


----------



## Jarnhamar (12 Aug 2020)

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> It appears all leaders were in the house today, all except dear leader. He's taken the opportunity to spend time at the cottage.



In fairness he's probably entertaining guests who will be receiving sole sourced government contracts in the future. 

He's just networking.


----------



## Weinie (12 Aug 2020)

I and the other 38 million Canadians are sobbing with joy that the PM gets to take a break from his 100 % dedication to making our life better.


----------



## Stoker (12 Aug 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> In fairness he's probably entertaining guests who will be receiving sole sourced government contracts in the future.
> 
> He's just networking.



PPE anyone?  :rofl:


----------



## Kat Stevens (12 Aug 2020)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Well this raises the stakes,......not sure they want this though.
> https://globalnews.ca/news/7268645/we-charity-bloc-quebecois-fall-election/
> 
> "Bloc Quebecois Leader Yves-Francois Blanchet says Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Finance Minister Bill Morneau and Katie Telford, the prime minister’s chief of staff, must resign.
> ...



Oh Bruce, don't you know by now that nobody in Canada gives a shit about the back door dealings of Versailles, as long as the CERB keeps flowing and the Cool Sock of the Week Club keeps delivering?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (12 Aug 2020)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Slight derail but you can explain the underlined and highlighted portion ?  It this essentially being paid to borrow ?  I dont understand the concept!  Thanks in advance!
> 
> Like the previous posters my wife and I are in government jobs (Federal and Provincial) we are very lucky, but we also worked hard to get into the position we are financially.



basically, with a negative interest rate, The Central Bank makes Banks pay to store their cash with the Central Bank, which increases the costs to the Bank.  The entire purpose of this is to prevent Banks hoarding money in times of deflation and encourage lending to stimulate economic growth.  

To further elaborate:



> "Negative interest rates occur when borrowers are credited interest rather than paying interest to lenders. While this is a very unusual scenario, it is most likely to occur during a deep economic recession when monetary policy and market forces have already pushed interest rates to their nominal zero bound."
> 
> "Negative interest rates may occur during deflationary periods. During these times, people and businesses hold too much money (instead of spending money). This can result in a sharp decline in demand, and send prices even lower. Often, a loose monetary policy is used to deal with this type of situation. However, when there are strong signs of deflation factoring into the equation, simply cutting the central bank's interest rate to zero may not be sufficient enough to stimulate growth in both credit and lending."



https://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/negative-interest-rate.asp

We have already seen this in Countries like Japan, where people simply hold on to cash and not investing or lending it.  The problem with this is that the economy then doesn't grow which is reflected in Japan's Nikkei Index experienceing essentially flat growth.


----------



## Kilted (12 Aug 2020)

Should we not try and have the election at the same time as the Americans so that Russia is too busy interfering in their election to bother us.


----------



## garb811 (12 Aug 2020)

It should not need to be said at this point, but derogatory/mocking nicknames are contrary to the guidelines. You all know better, next time warnings will be given.

- Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## Stoker (12 Aug 2020)

Personally as much as I would love to have an election we probably won't. Support of the Bloc is not enough and the NDP are in the Liberals back pocket. I would love to see the PM resign however more than likely someone else of lesser significance will take the fall. I wonder what else will come out in regards to the Covid 19 stimulus giveaway.


----------



## MilEME09 (12 Aug 2020)

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> Personally as much as I would love to have an election we probably won't. Support of the Bloc is not enough and the NDP are in the Liberals back pocket. I would love to see the PM resign however more than likely someone else of lesser significance will take the fall. I wonder what else will come out in regards to the Covid 19 stimulus giveaway.



The prime Ministers resume'


----------



## stellarpanther (12 Aug 2020)

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> It appears all leaders were in the house today, all except the PM. He's taken the opportunity to spend time at the cottage.



I don't blame him, it's a beautiful day to spend at the cottage and maybe go for a nice swim and maybe have a barbeque for dinner.  He just finished testifying and everyone asked their questions.  I don't want to her the opposition continuing to ask the same basic questions over and over again.  Move on and let the ethics commission do it's job and the ethics commissioner can rule.


----------



## Kat Stevens (12 Aug 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> I don't blame him, it's a beautiful day to spend at the cottage and maybe go for a nice swim and maybe have a barbeque for dinner.  He just finished testifying and everyone asked their questions.  I don't want to her the opposition continuing to ask the same basic questions over and over again.  Move on and let the ethics commission do it's job and the ethics commissioner can rule.



And how about we ask him to DO HIS FUCKING JOB while we're at it?


----------



## stellarpanther (12 Aug 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> In fairness he's probably entertaining guests who will be receiving sole sourced government contracts in the future.
> 
> He's just networking.



Maybe he's busy planning a surprise retirement party for Andrew Scheer?


----------



## Jarnhamar (12 Aug 2020)

stellarpanther] I don't want to her the opposition continuing to ask the same basic questions over and over again.
[/quote]

Not getting a straight answer tends to require you repeat the question. 

[quote author=stellarpanther said:
			
		

> I don't blame him, it's a beautiful day to spend at the cottage and maybe go for a nice swim and maybe have a barbeque for dinner.



Gotta love when the CO skips mandatory training to chill at the cottage while everyone else is working lol


----------



## Jarnhamar (12 Aug 2020)

Speaking of skipping things...

*Canadians want answers on why 20,000 infrastructure projects funded with our tax dollars can’t be shown to even exist.*

In the wake of news reports about someone yelling at Catherine McKenna’s office, Canadians are bringing attention to serious problem with the spending of our tax dollars.

In early June, Blacklock’s Reporter had a story about how a whopping 20,000 infrastructure projects subsidized with federal tax dollars have no evidence to prove they are even real:

_    “Parliament’s Budget Office can find no evidence of 20,000 projects subsidized with billions in federal tax dollars. Infrastructure Minister Catherine McKenna’s department would not document where funds were spent, the Commons government operations committee was told: “I don’t have proof that they exist.””_

https://spencerfernando.com/2020/08/11/wheresthemoneycatherine-is-trending/



20,000 ghost projects and billions of dollars unaccounted for? _I'm shocked!_


----------



## Stoker (12 Aug 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> I don't blame him, it's a beautiful day to spend at the cottage and maybe go for a nice swim and maybe have a barbeque for dinner.  He just finished testifying and everyone asked their questions.  I don't want to her the opposition continuing to ask the same basic questions over and over again.  Move on and let the ethics commission do it's job and the ethics commissioner can rule.



Were you at the BBQ?, sounds like you wish you were. BTW The rest of the leaders were at work during one of the four sittings this month and like you love to say we are in a pandemic are we not?


----------



## PPCLI Guy (12 Aug 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> I don't blame him, it's a beautiful day to spend at the cottage and maybe go for a nice swim and maybe have a barbeque for dinner.  He just finished testifying and everyone asked their questions.  I don't want to her the opposition continuing to ask the same basic questions over and over again.  Move on and let the ethics commission do it's job and the ethics commissioner can rule.



Dude.

I have supported your right to say what you think, and even to essentially make up your own facts, because you are not at all alone in that camp.

You are now being a knob.  In fact, you are being a troll.  

No one likes a troll.

Just saying


----------



## stellarpanther (12 Aug 2020)

Target Up said:
			
		

> And how about we ask him to DO HIS ******* JOB while we're at it?



Holly **** I try to make a little joke and you get all excited.  By the way he is doing his job as far as a lot of Canadian's are concerned.  Too bad if you don't like how he's doing it.


----------



## stellarpanther (12 Aug 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Not getting a straight answer tends to require you repeat the question.
> 
> Gotta love when the CO skips mandatory training to chill at the cottage while everyone else is working lol



He got the best answer they are going to get. If this were the CAF and a mbr kept getting grilled it would be clearly harassment.  The got the best answer they are getting.


----------



## Kat Stevens (12 Aug 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> Holly **** I try to make a little joke and you get all excited.  By the way he is doing his job as far as a lot of Canadian's are concerned.  Too bad if you don't like how he's doing it.


I actually have a pretty good sense of humour. I really enjoy a good joke, I easily recognize them usually, because they're funny. You've posted nothing but excuses and dismissal for behaviour from this government that I would be horrified to see from my six year old grandsons, so please forgive me for not seeing the razor sharp wit in your post. Oh, and -300 right back atcha.


----------



## stellarpanther (12 Aug 2020)

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> Were you at the BBQ?, sounds like you wish you were. BTW The rest of the leaders were at work during one of the four sittings this month and like you love to say we are in a pandemic are we not?



I had to miss it but I'll try to make the next one.


----------



## stellarpanther (12 Aug 2020)

Target Up said:
			
		

> I actually have a pretty good sense of humour. I really enjoy a good joke, I easily recognize them usually, because they're funny. You've posted nothing but excuses and dismissal for behaviour from this government that I would be horrified to see from my six year old grandsons, so please forgive me for not seeing the razor sharp wit in your post. Oh, and -300 right back atcha.



Maybe I have a bad memory but I don't recall criticizing you or anyone else for being a Conservative supporter, it's your right and you don't need to defend that choice to me or anyone else.  I find that for some reason I need to consistently defend the fact that I am a Liberal supporter, at least in the last couple of elections.


----------



## stellarpanther (12 Aug 2020)

Target Up said:
			
		

> I actually have a pretty good sense of humour. I really enjoy a good joke, I easily recognize them usually, because they're funny. You've posted nothing but excuses and dismissal for behaviour from this government that I would be horrified to see from my six year old grandsons, so please forgive me for not seeing the razor sharp wit in your post. Oh, and -300 right back atcha.



I shouldn't have took the points, I correct that, I took it as a dig when I was attempting to make a joke.  I think he should have been their today but I don't want the whole time being spent talking about WE, a lot of other things to talk about.


----------



## stellarpanther (12 Aug 2020)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Dude.
> 
> I have supported your right to say what you think, and even to essentially make up your own facts, because you are not at all alone in that camp.
> 
> ...



I'm being a knob because I made a little joke about why Trudeau wasn't there?  I also don't think I've ever made up my own facts, it's just that you and a lot of posters here disagree with them.  Doesn't make that untrue.


----------



## Kat Stevens (12 Aug 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> Maybe I have a bad memory but I don't recall criticizing you or anyone else for being a Conservative supporter, it's your right and you don't need to defend that choice to me or anyone else.  I find that for some reason I need to consistently defend the fact that I am a Liberal supporter, at least in the last couple of elections.



To be clear with you, and to hopefully explain a little, I give not one flying rodent's rectum who you vote for, or why. That is 100% not my business. I have voted both sides in my not insignificant amount of years on this earth. Toward the end of the last conservative mandate, I found myself in disagreement with quite a few of their policies, as I consider myself a lower case "c" conservative. I weighed who got my vote with who was more closely aligned with how I think things should be run. The cons were still more in my park than the libs. That said, I was able to admit, and rail, about those con policies I disagreed with, I didn't make excuses for them and shrug them off just because I disliked the other guy  more, which to my eye is what you're doing. If on the other hands it's all just been one big "gotcha" from you for the last month or so, then well played, I'll consider myself got.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (12 Aug 2020)

@Stellarpanther

You realize you can quote multiple users in a single post right?



Don't make me have to clean up your mess.


----------



## stellarpanther (12 Aug 2020)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> @Stellarpanther
> 
> You realize you can quote multiple users in a single post right?
> 
> ...



Sorry, I'll find out how to do that.


----------



## ballz (12 Aug 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> I also don't think I've ever made up my own facts



I've been reading a lot about it and seeing a lot of posts on Facebook by a lot of my friends. I even had CWO come up and talk to me about it. It seems like a lot of Canadians are thinking otherwise. It's not necessarily my opinion I'm just sharing what I've been reading and hearing.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (12 Aug 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> Sorry, I'll find out how to do that.



You can open a new window that you use to make your post, then copy and paste the quoted text from other usersyou want to reply to individually in to that window you opened.

It cuts down on forum clutter.


----------



## RangerRay (12 Aug 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> Maybe I have a bad memory but I don't recall criticizing you or anyone else for being a Conservative supporter, it's your right and you don't need to defend that choice to me or anyone else.  I find that for some reason I need to consistently defend the fact that I am a Liberal supporter, at least in the last couple of elections.



I don’t think people are objecting to your support of Liberal policies and positions. I think they are objecting to you appearing to excuse rank corruption and grift. 

If the Tories were behaving half as dirty as these guys, they would lose my vote and deserve to go to the penalty box for a time.


----------



## stellarpanther (12 Aug 2020)

ballz said:
			
		

> I've been reading a lot about it and seeing a lot of posts on Facebook by a lot of my friends. I even had CWO come up and talk to me about it. It seems like a lot of Canadians are thinking otherwise. It's not necessarily my opinion I'm just sharing what I've been reading and hearing.



Sorry, I'm not following your post.


----------



## Jarnhamar (12 Aug 2020)

[quote author=stellarpanther] If this were the CAF and a mbr kept getting grilled it would be clearly harassment.  
[/quote]

That's about as accurate a statement as your statement about Trudeau being guilty of one ethical violation. 

[quote author=stellarpanther] I find that for some reason I need to consistently defend the fact that I am a Liberal supporter, 
[/quote]

You should stop playing that victim card. No one cares who you voted for (or me or anyone else for that matter). No one is making you defend who you voted for. No one is forcing you to defend the Liberals and no one is forcing you to respond. You're choosing to.  You seem to enjoy dismissing the Liberals behavior and complaining about the conservitives, which is fine but you're not a victim. 

Your "I was just kidding" defense isn't very believable either.


Trudeau skipping out on one of the four times parliament sits in a month is weak and pathetic. It's cowardly.


----------



## stellarpanther (12 Aug 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Your "I was just kidding" defense isn't very believable either.



Are you referring to my comment about it being a nice day and him maybe having a BBQ and then later saying I was joking?


----------



## Jarnhamar (13 Aug 2020)

You bet.


----------



## stellarpanther (13 Aug 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> You bet.



Surprisingly I've always received praise for my clear and concise writing ability and always have that area scored will on my PER's.  For some reason I struggle with it on this site.  Do you really think I would be serious about thinking the Prime Minister took the day off because it was a hot sunny day to go swimming and have a barbeque?  I thought it was hilarious and thought the mil points would roll in like I hit 3 diamonds on a slot machine.  Since my sarcastic sense of humor went over like a lead balloon on this site I will clear it up and say I don't think the reasons I provided were accurate.  My guess is he just didn't feel like getting grilled over WE and whatever else is going on because he's been answering the same questions for days.  As far as I'm concerned, he's given his answers and that's it.  Trudeau is not going to resign but I won't be surprised to see the Finance Minister leave whether he resigns the position or is shuffled out.   The voters will decide during the next election whether this and the other stuff was serious enough or even if it's an issue in their mind.  This repeated questioning is getting annoying, at least to me.  He's answered the questions. I think of it like a courtroom where you ask the question, get the answer and move on.  Does the opposition think after weeks of giving the same answers that he will suddenly change his mind and give a different answer?  It's not going to happen.  Eventually even people who are on the fence with the WE issue will say enough is enough move on to other stuff.


----------



## FSTO (13 Aug 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Tiny side bar, what kind of bike are you thinking of picking up?
> I'd love to pick up a motorhome, something about them is really fascinating. Never afford it though.


Either a BMW touring bike or a soft-tail type. I'm not fat enough for the Honda Gold Wing! ;D


----------



## Stoker (13 Aug 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> Surprisingly I've always received praise for my clear and concise writing ability and always have that area scored will on my PER's.  For some reason I struggle with it on this site.  Do you really think I would be serious about thinking the Prime Minister took the day off because it was a hot sunny day to go swimming and have a barbeque?  I thought it was hilarious and thought the mil points would roll in like I hit 3 diamonds on a slot machine.  Since my sarcastic sense of humor went over like a lead balloon on this site I will clear it up and say I don't think the reasons I provided were accurate.  My guess is he just didn't feel like getting grilled over WE and whatever else is going on because he's been answering the same questions for days.  As far as I'm concerned, he's given his answers and that's it.  Trudeau is not going to resign but I won't be surprised to see the Finance Minister leave whether he resigns the position or is shuffled out.   The voters will decide during the next election whether this and the other stuff was serious enough or even if it's an issue in their mind.  This repeated questioning is getting annoying, at least to me.  He's answered the questions. I think of it like a courtroom where you ask the question, get the answer and move on.  Does the opposition think after weeks of giving the same answers that he will suddenly change his mind and give a different answer?  It's not going to happen.  Eventually even people who are on the fence with the WE issue will say enough is enough move on to other stuff.



Dude nobody is begrudging him a day off. It seems when there are scandals and hard questions to answer he takes the day off or goes on vacation. Four parliment sittings a month and he picks that day off come on. A real leader is one that has the courage to stand up and answer all the questions critical or not. It's the oppositions job to question the government. If the PM can't care enough about his job to show up and lead he shouldn't be the PM


----------



## ModlrMike (13 Aug 2020)

Then there's rising above partisanship and attending when your colleague has their final day in the house.


----------



## shawn5o (13 Aug 2020)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> You can open a new window that you use to make your post, then copy and paste the quoted text from other usersyou want to reply to individually in to that window you opened.
> 
> It cuts down on forum clutter.



I didn't know that. Thanks HB.


----------



## stellarpanther (13 Aug 2020)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Then there's rising above partisanship and attending when your colleague has their final day in the house.



I'll be honest, he should have went and it doesn't look good that he stayed home.  Saying that, I don't see the point in asking these same questions over and over again and I would say it regardless of who it was.


----------



## Jarnhamar (13 Aug 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> I'll be honest, he should have went and it doesn't look good that he stayed home.  Saying that, I don't see the point in asking these same questions over and over again and I would say it regardless of who it was.



Can you post an example of him being asked the same question over and over with the caveat that he provided an actual relevant straight forward answer the first time and not a typical _Questions Period _answer?


----------



## blacktriangle (13 Aug 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Can you post an example of him being asked the same question over and over with the caveat that he provided an actual relevant straight forward answer the first time and not a typical Questions Period _answer_?



Say what you will about Pierre Poilievre, but I think he's one of the few politicians these days that Canadians are actually getting their money's worth from.


----------



## Jarnhamar (13 Aug 2020)

reverse_engineer said:
			
		

> Say what you will about Pierre Poilievre, but I think he's one of the few politicians these days that Canadians are actually getting their money's worth from.



I've only ever seen him questioning the Liberals on their conduct and behavior and he seems to do a pretty good job _trying to_ get the truth out of the LPC.


----------



## stellarpanther (13 Aug 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Can you post an example of him being asked the same question over and over with the caveat that he provided an actual relevant straight forward answer the first time and not a typical _Questions Period _answer?



You know I can't but the Cons also know they won't get the kind of answer they're looking for so move on and talk about something else.  I'm not saying to drop it, the ethics commission should still continue it's investigation but we don't need the opposition to continue going on and on about it.  You know as well as I do that the only reason they are doing it is so it stays in the minds of the voters.


----------



## Stoker (13 Aug 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> You know I can't but the Cons also know they won't get the kind of answer they're looking for so move on and talk about something else.  I'm not saying to drop it, the ethics commission should still continue it's investigation but we don't need the opposition to continue going on and on about it.  You know as well as I do that the only reason they are doing it is so it stays in the minds of the voters.



It's called politics but perhaps just maybe it would go away if they were upfront and honest about it in the first place. The PM was everything but honest about the whole thing. Sorry are not going to cut it this time.


----------



## Jarnhamar (13 Aug 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> You know I can't



Perfect, thanks.


----------



## stellarpanther (13 Aug 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Perfect, thanks.



 :


----------



## stellarpanther (13 Aug 2020)

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> It's called politics but perhaps just maybe it would go away if they were upfront and honest about it in the first place. The PM was everything but honest about the whole thing. Sorry are not going to cut it this time.



You could be right but I'm leaning towards you being wrong.  The public may not like it but I don't think they will be upset about it enough to cost Trudeau another election victory.  Many people on this site were all but guaranteeing a crushing defeat of the Liberals in the last and election and how did that turn out?  I'm predicting a Liberal majority in the next election and that's regardless of whether MacKay is chosen to be the PC leader.


----------



## ballz (13 Aug 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> Many people on this site were all but guaranteeing a crushing defeat of the Liberals in the last and election and how did that turn out?



Perhaps you should re-read my post that you didn't follow, and re-read your comment, and perhaps you will start to follow what I was getting at.

While many people on this site hoped for that, I don't recall a single person even optimistic about it, let alone "all but guaranteeing." Perhaps I had the blinders on and you can substantiate your claim with actual evidence.

But of course, your assertions are always substantiated by excellent ad populum arguments of the best variety (an anonymous sample), so they must be facts.


----------



## daftandbarmy (13 Aug 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> You could be right but I'm leaning towards you being wrong.  The public may not like it but I don't think they will be upset about it enough to cost Trudeau another election victory.  Many people on this site were all but guaranteeing a crushing defeat of the Liberals in the last and election and how did that turn out?  I'm predicting a Liberal majority in the next election and that's regardless of whether MacKay is chosen to be the PC leader.



He was soundly crushed in Western Canada. And people like Trump know he's a 'weak sister' internationally, as a result of his minority government and overall 'milquetoast' brand, which means that Canada gets taken to the cleaners one way or another on the world stage as well.

You know, like being bullied into holding a Huawei executive member by one country, then having another throwing two of your nationals in jail on a whim, and dithering your way through the whole sordid fiasco...

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/2020/07/17/on-huawei-the-trudeau-government-has-dithered-its-way-through.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/20/world/canada/justin-trudeau-alberta-saskatchewan-jason-kenney.html


----------



## Jarnhamar (13 Aug 2020)

[quote author=stellarpanther] Many people on this site were all but guaranteeing a crushing defeat of the Liberals in the last and election and how did that turn out?[/quote]

Can you post examples of many people on this site all but guaranteeing a crushing defeat of the Liberals?


----------



## Stoker (13 Aug 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> You could be right but I'm leaning towards you being wrong.  The public may not like it but I don't think they will be upset about it enough to cost Trudeau another election victory.  Many people on this site were all but guaranteeing a crushing defeat of the Liberals in the last and election and how did that turn out?  I'm predicting a Liberal majority in the next election and that's regardless of whether MacKay is chosen to be the PC leader.



What I predict is when people start to be impacted financially with the 300 Billion and counting he spent in the last 4 months they will change their tune. You know the sole source deals to family supporters, employers and billions spent on  PPE that in 3 months havent delivered anything.


----------



## Remius (13 Aug 2020)

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> What I predict is when people start to be impacted financially with the 300 Billion and counting he spent in the last 4 months they will change their tune. You know the sole source deals to family supporters, employers and billions spent on  PPE that in 3 months havent delivered anything.



That likely won’t be until the after the next election.  And if the CPC can present a viable alternative.


----------



## stellarpanther (13 Aug 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Can you post examples of many people on this site all but guaranteeing a crushing defeat of the Liberals?



I definitely could because I recall reading numerous posts about it.  Unfortunately I don't have the time to spend digging up old posts but they are there for viewing if you want to look them up.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (13 Aug 2020)

That's because you made it up, which seems to be an MO for you on here,.....those of us who WANTED a crushing Liberal defeat knew it wasn't going to happen with the leader they chose.


----------



## Remius (13 Aug 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> I definitely could because I recall reading numerous posts about it.  Unfortunately I don't have the time to spend digging up old posts but they are there for viewing if you want to look them up.



Here is one thread on the lead up to the last election.  Was interesting to see what people were saying. 

I don%u2019t think anyone predicted a crushing LPC defeat.  Certainly a lot of Trudeau criticism though.  And some good discussions. 

https://army.ca/forums/threads/129870.0.html

Edit.

Here is the actual election thread.

https://army.ca/forums/threads/131141.0.html

Lots of back and forth discussion.  A lot about why Trudeau should not be PM and why he would be.  Some stuff criticizing Scheer and the CPC election strategy (me being one of them).  But not too much predicting a liberal defeat.  Just prognosticators predicting more of the same if he got elected.  In some cases they aren%u2019t wrong given the recent scandals...


----------



## stellarpanther (13 Aug 2020)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> That's because you made it up, which seems to be an MO for you on here,.....those of us who WANTED a crushing Liberal defeat knew it wasn't going to happen with the leader they chose.



Thank you for this comment because it couldn't illustrate clearer about what i mean when I say I'm sick of the insults from various posters whether to me or other people when there are disagreements about opinions.  I think it's time to take a break from this site for a month or so and reevaluate if I really want to be a part of it.  I'm willing to discuss anything but I'm done with the constant insults because many here disagree with my beliefs.  I'll be reading but not posting for a while.


----------



## Stoker (13 Aug 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> Thank you for this comment because it couldn't illustrate clearer about what i mean when I say I'm sick of the insults from various posters whether to me or other people when there are disagreements about opinions.  I think it's time to take a break from this site for a month or so and reevaluate if I really want to be a part of it.  I'm willing to discuss anything but I'm done with the constant insults because many here disagree with my beliefs.  I'll be reading but not posting for a while.



Hopefully longer. It Dawn's on me that you are doing EXACTLY what the PM does when he called on his antics he takes personal time. Not going to a cottage are ya?


----------



## stellarpanther (13 Aug 2020)

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> Hopefully longer. It Dawn's on me that you are doing EXACTLY what the PM does when he called on his antics he takes personal time. Not going to a cottage are ya?



When's the last time you were told to **** off?


----------



## stellarpanther (13 Aug 2020)

There are some good posters here but then there are mostly those I disagree with and can't relate to.  How would one delete their profile?


----------



## Stoker (13 Aug 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> There are some good posters here but then there are mostly those I disagree with and can't relate to.  How would one delete their profile?



Use the search function.


----------



## Stoker (13 Aug 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> There are some good posters here but then there are mostly those I disagree with and can't relate to.  How would one delete their profile?



So do you disagree that its non acceptable to take 91 personal days off in 2019 and 41 days so far off in 2020. I wouldnt expect that in a subordinate or a  supervisor, I sure in hell wouldn't expect that in my PM. . Do you understand now how some of use feel about that?


----------



## NavyShooter (13 Aug 2020)

People make fun of Trump and all of his golfing....but our PM takes 91 personal days off in a year and it's OK??

*shrug*

We got what was voted for.  The question now is, how we'll deal with the fallout over the next few years.  I suspect that fallout will be rather large...the number I heard bandied about was 500 Billion Dollars by the end of December if the CERB is sustained to year's end.

That's almost doubling our national debt in one fiscal year, with no plan for recovery - 'the Budget will balance itself'...?

At some point, there will be a financial reckoning.  I will suggest everyone have their houses in order personally.   Nationally...we're in for a roller coaster.  

NS


----------



## Jarnhamar (13 Aug 2020)

*WE Charity met often with federal officials, new lobbyist registration reveals*

https://ipolitics.ca/2020/08/13/we-charity-met-often-with-federal-officials-new-lobbyist-registration-reveals/


The only organization capable of doing the job _just happened_ to be secretly lobbying the government.



> Despite sustained scrutiny of WE Charity over the last two months, and steady communication with the federal government since at least early 2019, the charity hadn’t registered any of their communications until Thursday.
> 
> The Lobbying Act of Canada requires an organization to register its communications with government if 20 per cent of an employee’s work in a defined period is spent preparing or actively lobbying government employees.


----------



## OldSolduer (14 Aug 2020)

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> So do you disagree that its non acceptable to take 91 personal days off in 2019 and 41 days so far off in 2020. I wouldnt expect that in a subordinate or a  supervisor, I sure in hell wouldn't expect that in my PM. . Do you understand now how some of use feel about that?



Try doing that if you're a rank and file worker. Your employment with that particular company will be short.


----------



## Remius (14 Aug 2020)

No kidding.

I’m curious though what that actually breaks down to though. 

Does the PM have weekends and holidays off?  Or is 91 and 41 separate from that and normal vacation.


----------



## Donald H (14 Aug 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> I'll be honest, he should have went and it doesn't look good that he stayed home.  Saying that, I don't see the point in asking these same questions over and over again and I would say it regardless of who it was.



I'll be honest too and suggest that you're being stomped on because of your support of the LPC. You're not alone in the real world and you could be a part of the majority of Canadians. And as to your behaviour here on this board, I would say you've been more compromising than being Trollish, of which you have been accused. 

IMHO, Trudeau staying home is really no big deal to Canadians.


----------



## QV (14 Aug 2020)

Donald H said:
			
		

> I'll be honest too and suggest that you're being stomped on because of your support of the LPC. You're not alone in the real world and you could be a part of the majority of Canadians. And as to your behaviour here on this board, I would say you've been more compromising than being Trollish, of which you have been accused.
> 
> IMHO, Trudeau staying home is really no big deal to Canadians.



When you say majority, do you mean the 33% (give or take) of Canadians who voted Liberal last election?  Or are you suggesting the LPC now has over 50% support from all Canadians?


----------



## Rifleman62 (14 Aug 2020)

From a fellow that keeps track:


> 48 Personal, 41 Private, 8 in Retreat, 30+ flights, 70 hiding in the cottage, out of 226 days.
> Since July 4th, 20 Personal, 15 Private, 2 in Retreat. All year, 25 in Question Period.


----------



## Donald H (14 Aug 2020)

QV said:
			
		

> When you say majority, do you mean the 33% (give or take) of Canadians who voted Liberal last election?  Or are you suggesting the LPC now has over 50% support from all Canadians?



I would say that it's debatable that the LPC has/hasn't the support it needs to form another minority government. That with NDP support which can be mostly guaranteed on a lot of important issues. And perhaps even a majority government.

In accordance with our system, that could apparently be 33%.

So with that in mind, your challenge of my suggestion of the LPC having a majority is quite valid. But just beside the point when it comes to forming government.


----------



## daftandbarmy (14 Aug 2020)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> From a fellow that keeps track:



He was being taken to task for the same thing in 2015, it seems....


In delivering his formal response to the Throne Speech at midday yesterday, Tom Mulcair had aimed a pair of pointed sentences at the idea of attendance. “In his last full year in the House, the outgoing prime minister only attended one-third of question periods,” the NDP leader said. “The best way to show respect for this institution is to show up in Parliament regularly and be answerable to Canadians.”

After QP, Mulcair was asked specifically about the Liberal proposal. “Having the Prime Minister show up less often to question period isn’t more accountability,” he said. “It’s less accountability.”

For good measure, the NDP leader added this bit of wordplay: “It’s interesting to hear them call it Prime Minister’s question period. It’s Canadians’ question period and Canadians are the ones who deserve answers.”

https://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/how-often-should-prime-minister-trudeau-be-at-qp/


----------



## Blackadder1916 (14 Aug 2020)

Remius said:
			
		

> No kidding.
> 
> I’m curious though what that actually breaks down to though.
> 
> Does the PM have weekends and holidays off?  Or is 91 and 41 separate from that and normal vacation.



No Member of Parliament receives statutorily allotted time off.  No vacation days, no weekends, no holidays.

In the Members’ Allowances and Services Manual (https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/MAS/mas-e.pdf), the only mention of vacation or time off is in relation to employees of MPs (those who work in MP's offices are direct employees of the MP and not Parliament or the GOC). 

The only financial accounting for not attending a sitting in the Commons is:


> Members’ attendance reporting: An amount of $120 is deducted from the sessional allowance for each
> day, beyond 21 days in a session, that a Member does not attend a sitting of the House for reasons
> other than:
> 
> ...


----------



## Remius (14 Aug 2020)

Thanks Blackadder.

So a few things.

If he took a total of 91 days last year that doesn’t even amount to the total amount of weekends people get in a year.  

Also his itinerary is published unlike previous PMs who refused to do so.  Or the current opposition members.  

Now, I agree he should not be ducking out of question period but I’ve seen people here laugh at question period and it being a waste of time but now it’s a sacred cow. 

I think it is important that he be there.  He should be in question period and should be held accountable.

 But I won’t begrudge him him time off.  Now if he’s taking it to avoid difficult questions then yeah, but the total amount of time off does not seem that much when you look at it a bit closer.

Just the opposition twisting the numbers to make it look like he’s taking too many days off.


----------



## brihard (14 Aug 2020)

Realistically, any MP is never really ‘off the clock’, and outside of Parliamentary sittings there are Committee meetings, constituency meetings, work on legislation... It gets massively worse if sitting in cabinet and carrying a portfolio. They don’t get to leave work at work, they don’t clock out at the end of the day. Take it to the level of PM, and you’re looking at probably a ton of time reading and approving stuff that must be approved at your level; receiving briefings on domestic and international matters of concern; discussing pressing issues with appropriate cabinet ministers/senior civil servants, and potentially all of cabinet. There are caucus issues, there are still constituency matters to address, and at any point a new fire can spring up to distract. In this day and age much of this work can be and is done remotely.

So yeah, I don’t put much stock in who spends how many days where. I certainly don’t lend much weight to attendance in Question Period; it’s nothing more than a big gong show of the opposition seeking sound bytes. The real work is done in committee and to a lesser extent legislative debates. QP has long struck me as being an _electoral_ game much more than a governmental or legislative one.

And yes, this applies regardless of who is in power of who was in opposition. QP is a stupid circus with the LPC in power and it was a stupid circus when the CPC were in power.


----------



## Jarnhamar (14 Aug 2020)

[quote author=Remius]
Now, I agree he should not be ducking out of question period but I’ve seen people here laugh at question period and it being a waste of time but now it’s a sacred cow. 
[/quote]

The Question Period is truly pathetic. 

What's even worse is that it's really the only venue for Canadians to see _some_ form of accountability asked of the government. And we know how the answers to that go.

Maybe our country would be a better place if we ditched the question period and made an answer period where politicians had to actually answer the question with a legitimate and relevant answers or face administrative or disciplinary action against them.


----------



## Donald H (14 Aug 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> .
> 
> Maybe our country would be a better place if we ditched the question period and made an answer period where politicians had to actually answer the question with a legitimate and relevant answers or face administrative or disciplinary action against them.



Ideally that would be just great! But there's nobody who could be an impartial judge on whether or not a P.M. (for instance) actually gave a legitimate answer.

So for either Scheer or Trudeau, has there ever been an instance where either of them could be legitimately accused of not answering a question appropriately?

Nope! That's just politics. Someone's choice in the P.M. to support will determine for them that their P.M. has answered in a most pleasant and pleasing way!


----------



## shawn5o (14 Aug 2020)

I don't care for JT, however, the PM is overloaded.

Dealing with China (four CDNs incarcerated with two condemned to death, trade etc.) and dealing with an erratic president south of the border, the scandals, government debt, the Covid19 virus, systematic racism, the opposition, and everyday CDNs who just don't like him, world problems, etc.

I feel sympathy for the PM.


----------



## Good2Golf (14 Aug 2020)

shawn5o said:
			
		

> I don't care for JT, however, the PM is overloaded.
> 
> Dealing with China (four CDNs incarcerated with two condemned to death, trade etc.) and dealing with an erratic president south of the border, the scandals, government debt, the Covid19 virus, systematic racism, the opposition, and everyday CDNs who just don't like him, world problems, etc.
> 
> I feel sympathy for the PM.



For someone who had not an inkling of the stress life as a PM could be, I might agree. 

However...

Justin Trudeau spent 7 + 4 = 11 years in 24 Sussex, but I’ll even give him a waiver for his first seven years...so let’s call it four years of seeing what a PM’s home life is like from firsthand experience. 

He went into politics with eyes wide open, and I will go out on a limb and posit that he saw himself as the PM one day. 

He doesn’t need anyone’s sympathy, and he certainly does not have mine. 

Regards
G2G


----------



## Weinie (14 Aug 2020)

shawn5o said:
			
		

> I don't care for JT, however, the PM is overloaded.
> 
> Dealing with China (four CDNs incarcerated with two condemned to death, trade etc.) and dealing with an erratic president south of the border, the scandals, government debt, the Covid19 virus, systematic racism, the opposition, and everyday CDNs who just don't like him, world problems, etc.
> 
> I feel sympathy for the PM.



He can always quit.


----------



## Remius (14 Aug 2020)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> For someone who had not an inkling of the stress life as a PM could be, I might agree.
> 
> However...
> 
> ...



Same here.  But like I said.  I don’t begrudge him his time off.


----------



## Stoker (14 Aug 2020)

Remius said:
			
		

> Same here.  But like I said.  I don’t begrudge him his time off.



The PM is entitled to days off however the issue for some is these days seem to follow negative stories where he would be put in the hot seat or some other time such as the limited sitting in parliament. Seems to fit a pattern of avoidance in some cases


----------



## YZT580 (14 Aug 2020)

there are only what, 4 scheduled times all summer when parliament meets.  Surely he could have arranged his days at the cottage around parliament's schedule considering that parliament is our with the emphasis on our as the Canadian people's voice in how we are governed.  He is not just avoiding question period he is insulting every Canadian by saying our voice is irrelevant and of no importance in his decision making.


----------



## Haggis (14 Aug 2020)

shawn5o said:
			
		

> I don't care for JT, however, the PM is overloaded.
> 
> Dealing with China (four CDNs incarcerated with two condemned to death, trade etc.) and dealing with an erratic president south of the border, the scandals, government debt, the Covid19 virus, systematic racism, the opposition, and everyday CDNs who just don't like him, world problems, etc.
> 
> I feel sympathy for the PM.



Sorry, no sympathy from me.

He knew in advance what it meant to be PM from his dad and a lifetime in the political sphere.

The scandals are of his own making.

We were almost $30B in debt before COVID and his budget was not going to balance itself.  COVID was unforeseen and required a response from government, any government, not just his Liberal one.

The opposition is doing it's job in challenging him and his policies.  Had he been in opposition, he would do the same.  Nothing unique about that.

He is not a lone figure.  He has the whole of government at his disposal to deal with the aforementioned job challenges and advise him on the best COAs.  (Whether he accepts those COAs is on him entirely.)  He is the face of the government .  He is not the government.

He likely cares little to naught about those Canadians who don't like him.  He cares deeply about those who do and who will fuel his re-election. He answers to no one, as he rarely gives a straight, complete and fulsome answer to any question from anyone.

He is well compensated for what (little?) he does.  He has lived a life of privilege and luxury most Canadians cannot even begin to imagine.  

Nope, no sympathy here.


----------



## OldSolduer (14 Aug 2020)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> For someone who had not an inkling of the stress life as a PM could be, I might agree.
> 
> However...
> 
> ...



To add he has Ministers and DMs to handle their various departments. 

Just to add some advice from the many mentors I've had over the years - "you can delegate authority but you can't delegate responsibility"


----------



## daftandbarmy (16 Aug 2020)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> For someone who had not an inkling of the stress life as a PM could be, I might agree.
> 
> However...
> 
> ...



Prophetic, indeed, Tricky Dicky 

"Richard Nixon made a toast to me as a future Prime Minister of Canada when I was 4 months old, sitting as a centerpiece in the middle of a table as my father had plonked me down there. It was more about politeness than any great vision."

Justin Trudeau


----------



## dapaterson (17 Aug 2020)

Morneau resigning as minister of finance, leaving his seat, and running to become head of the OECD.


----------



## Remius (17 Aug 2020)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Morneau resigning as minister of finance, leaving his seat, and running to become head of the OECD.



Good turn of events.

https://ipolitics.ca/2020/08/17/bill-morneau-resigns-as-finance-minister/


----------



## Jarnhamar (17 Aug 2020)

Remius said:
			
		

> Good turn of events.
> 
> https://ipolitics.ca/2020/08/17/bill-morneau-resigns-as-finance-minister/



If not a little overdue.

https://ipolitics.ca/2017/11/27/poilievre-alleges-morneau-sold-10-million-shares-tabling-fiscal-measure/


----------



## suffolkowner (17 Aug 2020)

God help us if Morneau has been the only one standing in the way of the Liberals spending ways. It's hard to believe that Mark Carney would be supportive of that model either


----------



## SeaKingTacco (17 Aug 2020)

So what if it turns out that he was the only adult in cabinet? Then what?


----------



## NavyShooter (17 Aug 2020)

Then we hope that the Cons select a leader who can beat him on the 23rd, and that the Bloc actually stands up and raises a vote of non-confidence in Parliament in the fall...then maybe some adults will take over and pickup the pieces.


----------



## shawn5o (17 Aug 2020)

To me, it looks like another one kicked to the curb.

If JT had principals, he would resign as PM.


----------



## ModlrMike (17 Aug 2020)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> So what if it turns out that he was the only adult in cabinet? Then what?



Then the taps remain open to ensure NDP support.


----------



## shawn5o (17 Aug 2020)

Another one bites the dust
Another one bites the dust
And another one gone, and another one gone
Another one bites the dust
Hey, I'm gonna get you, too
Another one bites the dust


I have to admire Liberal Party discipline


----------



## Haggis (17 Aug 2020)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Then the taps remain open to ensure NDP support.


The Bloc and CPC lack the numbers to bring down the Liberals in a vote of no confidence if the NDP prop them up. However, if enough disgruntled Liberals skip such a vote, the government may fall.  Unfortunately the only party financially able to campaign effectively right now is the Liberal Party.


----------



## suffolkowner (17 Aug 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> The Bloc and CPC lack the numbers to bring down the Liberals in a vote of no confidence if the NDP prop them up. However, if enough disgruntled Liberals skip such a vote, the government may fall.  Unfortunately the only party financially able to campaign effectively right now is the Liberal Party.



Are the Conservatives short on money?


----------



## Haggis (17 Aug 2020)

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> Are the Conservatives short on money?


They were quite depleted after the last election and are just winding up a leadership campaign where the candidates have been fundraising from CPC supporters instead of the party.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (17 Aug 2020)

The CPC is doing better than the other parties, Scheer hurt their fundraising. With a no leader as of the 24th and many new members they should be able to raise enough funds, certainly enough to go toe to toe with the Liberals


----------



## Remius (17 Aug 2020)

shawn5o said:
			
		

> To me, it looks like another one kicked to the curb.
> 
> If JT had principals, he would resign as PM.



This has all the hallmarks of a staged exit.


----------



## FJAG (17 Aug 2020)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Morneau resigning as minister of finance, leaving his seat, and running to become head of the OECD.



The wrong guy left.


----------



## dapaterson (18 Aug 2020)

FJAG said:
			
		

> The wrong guy left.



Yes, he was the wrong guy for  the left  :nod:


----------



## brihard (18 Aug 2020)

You guys are celebrating a bit early.

Ok, Morneau’s gone. Note that of the whole cabinet he had by far the most real- world business experience. He’s the sort of self-made millionaire the Conservatives tend to court and drool over. He knows economics. He was also helping to restrain some of the more fiscally profligate urges in the LPC. Now he will not longer be there to curb spending to any extent.

Meanwhile the NDP are broke. They can’t afford an election. The power they wield is being able to single handedly prop up the LPC minority government. The LPC need only keep them on side, and they don’t have to worry what the CPC or Bloc do or say. They can still command a majority of votes.

And how are they likely to court that support from the NDP? Further spending on social programs. The sort of stuff that Morneau was probably the most credible and capable person in cabinet to keep a lid on.

So, by all means cheer on his departure. But the current government likely isn’t going anywhere any time soon. Not a chance Trudeau will resign; he doesn’t have to. Sure, Morneau’s gone, but this may be a case of be careful what you wish for...


----------



## FJAG (18 Aug 2020)

Brihard said:
			
		

> You guys are celebrating a bit early.
> ...



Not celebrating. I said the wrong guy left. I mean that sincerely. It's the other guy who should have gone.

 :cdnsalute:


----------



## Cloud Cover (18 Aug 2020)

What, exactly, is wrong with spending on social programs? 
 In my view overtaxing to support social programs is the issue. Making sure everybody pays their fair share is an issue. Making sure there is no wastage or fraudulent use of the programs are issues.  But I personally have no issue with social program spending. Perhaps it’s that we don’t trust government to manage social programs, even excellent social programs, wisely with a view to helping up?  Was Bill Morneau going to do something about that?


----------



## Haggis (18 Aug 2020)

Remius said:
			
		

> This has all the hallmarks of a staged exit.



Indeed it does.  "Anonymous sources" and "those close to the discussions" have been shaping the battlespace for the past few days.


----------



## Jarnhamar (18 Aug 2020)

Morneau is a sacrificial lamb its just that in this case he also deserved it.


----------



## Remius (18 Aug 2020)

Brihard said:
			
		

> You guys are celebrating a bit early.
> 
> Ok, Morneau’s gone. Note that of the whole cabinet he had by far the most real- world business experience. He’s the sort of self-made millionaire the Conservatives tend to court and drool over. He knows economics. He was also helping to restrain some of the more fiscally profligate urges in the LPC. Now he will not longer be there to curb spending to any extent.
> 
> ...



You and I generally agree politically.  I’m not sure Morneau was some sort of gatekeeper though.  For whatever they are worth and when they are required, this government has never been afraid of spending or deficits.  And morneau has been there since day one with that program.  Maybe there was a fallout but I am still of the opinion that this was a staged exit allowing him to leave with dignity more or less and he’s moving to a position I am sure the PM will support.   He became a liability though with this latest scandal making very hard for him to be at the forefront of any recovery or spending.  Everything he would touch would be under scrutiny and likely any link however tenuous would be used against him.  

I don’t think he was fired.  But I don’t know how he could stay on either without causing more damage.

I agree though, Trudeau isn’t going anywhere and the liberals don’t have a lot of viable and as qualified people to fill that portfolio in their current lineup.  So in the grand scheme of things I’m not sure that this a better situation for Canadians.  (But with Morneau giving up his seat, a quick by election with some talent brought in might fill that gap, hint hint, Carney)


----------



## shawn5o (18 Aug 2020)

Here's Maclean's take on FM Morneau


Bill Morneau, melting away

Paul Wells: The PM is permitting his finance minister—the supposed incarnation of his government's fiscal credibility—to be set up. It does not bode well.

By Paul WellsAugust 17, 2020
https://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/bill-morneau-melting-away/

[UPDATE, 7:55 p.m.: This column, written before Bill Morneau announced his resignation, stands up after with no need for amendment. I’ll simply add two observations based on his remarks at his news conference. 

First, Morneau has always believed he could offer talking points in place of answers, and that unshakeable belief continues. He just got fired. It is pathetic to pretend otherwise. Pathetic.

Second, he will be a candidate to be secretary-general of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. Like so much else about this fiasco, this fits a pattern. Justin Trudeau is getting into the habit of peddling his problems to the world. He campaigned for a second mandate for Michaëlle Jean as head of La francophonie, after her spending habits made her candidacy untenable. And he improvised an unacceptable double diplomatic appointment for Stéphane Dion when he got tired of hearing Dion at the cabinet table, forcing France to threaten to veto an EU ambassadorship for the first time in the history of the union.

Laundering his problems on the world stage is getting to be a thing Justin Trudeau does. Eventually the world will notice. Maybe it already has. – pw]

 The lesson from Bill Morneau for all remaining Trudeau cabinet ministers is this: you cannot make yourself small enough to be safe. No amount of self-effacement will ensure you stay on as a minister of the crown. If you commit ethical lapses too reminiscent of the Prime Minister’s, any disagreement, even if you expressed them in private, will be used against you in an extended campaign of leaks.

Here’s the suite of stories people who claim to be speaking on Trudeau’s behalf have deployed against Morneau in the past week. Globe, Monday: Morneau “could be replaced.” Bloomberg, Saturday: Morneau’s “too orthodox.” Reuters, Sunday: he “pushed back against other cabinet ministers.” Clearly he’s got to go.

But it’s a funny thing. Add up the articles of indictment nameless PMO sources have read out to a succession of reporters and you find a list of purported differences that were (a) entirely resolved in Trudeau’s favour at Morneau’s expense (and the taxpayer’s, if anyone still notices such things); (b) entirely private—until the Trudeau camp decided to exhume them for reporters’ delectation.

The Globe story says the PM wants a two-year EI premium freeze in the transition from a Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) to a retooled EI. Morneau, we’re told, wants only a one-year freeze. That’s the first anyone’s heard about the purported dispute. Morneau’s kept shtum about it. On past disputes, we learn Morneau wanted to keep the original post-lockdown 10 per cent wage subsidy and Trudeau wanted to increase it to 75 per cent. Trudeau won that dispute, which was never reported at the time. We learn that Trudeau told Morneau to drop a dumb plan that would have permitted the minister to tax and spend on fiat, without parliamentary approval, through 2021. Frankly I have a hard time believing the plan was Morneau’s idea, but whatever: he dropped it as (purportedly) ordered, never complained. Trudeau won again.

The Bloomberg story repeats some of those claims and adds a new one, that Morneau wanted the CERB to be smaller than $2,000. If that’s true, Morneau lost that one too and has never complained.

Caucus members and cabinet ministers are told, not only in the Liberal party but in every Canadian party and to an extent no parliamentarian in other large countries would ever accept, that they mustn’t air their dirty laundry in public. For the last decade or so, in fact, they have been strongly discouraged from appearing to have independent personalities, social-media personae, social circles or fashion sense. Morneau has followed this advice scrupulously. Fat lot of good it’s done him. He’s spent three days in the last seven reading about his dirty laundry in the papers.

More at link above


----------



## OldSolduer (18 Aug 2020)

Justin is going to need a new bus as the undercarriage of this one is getting clogged up. 

 :2c:


----------



## Haggis (18 Aug 2020)

Remius said:
			
		

> (But with Morneau giving up his seat, a quick by election with some talent brought in might fill that gap, hint hint, Carney)



Unless the Liberals lose that by-election.


----------



## Remius (18 Aug 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Unless the Liberals lose that by-election.



In Toronto?


Toronto Centre hasn’t been conservative since 1993....


----------



## dangerboy (18 Aug 2020)

A new finance minister has been selected https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-cabinet-finance-minister-1.5690404.

How many different jobs does she now hold in the government?


----------



## shawn5o (18 Aug 2020)

Spencer Fernando writes that the liberal government will be prorogued


Liberals To Prorogue Parliament Until OCTOBER

SPENCERFERNANDO AUGUST 18, 2020

The governor general will be asked by Justin Trudeau to prorogue Parliament until October.

It is almost certain that she will agree to the request.

This means Trudeau – engulfed in scandal and with his poll numbers dropping – will be shutting Parliament down for months in an effort to avoid accountability for his actions.
The Liberals are hoping that with Bill Morneau gone and Chrystia Freeland set to replace him, they will be able to hit the ‘reset button’ and move on.

More at
https://spencerfernando.com/2020/08/18/liberals-to-prorogue-parliament-until-october/


----------



## Donald H (18 Aug 2020)

CloudCover said:
			
		

> What, exactly, is wrong with spending on social programs?



Nothing! But the rightist mindset refers to it as stealing and spending other people's money. 



> But I personally have no issue with social program spending. Perhaps it’s that we don’t trust government to manage social programs, even excellent social programs, wisely with a view to helping up?



And also perhaps, it's more that the Conservatives don't believe in social spending. Canadians should be watching intently what is happening south of the border for an indication of what we could become.


----------



## Remius (18 Aug 2020)

shawn5o said:
			
		

> Spencer Fernando writes that the liberal government will be prorogued
> 
> 
> Liberals To Prorogue Parliament Until OCTOBER
> ...



CBC. Reporting the same thing.

Will be interesting to see all those that defended and were in the Harper gvt when they did the same thing will have to say about this.


----------



## Remius (18 Aug 2020)

dangerboy said:
			
		

> A new finance minister has been selected https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-cabinet-finance-minister-1.5690404.
> 
> How many different jobs does she now hold in the government?



All of them.  She’s the real PM at the end of the day 😂


----------



## shawn5o (18 Aug 2020)

> Chrystia Freeland will become Canada's new finance minister, the first woman to take on the powerful role, CBC News has confirmed.




National Citizens Coalition has this to say, especially about FM Freeland.


Unserious Leaders in a Serious Time

National Citizens Coalition

It's no secret as to what transpired yesterday in Ottawa. Bill Morneau threw himself under the bus before Trudeau could back over him, and we all saw it was coming. That sudden "rift" between the two? All of the sudden it was in every Liberal-friendly paper, and appearing in op-eds across the country. The PMO spin was in -- and it was obvious to just about everyone that Katie Telford was hard at work behind the scenes.

So it's no surprise that Bill Morneau didn't survive the week. Trudeau has punted cabinet ministers for far less -- like, for having ethics, for example. But it is a bit of a surprise to see so many believe the competing spin-jobs from the PMO and team Morneau that some irreparable philosophical difference had developed between the trust-fund twosome, seemingly out of nowhere.

Morneau, up until his very resignation, remained forever loyal, and forever a "useful idiot" to an unserious PM who never had any interest in balancing the budget, and who lacks the ability to address adult matters with his head instead of his heart.

Bill Morneau labelled ordinary hard working Canadians who didn't inherit their wealth as "tax cheats", while failing to disclose his French chateau. Bill Morneau accepted lavish favours from the WE 'Charity', and only remembered to pay them back when he was caught. Bill Morneau was the most fiscally irresponsible finance minister in Canadian history.

This loss is no loss at all.

But what comes next might be worse.

With reports now confirming that Chrystia Freeland of all people will now be taking over the reigns of finance minister, we have another unserious act from a sitting minority prime minister at an incredibly serious time -- and one that only serves to further highlight the weakness of Trudeau's cabinet.

Of course the Liberal government couldn't leave such a post vacant at such a critical time of economic recovery, but now, we've left a former journalist in charge of the nation's finance, a position that is completely incongruous to her career experiences.

In an effort to turn a negative into a positive, the spin will be in high gear, with friendly pundits carrying water for a struggling party desperate to change the channel. But make no mistake: Justin Trudeau just appointed what appears to be the least qualified finance minister in history, at a time when the finances of millions of Canadians are on the brink.

The wrong person resigned last night, and for the same sins as his boss. And now, once again, Trudeau gets to skate free and use Chrystia Freeland has cover.

These are unserious leaders, in a serious time.

** No link as it was sent to me by email


----------



## PuckChaser (18 Aug 2020)

Donald H said:
			
		

> And also perhaps, it's more that the Conservatives don't believe in social spending. Canadians should be watching intently what is happening south of the border for an indication of what we could become.



You're right, as politicians push into hard left woke identity politics where its a race to the bottom to be the most offended/oppressed individual then the majority will vote for literally anyone who's not doing it.

You're also using a vast generalization for Conservatives. The majority of small "c" conservatives don't mind social spending, they just don't believe in the runaway train of the government paying for everything in your life. The problem with socialism is that you will eventually run out of other people's money, take a look at New York City's exodus of "the 1%" who actually are about 50% of their tax base.


----------



## Haggis (18 Aug 2020)

Remius said:
			
		

> In Toronto?
> 
> 
> Toronto Centre hasn’t been conservative since 1993....


Who'd have thought a part-time drama teacher/snowboard instructor could be our PM or that a reality TV star would be POTUS?  Nothing is impossible in politics these days.  And it's still 2020.


----------



## Donald H (18 Aug 2020)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> You're right, as politicians push into hard left woke identity politics where its a race to the bottom to be the most offended/oppressed individual then the majority will vote for literally anyone who's not doing it.
> 
> You're also using a vast generalization for Conservatives. The majority of small "c" conservatives don't mind social spending, they just don't believe in the runaway train of the government paying for everything in your life. The problem with socialism is that you will eventually run out of other people's money, take a look at New York City's exodus of "the 1%" who actually are about 50% of their tax base.



You make a great point with N.Y.'s 1%! 

And so now we get down to discussing the finer points. Canada's government must make sure that they leave no safe place for the 1% to go. Not to the Bahamas as is the case in the US to a large extent. And not to the Bahamas or Alberta as is the case in Canada.



> The problem with socialism is that you will eventually run out of other people's money,...........



That's pretty close to what I said and am thinking. 

As Canadians we tend to seek out a balance as the pendulum swings between the Liberals and Conservatives, so far. That balance has been lost in the US and the people are paying a heavy price, yet they continue to wave their flag because they've been told they are doing well. They're not, they've fallen to 17th. on quality of life and are out of the running for the top ten capitalist countries of the world.

The point is, we must not let the Conservatives take Canada down too.


----------



## PuckChaser (18 Aug 2020)

Donald H said:
			
		

> You make a great point with N.Y.'s 1%!
> 
> And so now we get down to discussing the finer points. Canada's government must make sure that they leave no safe place for the 1% to go. Not to the Bahamas as is the case in the US to a large extent. And not to the Bahamas or Alberta as is the case in Canada.



What you propose is dangerous. California is looking at retroactively taxing former residents back to January an increased state tax on the upper 1% At a certain point, those individuals will just gain citizenship in another country and renounce their Canadian one to get away from whatever draconian cash grabs you can figure out. Whats next, midnight raids into private residences to check mattresses of people hiding money?



			
				Donald H said:
			
		

> As Canadians we tend to seek out a balance as the pendulum swings between the Liberals and Conservatives, so far. That balance has been lost in the US and the people are paying a heavy price, yet they continue to wave their flag because they've been told they are doing well. They're not, they've fallen to 17th. on quality of life and are out of the running for the top ten capitalist countries of the world.
> 
> The point is, we must not let the Conservatives take Canada down too.



You clearly have a problem understanding how different on the political spectrum Canada is from the United States. By nature of our acceptance of socialized medicine, the CPC would be considered a center-left party in the United States. The Liberal/NDP parties are no where as far left as a growing group of key Democrats. You're comparing apples to oranges.

The CPC will lead Canada again, much like it did before. The sky didn't fall, abortions and gay marriage weren't outlawed overnight and no one was forced to go to church. The only ones currently taking Canada down is the Liberal party; down into a septic tank of national debt that we may never escape.


----------



## Donald H (18 Aug 2020)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> You clearly have a problem understanding how different on the political spectrum Canada is from the United States. By nature of our acceptance of socialized medicine, the CPC would be considered a center-left party in the United States.



Yes, I agree and have said just that in some previous post I believe. All political parties in the US are to the right of Canada and the other leading capitalist countries of the world. 



> The Liberal/NDP parties are no where as far left as a growing group of key Democrats. You're comparing apples to oranges.



That's an interesting point but I'll need some convincing with some evidence. I see nothing that is happening in the US at the present as being left of Canada. I only see the failure of a movement spearheaded by Bernie Sanders and that movement would have barely caught them up with Canada. Then I saw the Dem party establishment hijack that movement to nominate Biden, the establishment's choice. So now they've left themselves with Biden <deleted>, who could be the very worst choice to beat Trump.

I'll assume you are referring to the Antifa movement as the hard left rising in the US. But whoever, what are you proposing to be left of Canada?



> The CPC will lead Canada again, much like it did before. The sky didn't fall, abortions and gay marriage weren't outlawed overnight and no one was forced to go to church.



Yes, I agree that the pendulum will once again swing to the right.



> The only ones currently taking Canada down is the Liberal party; down into a septic tank of national debt that we may never escape.



_- Staff edit to comply with polictical forums posting guidelines_


----------



## ModlrMike (18 Aug 2020)

Donald H said:
			
		

> Canada's government must make sure that they leave no safe place for the 1% to go. Not to the Bahamas as is the case in the US to a large extent. And not to the Bahamas or Alberta as is the case in Canada.



Section 6 of the Constitution might have something to say about that:

6. (1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and *leave* Canada.

(2) Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada has the right

    a) *to move to and take up residence in any province*


----------



## shawn5o (18 Aug 2020)

Donald H said:
			
		

> The point is, we must not let the Conservatives take Canada down too.



Too late Don

The Liberal government already did that.


----------



## Brad Sallows (18 Aug 2020)

Progressives are the most conservative people I know.  They press a point, returning to it at intervals - another debate, another referendum, another piece of legislation -  until they win it and then they come over all conservative: the debate is over, we had the vote, the question is settled, etc.


----------



## FJAG (18 Aug 2020)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Progressives are the most conservative people I know.  They press a point, returning to it at intervals - another debate, another referendum, another piece of legislation -  until they win it and then they come over all conservative: the debate is over, we had the vote, the question is settled, etc.



True that. Conservatives favour a status quo and social or financial stability. Reactionaries favour going back to the way things used to be. At any given time in a generally progressive society (which most western societies tend to be), the progressives either become conservatives or look for new mountains to conquer.

 :cheers:


----------



## Donald H (18 Aug 2020)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Section 6 of the Constitution might have something to say about that:
> 
> 6. (1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and *leave* Canada.
> 
> ...



Yes of course and we don't want to change that ever. 
But I was talking about a 'safe place' where the 1% can go so they can keep all their money away from 'other people'. As in the 1% in N.Y. can go to Texas or the Bahamas, and so on.

The US is a more favourable business climate for the very wealthy and so the emphasis of the Conservatives is to make Canada just as favourable. So what's wrong with that? 
I have some ideas but I won't get into this any deeper unless some people ask for a deeper discussion. It's not popular enough right now.


----------



## ModlrMike (18 Aug 2020)

Donald H said:
			
		

> But I was talking about a 'safe place' where the 1% can go so they can keep all their money away from 'other people'. As in the 1% in N.Y. can go to Texas or the Bahamas, and so on.



Which still doesn't answer the questions, what and how?


----------



## Stoker (18 Aug 2020)

So the PM has decided to eliminate the sparse sittings of Parliament even more by proroguing during a pandemic with their spending as bad a drunken sailor in a whorehouse. Guess the five days off at the Cottage wasn't enough. Just gets better and better with this PM.  :facepalm:


----------



## OldSolduer (18 Aug 2020)

Donald H said:
			
		

> Nothing! But the rightist mindset refers to it as stealing and spending other people's money.
> 
> And also perhaps, it's more that the Conservatives don't believe in social spending. Canadians should be watching intently what is happening south of the border for an indication of what we could become.



Social programs are fine - as long as they are geared in "needs" and not "wants" and "entitlements".

You're generalizing all conservatives I see.


----------



## Brad Sallows (18 Aug 2020)

Prorogue is just a tool in the box.  Voters will eventually be able to express their opinion regarding its use.


----------



## Halifax Tar (18 Aug 2020)

Donald H said:
			
		

> Yes of course and we don't want to change that ever.
> But I was talking about a 'safe place' where the 1% can go so they can keep all their money away from 'other people'. As in the 1% in N.Y. can go to Texas or the Bahamas, and so on.



What is so wrong with people wanting to keep the money they earn ?

How is one person entitled to anothers earnings ?


----------



## ModlrMike (18 Aug 2020)

To quote from the Liberals 2015 campaign platform



> We will not resort to legislative tricks to avoid scrutiny.
> Steven Harper has used prorogation to avoid difficult political circumstances.
> We will not.


----------



## Weinie (18 Aug 2020)

To quote from a 40 year-old book:

That was then, this is now."


----------



## brihard (18 Aug 2020)

I’m simply assuming at this point that the deal with NDP is already made to ensure the government survives the throne speech vote.


----------



## PuckChaser (18 Aug 2020)

Brihard said:
			
		

> I’m simply assuming at this point that the deal with NDP is already made to ensure the government survives the throne speech vote.


I can't imagine what that'll cost us, not enough zeros exist for that level of debt...


----------



## suffolkowner (18 Aug 2020)

Brihard said:
			
		

> I’m simply assuming at this point that the deal with NDP is already made to ensure the government survives the throne speech vote.



Probably true. It's amazing that so many of the politicians have no problem telling people to go back to work all the while avoiding it themselves.
I'm not going to get upset about Morneau's leaving, his time was obviously up but time will tell how much extra room it has bought the PM to manouver


----------



## Kilted (18 Aug 2020)

I made a joke about having the election the same time as the States about a week ago.  With this timeline, it would be pretty close.


----------



## brihard (18 Aug 2020)

Kilted said:
			
		

> I made a joke about having the election the same time as the States about a week ago.  With this timeline, it would be pretty close.



What would be in it for the NDP?


----------



## Good2Golf (18 Aug 2020)

Brihard said:
			
		

> What would be in it for the NDP?



A sole-sourced multi-million dollar contract for provision of peer ethics counseling?


----------



## Remius (18 Aug 2020)

Brihard said:
			
		

> What would be in it for the NDP?



Exactly.  Not going to happen.  the NDP is broke, the leader is fairly weak and the NDP probably get more of what they want with a liberal minority.


----------



## OldSolduer (18 Aug 2020)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> A sole-sourced multi-million dollar contract for provision of peer ethics counseling?


Never have I seen such flagrant breaches if ethics and it seems no consequences.


----------



## brihard (18 Aug 2020)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Never have I seen such flagrant breaches if ethics and it seems no consequences.



The consequences are electoral. However the minority government dynamic play out, at most they run four years then we’re back to the polls. That’s the ultimate and final accountability in our system. Make you you direct some energy to holding the opposition accountable and making clear your expectation that they offer a viable, electable alternative, and not mere pandering to an overly concentrated base.


----------



## Jarnhamar (18 Aug 2020)

Brihard said:
			
		

> The consequences are electoral.



Not to be cliche but we need to _do better_ than that.

Shady backroom deals, conflicts of interest, ethical breaches, billions of tax payer dollars up in smoke and the only consequences is maybe they don't get re-elected. They'll hardly be out of work, their friends are going to take good care of them.

Our government is a big episode of Survivor.


----------



## blacktriangle (18 Aug 2020)

Anybody have any insight on how PM Trudeau intends to make Canada a more fair and equitable country? 

Perhaps he will start by auctioning his vintage Mercedes?

"No one in the society should be entitled to superfluous or luxury goods until the essentials of life are made available to everyone"

-Pierre Trudeau


----------



## Brad Sallows (19 Aug 2020)

If the NDP helps the LPC survive confidence votes, then the NDP will be blamed/credited by voters.   Ordinarily it would be unwise to stand on-side with scandal, but I suppose they may be calculating that Canadians do not want a mid-pandemic election and are mostly satisfied with the government's reaction to the pandemic.


----------



## Haggis (19 Aug 2020)

Remius said:
			
		

> Exactly.  Not going to happen.  the NDP is broke, the leader is fairly weak and the NDP probably get more of what they want with a liberal minority.



Knowing the NDP are incapable of mounting a serious challenge, the timing of the next election may depend, in part, on the outcome of the CPC leadership race on the 24th.  If the CPC pick a leader who is not sitting in the house as a member (MacKay/Lewis) or is regarded as unelectable/unpalatable as a PM, then Trudeau may roll the dice and drop the writ early in hopes of getting at least a slim majority out of this.  With Parliament prorogued, dropping the writ dissolves it permanently.  The PM won't have to answer any more questions in the house - not that he ever did - for many months.


----------



## OldSolduer (19 Aug 2020)

reverse_engineer said:
			
		

> Anybody have any insight on how PM Trudeau intends to make Canada a more fair and equitable country?
> 
> Perhaps he will start by auctioning his vintage Mercedes?
> 
> ...



Auctioning it? Absolutely not!!

He should donate it to the people of Canada, have it scrapped and made into useful things like KFS sets.


----------



## ModlrMike (19 Aug 2020)

I wager the price for the NDP will be converting CERB to something akin to universal basic income.


----------



## shawn5o (19 Aug 2020)

Brihard said:
			
		

> The consequences are electoral. However the minority government dynamic play out, at most they run four years then we’re back to the polls. That’s the ultimate and final accountability in our system. Make you you direct some energy to holding the opposition accountable and making clear your expectation that they offer a viable, electable alternative, _and not mere pandering to an overly concentrated base_.



That might be hard as (I think) the social conservatives have a large base.



			
				Weinie said:
			
		

> To quote from a 40 year-old book:
> 
> That was then, this is now."



And history repeats itself.


----------



## shawn5o (19 Aug 2020)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I can't imagine what that'll cost us, not enough zeros exist for that level of debt...



_The restart of our economy needs to be green_: Freeland on de-carbonization of Canadian economy

It seems a lot of zeros are coming our way.


----------



## Donald H (19 Aug 2020)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> I wager the price for the NDP will be converting CERB to something akin to universal basic income.



I would wager that the days of 'universal basic income' aren't far off. Automation is leaving millions unemployed and dependent on the welfare state. America's system of greedy capitalism has immersed that country fully into the problem ahead of the world's other capitalist countries that practice 'socially' responsible capitalism.

So which Canadian political party will go there first? Your wager is likely correct for an answer.


----------



## MilEME09 (19 Aug 2020)

shawn5o said:
			
		

> _The restart of our economy needs to be green_: Freeland on de-carbonization of Canadian economy
> 
> It seems a lot of zeros are coming our way.



The eternal ballet of endless debt


----------



## blacktriangle (19 Aug 2020)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Auctioning it? Absolutely not!!
> 
> He should donate it to the people of Canada, have it scrapped and made into useful things like KFS sets.



You're right, at least the KFS will be practical as we may well be eating at communal chow halls by the end of the decade...

I wonder how fuel efficient a 1960 Mercedes 300SL is...I'm willing to bet it's not exactly running a "green" engine. 

I suppose rules only apply to those who are ruled, not those who rule. But I guess that's nothing new.


----------



## Kat Stevens (19 Aug 2020)

All animals Canadians are equal, but some are more equal than others.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (19 Aug 2020)

Target Up said:
			
		

> Allanimals Canadians are equal, but some are more equal than others.



ff topic:

Kind of funny you should mention that: George Orwell's Animal Farm was published 75 years ago on 17 August 1945. 

Now back to regular programming.


----------



## Haggis (19 Aug 2020)

The former VCDS, VAdm (retd) Norman, has weighed in via Twitter.


----------



## shawn5o (19 Aug 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> The former VCDS, VAdm (retd) Norman, has weighed in via Twitter.



Thanks Haggis

That was one hell of a statement. It was great.


----------



## dapaterson (19 Aug 2020)

Funny, based on current behaviours, I had the impression that the PM likes The Sound of Silence.

https://twitter.com/JustinTrudeau/status/170312753611939840


----------



## Weinie (19 Aug 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> The former VCDS, VAdm (retd) Norman, has weighed in via Twitter.



Political aspirations/positioning............hmmmmmmmmmmmm.


----------



## Haggis (19 Aug 2020)

Weinie said:
			
		

> Political aspirations/positioning............hmmmmmmmmmmmm.



There will soon be a by-election in Toronto Centre.


----------



## Good2Golf (19 Aug 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> There will soon be a by-election in Toronto Centre.



That would be classic.


----------



## MilEME09 (19 Aug 2020)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> That would be classic.


If he ran as a conservative, that would be priceless, would potentially make a good MND too.


----------



## Ostrozac (19 Aug 2020)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> If he ran as a conservative, that would be priceless, would potentially make a good MND too.



The track records of former generals that have also served as MND aren't exactly stellar. McNaughton had a conscription crisis, Pearkes had the Avro Arrow, O'Connor had detainees. Arguably, the skill sets needed to succeed in cabinet are different from those required of very senior officers. To be fair, it might also be argued that all three inherited bad situations, and were placed into them because their military background allowed them to stickhandle the mess better than anyone else available.

It could be stated that our greatest ever MND was Brooke Claxton, who managed the transitions from an almost complete post-WWII demobilzation to the force that fought in Korea and then to Canada's first ever real standing peacetime force. And Claxton wasn't a General, or an Admiral -- his military service was as a Battery Sergeant-Major.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (19 Aug 2020)

I’ve known for decades that if you something done, you first see the BSM...


----------



## Navy_Pete (19 Aug 2020)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> If he ran as a conservative, that would be priceless, would potentially make a good MND too.



If nothing else, there would be some really awkward poking about why things like records failed to turn up and similar nonsense that came up during his trial.

Personally I think he'd be a better talking head for the newspapers then a lot of the frequently quoted retired Navy folks, and I think that occasional pundit wouldn't be a bad retirement gig. Personally would prefer exclusive milspec widget supplier but that works better for my personality.


----------



## ModlrMike (19 Aug 2020)

Initially I thought that I might be too cynical... but then again, perhaps not:

Trudeau planning social welfare system overhaul, sources say

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is weighing sweeping changes to Canada’s social welfare system

Source: Global News


----------



## Ostrozac (19 Aug 2020)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is weighing sweeping changes to Canada’s social welfare system



Of course, this is largely impossible, because Canada doesn’t have a social welfare system. Canadian provinces have social welfare systems. Which makes it the best kind of political argument, as it sounds good, and when it inevitability fails to make progress it costs nothing and you can blame the provinces.


----------



## brihard (19 Aug 2020)

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> Of course, this is largely impossible, because Canada doesn’t have a social welfare system. Canadian provinces have social welfare systems. Which makes it the best kind of political argument, as it sounds good, and when it inevitability fails to make progress it costs nothing and you can blame the provinces.



The federal powers of taxation (and refundable tax credits) give them a lot to work with. Just because we typically think of ‘welfare’ as a provincial thing, the potential federal power in this sphere is considerable.


----------



## Ostrozac (20 Aug 2020)

Brihard said:
			
		

> The federal powers of taxation (and refundable tax credits) give them a lot to work with. Just because we typically think of ‘welfare’ as a provincial thing, the potential federal power in this sphere is considerable.


Federal income tax credits work great, for those that have income. Just like unemployment insurance works for those that have had employment. For those truly in need, the provinces play a central role. And the widely respected Intergovernmental Affairs Minister has just been promoted out of her job. Best of luck to the new guy, hope he’s a quick study.


----------



## ballz (20 Aug 2020)

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> Federal income tax credits work great, for those that have income. Just like unemployment insurance works for those that have had employment. For those truly in need, the provinces play a central role. And the widely respected Intergovernmental Affairs Minister has just been promoted out of her job. Best of luck to the new guy, hope he’s a quick study.



They can pull a Canada Health Act move.... create a federal transfer program and force provinces to choose between abiding by the federal standards on welfare, or not get the transfers. The money for the transfers of course, has already been taken from the province's own citizens, so the province essentially has their legs cut off and taken hostage... abide or you don't get your legs back. It's sad how poorly our constitution was written.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (20 Aug 2020)

Not quite the same.

First of all, public health care as an issue was started by provinces, one in particular: Saskatchewan. It grew from there to become a national issue over a period of about seven years. But also, health care before the National Health Act was private. The provinces had very little in terms of health departments as there was little to manage or run.

In matters of welfare, it is totally different. The various provinces already have well established programs with large departments that would not take it lightly if interfered with by the feds. So there would be very high resistance and that would add time and court challenges. Ottawa would not be able to do anything quickly - which would be the point.

Also, there would be great resistance to federal interference from Quebec and Alberta. With Doug Ford in Ontario, it would likely also join in. Without these three provinces onboard, there is little chance of success as the risk of electoral alienation would be too great.


----------



## ModlrMike (20 Aug 2020)

The other way would to be to combine all existing federal benefits into a single payment against a means tested metric.


----------



## daftandbarmy (20 Aug 2020)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> The other way would to be to combine all existing federal benefits into a single payment against a means tested metric.



My guess is that they'll try to roll out a national 'guaranteed income' benefit, and probably free tuition too because they like to think they're European. 

Mainland European, that is


----------



## Brad Sallows (20 Aug 2020)

Sounds like a move to eliminate the pests on their left by taking over two of the NDP's (and Green's) biggest planks: tax-and-redistribute, and tax-and-green.


----------



## Donald H (20 Aug 2020)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Sounds like a move to eliminate the pests on their left by taking over two of the NDP's (and Green's) biggest planks: tax-and-redistribute, and tax-and-green.



I would say 'yes' Brad, the Liberals are about to test the political climate of the country by turning more left. In this case possibly to save their bacon.
Could be Trudeau's read of US politics in that it looks a lot like Trump is done and they're getting ready to move left too.


----------



## Cloud Cover (20 Aug 2020)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> The other way would to be to combine all existing federal benefits into a single payment against a means tested metric.



Great way to disqualify a large number of people with incomes and are receiving some form of benefit. For example-child care subsidy that is means tested.

However, means tests are also a disincentive to do better, and it will create large numbers, maybe very large numbers, of even more people disinclined to work hard to make more money. Perhaps lifetime maximum benefit combining all programs except health care might be an answer. In other words, great benefits to a dollar point, and even then you must qualify. 
It’s easier to cut than to spend.


----------



## Jarnhamar (21 Aug 2020)

Greasy, as per.

*
Spouse of Trudeau’s Chief of Staff Lobbied for COVID Wage Subsidy Program Changes to Benefit His Company*
Rob Silver, Katie Telford’s husband, is not a registered lobbyist and went on a concerted campaign to get ex-finance minister Bill Morneau to change the rules to the multi-billion dollar program, sources say. 

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/935m87/spouse-of-justin-trudeaus-chief-of-staff-lobbied-for-covid-wage-subsidy-program-changes-to-benefit-his-company?utm_source=reddit.com


----------



## brihard (21 Aug 2020)

CloudCover said:
			
		

> Great way to disqualify a large number of people with incomes and are receiving some form of benefit. For example-child care subsidy that is means tested.
> 
> However, means tests are also a disincentive to do better, and it will create large numbers, maybe very large numbers, of even more people disinclined to work hard to make more money. Perhaps lifetime maximum benefit combining all programs except health care might be an answer. In other words, great benefits to a dollar point, and even then you must qualify.
> It’s easier to cut than to spend.



Alternatively, a sliding scale of clawback- definitely not dollar for dollar. Maybe allow A modest x amount earned without deduction (though all taxable), and a larger y amount reduced 50 cents on the dollar. That’s very coarse, obviously any universal income program would have to be war games in many iterations and coordinated heavily between levels of government.


----------



## suffolkowner (21 Aug 2020)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Alternatively, a sliding scale of clawback- definitely not dollar for dollar. Maybe allow A modest x amount earned without deduction (though all taxable), and a larger y amount reduced 50 cents on the dollar. That’s very coarse, obviously any universal income program would have to be war games in many iterations and coordinated heavily between levels of government.



Negative income tax-universal income scenarios could definetly get complicated but last I read some years ago there were over 170 income supplement programs in Canada, and that seems out of control(I'm assuming some duplication across provinces so maybe divide by 10 but I don't know)


----------



## Good2Golf (21 Aug 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Greasy, as per.
> 
> *
> Spouse of Trudeau’s Chief of Staff Lobbied for COVID Wage Subsidy Program Changes to Benefit His Company*
> ...



Bubbles thinks so too...


----------



## dapaterson (22 Aug 2020)

More interesting: some claim that the takedown of Morneau was run out of Telford's office, and the takedown of Silver is being done by Morneau loyalists in the party.

aka this is LPC civil war.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (22 Aug 2020)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> More interesting: some claim that the takedown of Morneau was run out of Telford's office, and the takedown of Silver is being done by Morneau loyalists in the party.
> 
> aka this is LPC civil war.



Payback is a b!tch.

The Telford PMO has been playing too clever by a half for five years. It is no surprise that they might have begun to run out of allies.


----------



## dapaterson (22 Aug 2020)

Running out of allies, or running out of people to push under the bus?


----------



## Good2Golf (22 Aug 2020)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Running out of allies, or running out of important enough people to push under the bus to keep the rest of the caucus and Neo-LPC faithful blindly supportive of Hair&Socks?



There we go. You’re welcome. :nod:


----------



## shawn5o (22 Aug 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Greasy, as per.
> 
> *Spouse of Trudeau’s Chief of Staff Lobbied for COVID Wage Subsidy Program Changes to Benefit His Company*
> Rob Silver, Katie Telford’s husband, is not a registered lobbyist and went on a concerted campaign to get ex-finance minister Bill Morneau to change the rules to the multi-billion dollar program, sources say.
> ...



More on that story from National Post


The optics are bad.



*Katie Telford's husband pressed Trudeau government to make changes to wage subsidy law to benefit his employer: sources*
_In his dealings with Morneau’s office, Robert Silver went so far as to suggest a specific wording for the legislative change he was seeking, one source said_

Christopher Nardi  •  Aug 21, 2020  •  Last Updated 15 hours ago

https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/katie-telfords-husband-pressed-trudeau-government-to-make-changes-to-wage-subsidy-law-to-benefit-his-employer-sources/wcm/ca90f170-8212-4e25-b2e4-3f568d820306/

OTTAWA – Robert Silver, husband of the prime minister’s chief of staff, repeatedly pushed the Trudeau government to make changes to the federal wage subsidy in a failed bid to make his new employer eligible for the multi-billion dollar aid program.

According to two sources with knowledge of the situation, Silver, senior vice-president, strategy, policy, risk at private mortgage company MCAP, approached ex-Finance Minister Bill Morneau’s office in April asking for legislative changes to the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy (CEWS). Vice News first reported the story on Friday.

The legislative amendment as suggested would have benefited very few organizations other than MCAP, both sources confirmed. The same sources said the request was quickly turned down by Morneau’s office. But the ex-finance minister’s staff was “very uncomfortable” with Silver’s contacts, knowing full well that he is Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s chief of staff’s husband.

In a statement, a spokesman for MCAP did not deny any of the details but insisted any interactions were done with respect to federal lobbying laws.

Full story here


----------



## Donald H (22 Aug 2020)

shawn5o said:
			
		

> More on that story from National Post
> 
> 
> The optics are bad.
> ...



IVe still not found out the exact nature of the request Shawn, and so far this story only seems to be significant in the fact that Trudeau turned it down! 

Which makes it somewhat confusing why the highly biased NP would publish it?

edit: Something about Silver "wanting" the program to be opened up to include limited liability partnerships?
It's going to have to remain as nothing more serious than 'bad optics'.


----------



## ModlrMike (22 Aug 2020)

I'm reminded that "where there's smoke, there's mirrors"... or something like that.


----------



## shawn5o (22 Aug 2020)

Donald H said:
			
		

> IVe still not found out the exact nature of the request Shawn, and so far this story only seems to be significant in the fact that Trudeau turned it down!
> 
> Which makes it somewhat confusing why the highly biased NP would publish it?
> 
> ...



Hi Don

It was Morneau's office that turned it down. When i wrote "The optics are bad" I mean that Silver repeatedly demanded "the Trudeau government to make changes to the federal wage subsidy in a failed bid to make his new employer eligible for the multi-billion dollar aid program."

 ... 





> Silver, who is not a registered lobbyist and whose wife Katie Telford has worked as Trudeau’s chief of staff since 2015, even went so far as to suggest a specific wording for the legislative change he was seeking, according to one source.



 ... 





> the ex-finance minister’s staff was 'very uncomfortable' with Silver’s contacts, knowing full well that he is Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s chief of staff’s husband.



 ... 





> Despite Silver’s failed bid, his company did receive an $86 million contract to manage the government’s commercial rent assistance program for small businesses only a few weeks later.



 ... 





> Sources who were granted anonymity so as to speak freely tell National Post that Silver contacted Morneau’s Director of Policy Tyler Meredith and Chief of Staff Elder Marques multiple times in April to express his frustration about MCAP’s ineligibility for CEWS.



... 





> Since 2004, MCAP is in a limited liability partnership with the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec (CDPQ), the province’s pension fund manager. According to CEWS legislation tabled by the government in April, organizations that are in a partnership with another that is exempt from paying income taxes (like the CDPQ) are not eligible for the wage subsidy.



 ... 





> But Silver did not digest the finance minister’s office’s refusal to adapt CEWS. Sources say he wrote a “rude” and “entitled” email to Meredith expressing his frustration at the decision.



The optics are bad because Silver is still demanding access to these government benefits


----------



## Jarnhamar (22 Aug 2020)

Did anyone actually believe her husband wasn't using his wife's position to lobby the Liberals?


----------



## shawn5o (22 Aug 2020)

Sounds about right - "More pantomime than parliament"



*The prorogation of the talented Mr. Poilievre*
_Prorogation killed the committee investigating the WE deal. That was its point. Its only point. Parliament had been done already_

Rex Murphy
Aug 21, 2020  •  Last Updated 21 hours ago  •  5 minute read

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/rex-murphy-the-prorogation-of-the-talented-mr-poilievre

When in the fullness of time some future Gibbon or Spengler emerges to write of the heroic days of Canadian politics, circa August 2020, he will find the chapter heading has already been written. The facts will save him the need for invention.

He will call it The Prorogation of Pierre Poilievre.

As I, with customary humility, hinted in my last aria on these pages, we have not had, as many are mistakenly asserting, a prorogation of Parliament. For whatever name you care to give to how Canada has been governed these past four months — the cottage steps encyclicals, the once-in-a-blue-moon lap-top question period — it bore no resemblance to any parliamentary proceedings ever seen on this Earth, over the moon, or in the wild stars so far beyond.

More pantomime than parliament.

There was no Parliament to shut down. Its sittings had stopped, the budget skipped, daily accountability jettisoned, its officers — see auditor-general — denied, its presence and status deeply diminished. During our greatest crisis our Parliament was put in collapse.

But there was the talented Mr. Poilievre. He must be given credit for supplying at least some weight of genuine opposition to a minority government, which under the umbrella of the COVID threat, shook off all restraint and accountability. Aided, it must always be noted, by the expeditious partnership with Jagmeet Singh’s NDP.

Others have helped — Charlie Angus has supplied the indignation, and some of the press dug, some pushed — but the master of the stir-fry of the prime minister and his automatons in cabinet and on the back bench, the sharpest arrow in the quiver, was Mr. Poilievre.

His forensic lacerations of Justin Trudeau on the few occasions when a mostly absentee prime minister dared the ordeal, were top quality demolitions. In every exchange, and they are all there for the viewing, it was clear who was the austere teacher, and who was the stammering tyro.

Full article here


----------



## shawn5o (22 Aug 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Did anyone actually believe her husband wasn't using his wife's position to lobby the Liberals?



Probably a lot of pillow talk going on


----------



## Good2Golf (22 Aug 2020)

Donald H said:
			
		

> IVe still not found out the exact nature of the request Shawn, and so far this story only seems to be significant in the fact that Trudeau turned it down!
> 
> Which makes it somewhat confusing why the highly biased NP would publish it?
> 
> ...



???  Really? You can’t find details of the ask?

All the reference article point out the basis of the request by Silver, to adjust legislation so that MCAP could qualify for the CEWS (wage subsidy), since it is currently ineligible due to majority ownership by Caisse de Dépôt et Placement du Québec. 



> (from NP article) Since 2004, MCAP is in a limited liability partnership with the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec (CDPQ), the province’s pension fund manager. According to CEWS legislation tabled by the government in April, organizations that are in a partnership with another that is exempt from paying income taxes (like the CDPQ) are not eligible for the wage subsidy.



As well, by all accounts it was Morneau’s staff who refused Silver’s lobbying/request, not Trudeau.


----------



## Kat Stevens (22 Aug 2020)

I wish Russia would just mobilize and bring stability to this fractured region of the globe.


----------



## YZT580 (22 Aug 2020)

please make Rex Murphy a milpoint award


----------



## Jarnhamar (23 Aug 2020)

[quote author=shawn5o] 

*The prorogation of the talented Mr. Poilievre*
_Prorogation killed the committee investigating the WE deal. That was its point. Its only point. Parliament had been done already_[/quote] 


Incidentally this article gives a great example of what Liberal transparency looks like.


----------



## Donald H (23 Aug 2020)

shawn5o said:
			
		

> Hi Don
> 
> It was Morneau's office that turned it down. When i wrote "The optics are bad" I mean that Silver repeatedly demanded "the Trudeau government to make changes to the federal wage subsidy in a failed bid to make his new employer eligible for the multi-billion dollar aid program."



Yes, I fully understand that Shawn. That which I don't understand is Silver's case he's presenting. He must have some arguing points if he keeps at it.




> The optics are bad because Silver is still demanding access to these government benefits



I don't find it to be surprising that he does. And I mean that the optics of the whole thing are in the fact that Trudeau hasn't caved to his asking. That's the reason why I suggested that the highly Conservative NP would be scrambling to make a story out of it! As I suggested, they're blowing smoke in the wrong direction.


----------



## Good2Golf (23 Aug 2020)

Donald H said:
			
		

> Yes, I fully understand that Shawn. That which I don't understand is Silver's case he's presenting. He must have some arguing points if he keeps at it.
> 
> 
> I don't find it to be surprising that he does. And I mean that the optics of the whole thing are in the fact that Trudeau hasn't caved to his asking. That's the reason why I suggested that the highly Conservative NP would be scrambling to make a story out of it! As I suggested, they're blowing smoke in the wrong direction.



It seems like you don’t want to understand. Many posters have provided details of his efforts. 

It’s as simple as this:

- Silver wanted his company employees to qualify for CEWS
- Silver’s company, MPAC does not qualify for CEWS because it’s majority-ownership company, Caisse de dépôt de placement du Québec is a tax-exempt entity
- Silver lobbied (but didn’t register his lobbying activities) ex Finance Minister Morneau’s staff to change the CEWS eligibility criteria so MPAC employees could receive CEWS
- Morneau’s staff refused Silver’s lobbying efforts to change CEWS eligibility criteria, noting that to do so would benefit primarily MPAC, which they deemed inappropriate.

C’est tout...


----------



## Donald H (23 Aug 2020)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> It seems like you don’t want to understand. Many posters have provided details of his efforts.
> 
> It’s as simple as this:
> 
> ...



Yes I understand and thank you for your comments Good2Golf. 
That which I don't understand and have tried to get across is that we don't know Silver's talking points and arguments.  Or in other words, why does he believe that CEWS eligibility needs to be adjusted to include his interests?

When/if we know that then we will have a better idea why Trudeau's government hasn't ceded to Silver's demands. My guess is that it is contrary to a Liberal party agenda.


----------



## FJAG (23 Aug 2020)

Donald H said:
			
		

> Yes I understand and thank you for your comments Good2Golf.
> That which I don't understand and have tried to get across is that we don't know Silver's talking points and arguments.  Or in other words, why does he believe that CEWS eligibility needs to be adjusted to include his interests?
> 
> When/if we know that then we will have a better idea why Trudeau's government hasn't ceded to Silver's demands. My guess is that it is contrary to a Liberal party agenda.



The question isn't "why does he believe that CEWS eligibility needs to be adjusted to include his interests". The answer is right there in the question. MPAC didn't qualify under CEWS and Silver wanted it changed so that it does. That's just pure self interest which ordinarily isn't an issue. Most businesses want that.

The question really is: was Silver using his status as Telford's husband to get greater access to government than an ordinary business would get? Morneau's office's rejection is an appropriate response, however, one is left with the nagging feeling that Silver's approaches in this respect were perhaps more successful at getting at the seats of power because of his relationship with Telford. I doubt if we'll ever know the truth behind that and I don't think that the answer to the questions that you are asking will ever get us any closer to knowing the truth.

I'm not a fan of the Liberals for exactly this reason. I think that their power base comes from a network of relationships that is constantly looking at getting a handout or a leg up from the folks in office at the expense of the country as a whole and/or competitors in general. There are simply too many back-door friendships with the Liberals that result in sweetheart deals and my spidey senses start to tingle every time one of these situations comes up.

 :worms:


----------



## Donald H (24 Aug 2020)

FJAG said:
			
		

> The question isn't "why does he believe that CEWS eligibility needs to be adjusted to include his interests". The answer is right there in the question. MPAC didn't qualify under CEWS and Silver wanted it changed so that it does. That's just pure self interest which ordinarily isn't an issue. Most businesses want that.
> 
> The question really is: was Silver using his status as Telford's husband to get greater access to government than an ordinary business would get? Morneau's office's rejection is an appropriate response, however, one is left with the nagging feeling that Silver's approaches in this respect were perhaps more successful at getting at the seats of power because of his relationship with Telford. I doubt if we'll ever know the truth behind that and I don't think that the answer to the questions that you are asking will ever get us any closer to knowing the truth.
> 
> ...



I hear your position and I feel no incentive to belabour this one any further. The only question remaining is on how the NP story plays out politically and I've already covered that, in my opinion.

 :cheers:


----------



## Jarnhamar (28 Aug 2020)

I wonder if they'll have a website you can scroll through and "add to cart". 


* Ottawa creating ‘inventory’ of racial minorities to fill senior public service posts* 
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-ottawa-creating-inventory-of-racial-minorities-to-fill-senior-public/


----------



## daftandbarmy (29 Aug 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I wonder if they'll have a website you can scroll through and "add to cart".
> 
> 
> * Ottawa creating ‘inventory’ of racial minorities to fill senior public service posts*
> https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-ottawa-creating-inventory-of-racial-minorities-to-fill-senior-public/



OK, now that's creepy. Really creepy.

Will they be expected to wear unique designators, in the form of high visibility patches on their outer clothing too so that, you know, we can identify them for proper sorting?  :sarcasm:


----------



## YZT580 (29 Aug 2020)

And they have the nerve to accuse us of racism!  I could certainly understand and endorse a system that employed cut-out techniques to eliminate any possibility of discrimination but that is not what is being proposed.  What the implication is is simply that there are minority groups that cannot compete fairly because of their grouping: in other words they are less human (forgive the choice of words but I can't think of anything else that suits) than an individual of European descent with a traditional upbringing and conventional sexual proclivity.  So the most qualified (their implication, not mine) need not apply.  They are truly prejudiced and racist and homophobic!


----------



## Brad Sallows (29 Aug 2020)

They'll have binders full of diverse senior public servants.  I suppose that isn't a derogatory idea any more.


----------



## OldSolduer (29 Aug 2020)

Guys you know only old white males are racist ...right?


----------



## shawn5o (29 Aug 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I wonder if they'll have a website you can scroll through and "add to cart".
> 
> 
> * Ottawa creating ‘inventory’ of racial minorities to fill senior public service posts*
> https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-ottawa-creating-inventory-of-racial-minorities-to-fill-senior-public/



Does that mean seperate washrooms, drinking fountains, ? Just kidding


----------



## Jarnhamar (31 Aug 2020)

*Feds 'looking into' alleged bullying by RCMP employee facing security charges *
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/feds-looking-into-alleged-bullying-by-rcmp-employee-facing-security-charges/ar-BB18yEdg




Corruption and bullying is synonymous with the LPC.


----------



## mariomike (31 Aug 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Corruption and bullying is synonymous with the LPC.



Maybe they will be voted out in the next election.


----------



## GR66 (31 Aug 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> *Feds 'looking into' alleged bullying by RCMP employee facing security charges *
> https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/feds-looking-into-alleged-bullying-by-rcmp-employee-facing-security-charges/ar-BB18yEdg
> 
> 
> ...



I'm quite happy to rail against the Liberal Party and their corrupt practices, but how exactly do harassment complaints by RCMP employees against their supervisor imply corruption and bullying by the LPC?  Sounds like more of the ongoing management issues with the Mounties than anything Liberal related.


----------



## Remius (31 Aug 2020)

Yeah, I’m not sure what the link is with the LPC is. 

The guy was a known a hole.  Good riddance.


----------



## Jarnhamar (31 Aug 2020)

GR66 said:
			
		

> I'm quite happy to rail against the Liberal Party and their corrupt practices, but how exactly do harassment complaints by RCMP employees against their supervisor imply corruption and bullying by the LPC?  Sounds like more of the ongoing management issues with the Mounties than anything Liberal related.



The LPC appear to have a culture of corruption and bullying. RCMP answer to the government. 

Does anyone think Doug Ford had no idea what kind of crap was going down in nursing homes? Or did the nursing home owners have an idea what they could get away with. I think the same principal applies.


----------



## PMedMoe (31 Aug 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> The LPC _appear_ to have a culture of corruption and bullying.
> 
> RCMP answer to the government.



If it were the CPC in charge, would you say the same thing?

Seems like a pretty broad brush to me.


----------



## Jarnhamar (31 Aug 2020)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> If it were the CPC in charge, would you say the same thing?
> 
> Seems like a pretty broad brush to me.



I would yes. 

I was against Bill C-51 because I felt it crossed privacy lines and I didn't trust the conservatives not to abuse it. 
I also think the Conservatives courted firearm owners (big issue for me) and basically fucked them off when it was convenient (some would say they did the same to the CAF).

But it's not the conservative prime minister getting hit with ethical violation after ethical violation and what seems like corruption in the party. WE scandal, SNC and so on.

Would you say the LPC doesn't have bullying issues?


I'll add a couple examples of where my heads at (no not up my ass  ) with the RCMP and Liberal vs Conservative.

Conservatives cancel the long gun registry and tell the RCMP to delete the information. The RCMP disobey that order and keep the records and then use it to track down firearms during the red river floods.
RCMP tries to prohibit a few guns (SWISS ARMS) and the Conservatives get involved and stop it.

LPC use a mass shooting and pandemic to smash through gun bans. RCMP eagerly ban more guns over the following two weeks that weren't on the original list.


----------



## PMedMoe (31 Aug 2020)

I would say all political parties have bullying issues.


----------



## Jarnhamar (2 Sep 2020)

* Documents prove federal youth minister, not public service, drove hiring of WE Charity: NDP* 

NDP ethics critic Charlie Angus levelled the charge against Bardish Chagger, alleging the documents directly contradict the Liberals’ version of events

https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/ndp-says-documents-prove-youth-minister-played-key-role-in-we-controversy/wcm/c2461a7e-41d2-4346-b48c-4dab170543fb/

Someone in the current government being _ liberal_ with the truth?


----------



## shawn5o (2 Sep 2020)

I don't know if this was brought up before. 


*Trudeau cautions against extremism in John A. Macdonald statue debate*

The Globe and Mail
Bill Curry

OTTAWA
PUBLISHED 2 DAYS AGO

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-trudeau-cautions-against-extremism-in-john-a-macdonald-statue-debate/

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau cautioned against extremism in the political debate over historical figures such as Sir John A. Macdonald as the country works to address systemic racism in government institutions.

Speaking Monday in Montreal, where protesters toppled a statue of Canada’s first prime minister during a rally Saturday, Mr. Trudeau said vandalism is not the answer and that he was “deeply disappointed” by what had happened. He also said strong reactions driven by outrage are not a responsible way to move forward.

…

“We’ve seen, following that, people on either side of the spectrum trying to use these elements as a way of furthering debates,” he said, adding later in French: “I think that we’re seeing, particularly on the extreme right, that they’re trying to start culture wars and divide Canadians on issues such as that.”

He did not name anyone in particular.

Article

I believe that was a stupid comment by the PM as the so-culture wars and division seem to be coming mostly from the far-left


----------



## Kat Stevens (2 Sep 2020)

shawn5o said:
			
		

> I don't know if this was brought up before.
> 
> 
> *Trudeau cautions against extremism in John A. Macdonald statue debate*
> ...



His daddy's statue got a facial and it was a hate crime. Our first Prime Minister gets dumped and his head falls off and it's disappointing. And the right is the problem. Quelle Surprise.


----------



## Donald H (2 Sep 2020)

Target Up said:
			
		

> His daddy's statue got a facial and it was a hate crime. Our first Prime Minister gets dumped and his head falls off and it's disappointing. And the right is the problem. Quelle Surprise.



Unfortunately our John A. was suppportive of the pro-slavery side in the US civil war, which could have had something to do with his head rolling. And he 'was' a conservative! 

Not to suggest that Canadians should get into copying Americans on taking down monuments.


----------



## Kat Stevens (2 Sep 2020)

Donald H said:
			
		

> Unfortunately our John A. was suppportive of the pro-slavery side in the US civil war, which could have had something to do with his head rolling. And he 'was' a conservative!
> 
> Not to suggest that Canadians should get into copying Americans on taking down monuments.



Looking at 200 year old events with a 21st century lens is a mugs game, full stop. It's possible your G pa or G ma might have dropped a "N" bomb from time to time back when, especially if your from an east coast city that either rhymes with kidney or kallifax. Better pull all their pics out of the family albums and burn them, then go kick over their headstones, just to be on the safe side. It's fucking stupid.


----------



## Donald H (2 Sep 2020)

Target Up said:
			
		

> Looking at 200 year old events with a 21st century lens is a mugs game, full stop. It's possible your G pa or G ma might have dropped a "N" bomb from time to time back when, especially if your from an east coast city that either rhymes with kidney or kallifax. Better pull all their pics out of the family albums and burn them, then go kick over their headstones, just to be on the safe side. It's ******* stupid.



I had already made it clear that I wasn't in favour of John A's head rolling. In the US it's not so much as their reasons are 200 years old, it's that the statues they're pulling down were erected much later for the effect they had on black people. Much the same as burning crosses and lynchings. While I would say that John A's stature wasn't erected for any such purpose, but more to honour him as our first P.M.

Still, those who pulled it down were very likely motivated by John A's track record on supporting slavery.


----------



## Kat Stevens (2 Sep 2020)

Donald H said:
			
		

> I had already made it clear that I wasn't in favour of John A's head rolling. In the US it's not so much as their reasons are 200 years old, it's that the statues they're pulling down were erected much later for the effect they had on black people. Much the same as burning crosses and lynchings. While I would say that John A's stature wasn't erected for any such purpose, but more to honour him as our first P.M.
> 
> Still, those who pulled it down were very likely motivated by John A's track record on supporting slavery.



I give, you win, have fun. Bye now.


----------



## suffolkowner (2 Sep 2020)

Donald H said:
			
		

> Unfortunately our John A. was suppportive of the pro-slavery side in the US civil war, which could have had something to do with his head rolling. And he 'was' a conservative!
> 
> Not to suggest that Canadians should get into copying Americans on taking down monuments.



I think many Canadians(BNAians) were supportive of the South at the time as divided America would be a weaker America.


----------



## Remius (2 Sep 2020)

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> I think many Canadians(BNAians) were supportive of the South at the time as divided America would be a weaker America.



The War of 1812 was still in some people's minds.  A lot of people in the British Empire would have been fine with a fractured US at the time


----------



## shawn5o (2 Sep 2020)

Donald H said:
			
		

> I had already made it clear that I wasn't in favour of John A's head rolling. In the US it's not so much as their reasons are 200 years old, it's that the statues they're pulling down were erected much later for the effect they had on black people. Much the same as burning crosses and lynchings. While I would say that John A's stature wasn't erected for any such purpose, but more to honour him as our first P.M.
> 
> Still, those who pulled it down were very likely motivated by John A's track record on supporting slavery.



Hey Don

I wonder if the vandals will tear down the Famous Five statue. After all, at least one of them was racist and believed in the eugenics movement.


----------



## suffolkowner (2 Sep 2020)

Remius said:
			
		

> The War of 1812 was still in some people's minds.  A lot of people in the British Empire would have been fine with a fractured US at the time



It's much deeper than that though and needs to be looked at in light of the American policies of Manifest Destiny and the Monroe Doctrine and things like the Oregon territory and 54-40 or fight. I believe that defence of Canada from American invasion was the primary concern of the "army" as late as 1921


----------



## OldSolduer (2 Sep 2020)

Donald H said:
			
		

> I had already made it clear that I wasn't in favour of John A's head rolling. In the US it's not so much as their reasons are 200 years old, it's that the statues they're pulling down were erected much later for the effect they had on black people. Much the same as burning crosses and lynchings. While I would say that John A's stature wasn't erected for any such purpose, but more to honour him as our first P.M.
> 
> Still, those who pulled it down were very likely motivated by John A's track record on supporting slavery.



I DISAGREE.  They are nothing but squeaky wheels who think that this behaviour will bring change - and lots of it to jingle in their pockets. They could give a rats ass about 200 years ago, what is important is the $ they can rake in from guilty white liberal people.


----------



## shawn5o (2 Sep 2020)

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> It's much deeper than that though and needs to be looked at in light of the American policies of Manifest Destiny and the Monroe Doctrine and things like the Oregon territory and 54-40 or fight. I believe that defence of Canada from American invasion was the primary concern of the "army" as late as 1921



Hi SO

(Off topic for a sec)
I'm pretty sure I read an account of Canada having plans to invade the U.S. back around (I'm guessing here) from around the Great War.

Hard to believe so maybe I misread or misunderstood - good time to ask about it


----------



## mariomike (2 Sep 2020)

shawn5o said:
			
		

> I'm pretty sure I read an account of Canada having plans to invade the U.S. back around (I'm guessing here) from around the Great War.
> 
> Hard to believe so maybe I misread or misunderstood - good time to ask about it



Defence Scheme No. 1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_Scheme_No._1


----------



## suffolkowner (2 Sep 2020)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Defence Scheme No. 1
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_Scheme_No._1



Yeah that must be where I got the 1921 date from
"Defence Scheme No. 1 was created on April 12, 1921, " and "In 1928, Defence Scheme No. 1 was terminated by Chief of the General Staff Andrew McNaughton, who sought peaceful US-British relations."


----------



## Jarnhamar (2 Sep 2020)

Target Up said:
			
		

> I give, you win, have fun. Bye now.



Notice the habit of trying to steer every conversation towards the US and Trump.


----------



## RangerRay (2 Sep 2020)

Donald H said:
			
		

> Still, those who pulled it down were very likely motivated by John A's track record on supporting slavery.



Where is it said that he supported slavery?

Canadian (i.e. British) “support” for the Confederacy was based on purely geopolitical considerations. The US was a rival and threat to the British in North America (i.e. Canada). A weakened US was good for Canada back then.  No more than that. 

Macdonald held abysmal views on Indigenous peoples and other races, but nothing that would be considered outside the mainstream in the 19th century. 

Statues of confederate generals were erected in the 20th century to put African-Americans “in their place”.


----------



## Kilted (2 Sep 2020)

Remius said:
			
		

> The War of 1812 was still in some people's minds.  A lot of people in the British Empire would have been fine with a fractured US at the time



It's a well known fact the the British Empire supported the CSA. The enemy of our enemy is our friend. Considering some of the horrible things that occured in 1812, a divided America would have been in everyone's best interests north of the boarder. Same way that a civil War in the USSR would have been in NATO's intrest.


----------



## Brad Sallows (2 Sep 2020)

>It's a well known fact the the British Empire supported the CSA.

Not strongly enough to matter.  CSA envoys didn't receive particularly warm receptions in Britain.  The British were at least smart enough to know that getting involved to any significant degree on the CSA's behalf would cost them their North American colonies.


----------



## Good2Golf (3 Sep 2020)

Donald H said:
			
		

> Still, those who pulled it down were very likely motivated by John A's track record on supporting slavery.



Probably not.   Probably a combination of protest-induced ‘thugism’ and latent anti-British sentiments from francophones.


----------



## dapaterson (9 Sep 2020)

In the "everything's perfectly all right now. We're fine. We're all fine here now, thank you. How are you?" department, WE Charity is closing its doors, and its founders, the Kielburger brothers, are leaving.

First reported by CanadaLand, other media are also carrying the story.

https://twitter.com/JesseBrown/status/1303796557301592067

https://twitter.com/MercedesGlobal/status/1303798781788540937


----------



## Jarnhamar (9 Sep 2020)

Time to burn the books and smash the hard drives I guess.


----------



## Haggis (9 Sep 2020)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> In the "everything's perfectly all right now. We're fine. We're all fine here now, thank you. How are you?" department, WE Charity is closing its doors, and its founders, the Kielburger brothers, are leaving.
> 
> First reported by CanadaLand, other media are also carrying the story.
> 
> ...



It's Scheer and Polivere's fault.  Hundreds of jobs lost because, well, you know.


----------



## Kat Stevens (9 Sep 2020)

The *real* question here is, what did Harper know and when did he know it?


----------



## OldSolduer (9 Sep 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Time to burn the books and smash the hard drives I guess.



WE wasn’t a charity - it was a cult. Begone already and don’t let the doorknob hit you on the ass on the way out- thieves


----------



## QV (11 Sep 2020)

It will be interesting to see what comes of the throne speech.

Will the Libs take a hard turn left absorbing the NDP and Greens? Would that make the CPC the new centrist party and the PPC the moderately right party?


----------



## MilEME09 (11 Sep 2020)

QV said:
			
		

> It will be interesting to see what comes of the throne speech.
> 
> Will the Libs take a hard turn left absorbing the NDP and Greens? Would that make the CPC the new centrist party and the PPC the moderately right party?



Going to far left may bleed the Blue libs from the party, as well as centrists. That would play poorly for them and possibly lead to another implosion next election of their numbers.


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Sep 2020)

[quote author=QV]
Will the Libs take a hard turn left absorbing the NDP and Greens? 
[/quote]

An about turn followed by fucking off would be better.


----------



## suffolkowner (11 Sep 2020)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Going to far left may bleed the Blue libs from the party, as well as centrists. That would play poorly for them and possibly lead to another implosion next election of their numbers.


I agree I think they are living dangerously but the Conservatives might have to shuffle to the left a little to pull it off. The Liberals and NDP what do they disagree on now?


----------



## Donald H (11 Sep 2020)

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> I agree I think they are living dangerously but the Conservatives might have to shuffle to the left a little to pull it off. The Liberals and NDP what do they disagree on now?



Probably most likely the Liberals will look closely at the Conservatives' rightness before making any big decisions. Health care for instance would depend on how much the Conservatives want to do to make it more like America's, while the NDP push from the other direction to make if more like the best in the world. 

The NDP won't tolerate very much dickin around with our health care by Trudeau, assuming that the Liberals are even somewhat still right of center. I suspect that the Liberals have finally got completely on board with universal health care.

While we know that the Conservatives still see eye to eye with the Fraser Institute from time to time.

Can there be any mistaking what Canadians want in that respect any longer?


----------



## shawn5o (12 Sep 2020)

Donald H said:
			
		

> Probably most likely the Liberals will look closely at the Conservatives' rightness before making any big decisions. Health care for instance would depend on how much the Conservatives want to do to make it more like America's, while the NDP push from the other direction to make if more like the best in the world.
> 
> The NDP won't tolerate very much dickin around with our health care by Trudeau, assuming that the Liberals are even somewhat still right of center. I suspect that the Liberals have finally got completely on board with universal health care.
> 
> ...



Hi Don

I think our health care sytem is almost sacrosanct. No party (especially the cpc) will screw around with it (meaning funding). However, talking about some hybrid system such as private/public HC should be examined to see if it could be implented here.

As a sidenote, do you recall the former premier of NFLD & Lab (Danny Williams) with his needed heart surgery? He pee'ed off a lot of Canadians when he elected to have his surgery in Florida instead of in Canada? 

What does that tell you?


----------



## MilEME09 (12 Sep 2020)

I think we should launch something akin to a royal commission on health care. Examine our own system from top to bottom, as well look at the associated costs of adding pharmaceutical and dental into our publicly funded plan. Create a national strategy to reduce wait times, and improve care. Our costs a growing and the quality and efficiency of care are going down, we need to figure out why, and where the drains on the system are and fix it.


----------



## GAP (12 Sep 2020)

simple...get rid of all the little in house empires within each and every healthcare facility.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (12 Sep 2020)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> I think we should launch something akin to a royal commission on health care. Examine our own system from top to bottom, as well look at the associated costs of adding pharmaceutical and dental into our publicly funded plan. Create a national strategy to reduce wait times, and improve care. Our costs a growing and the quality and efficiency of care are going down, we need to figure out why, and where the drains on the system are and fix it.



I would be willing to bet if when you go and look at the roots of health care in this country, that since we made it public instead of private the costs have been increasing and what you are actually getting out of it has been decreasing. Fully funded public health care has only been around since 1984 in this country. Since that time we have seen a decrease in capabilities, increase in costs, and a lot of interference in the system. Ontario is a great example when they cut how many doctors they were going to train in the 90s which long term has screwed us. Unions have also likely played a large role in increasing staffing costs, especially when fighting with the government instead of a private company as the government doesn't have as much incentive to be cost effective. We basically elect health care administrators provincially as about 40% of the provincial budget goes towards it. Most of them have no clue about health care. 

Not saying we should be public or private, just that it would be very interesting to see if there is a connection with healthcare being made publicly run and the side effects of that long term.


----------



## mariomike (12 Sep 2020)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> , as well look at the associated costs of adding pharmaceutical and dental into our publicly funded plan.



It can also be negotiated by unions, for their members. Understood not everyone is a union member.

Our benefits included Life insurance / Spouse life, glasses, hearing aids etc., Travel insurance, Employee Assistance Plan ( EAP ), AD & D, Extended Health Care (including Drug Plan and Semi-Private hospital coverage) is paid 100% by the City. 

That applies to active members of any age. And retired members until age 65.

After age 65, they put you on a Health Care Spending Account ( HCSA ). That continues to age 75. If you pass away before then, the HCSA continues for your spouse ( until what would have been your 75th birthday. ) 

If I am still around after age 75, the Municipal Retirees Organization Ontario (MROO) for OMERS pensioners offers a plan. It's a good plan. But, you have to pay for it out of your own pocket.

Party politics aside, I would not hold my breath waiting for the government to offer anything similar.


----------



## Brad Sallows (12 Sep 2020)

I doubt that public health insurance and health care would be found to increase costs.  "Publicization" tends to increase inefficiencies (costs up, services down), but that effect is swamped by limits (caps) on what is funded, which tends to put a brake on compensation and other cost growth.  Countries that started to establish public footholds in health care in the 1960s managed to mostly avoid that.  The US is a notable outlier, which is why it will have a hard time moving closer towards a single-payer system without severely compromising benefits.  It is politically too difficult to roll back the post-1960s compensation gains of medical professionals and workers.


----------



## daftandbarmy (12 Sep 2020)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> I think we should launch something akin to a royal commission on health care.



So, what you're saying is, you don't want to see any meaningful results from an expensive, ineffective, decades long, politically hamstrung dog and pony show?


----------



## Donald H (12 Sep 2020)

shawn5o said:
			
		

> Hi Don
> 
> I think our health care sytem is almost sacrosanct. No party (especially the cpc) will screw around with it (meaning funding). However, talking about some hybrid system such as private/public HC should be examined to see if it could be implented here.



I disagree completely with a hybrid system Shawn. That amounts to a two-tier system ini which the wealthy receive better than the rest of the people. IMO it's not the route to a better universal health care system.



> As a sidenote, do you recall the former premier of NFLD & Lab (Danny Williams) with his needed heart surgery? He pee'ed off a lot of Canadians when he elected to have his surgery in Florida instead of in Canada?
> 
> What does that tell you?



Again, IMO Danny was involved in a political play to attempt to make our system look bad due to wait times. But having said that, there's no reason why wealthy people shouldn't be allowed to go wherever they choose in the world for quicker treatment.

Nearly two and a half times more Americans travel out of country for health care than do Canadians. (per capita)

 :cheers:


----------



## Donald H (12 Sep 2020)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> I think we should launch something akin to a royal commission on health care.



Yes!



> Examine our own system from top to bottom, as well look at the associated costs of adding pharmaceutical and dental into our publicly funded plan.



Pharma and dental would increase costs and that is something the Conservatives wouldn't back. But they would likely accept  bringing in private insurance to cover those. I would suggest that the reason why it hasn't happened is because it couldn't be made viably cost effective. The American system that stands alone in the developed modern world has never given any indication that it can compete with any universal health care system. It's nearly twice as expensive as Canada's and doesn't even cover all their people.



> Create a national strategy to reduce wait times, and improve care. Our costs a growing and the quality and efficiency of care are going down, we need to figure out why, and where the drains on the system are and fix it.



The first priority of a national strategy would require more funding but other remedies could possibly be found. This is a good place for everybody to provide some examples. 

Personally, I have no suggestions at the moment that wouldn't require spending money. Other people's money. Knowing that our health care is close to half the cost of the US system, it appears that there is some room for just that!


----------



## Jarnhamar (12 Sep 2020)

Ezra Levant
https://twitter.com/ezralevant/status/1304796224093147136
Ten years ago pro-Trudeau charities were audited for WE-style corruption by the @CanRevAgency
One of them was @gmbutts charity @WWFCanada
*When Trudeau took office, Butts ordered CRA auditors to stand down. Butts is a corrupt crook.* Source:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-revenue-agency-political-activity-diane-lebouthillier-audits-panel-report-suspension-1.4099184


> The Liberal government is suspending the few remaining political activity audits of charities after an expert panel report recommended removing a political gag order imposed on them by the Conservatives five years ago.


----------



## shawn5o (12 Sep 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Ezra Levant
> https://twitter.com/ezralevant/status/1304796224093147136
> Ten years ago pro-Trudeau charities were audited for WE-style corruption by the @CanRevAgency
> One of them was @gmbutts charity @WWFCanada
> ...



Hi Jarnhamar

I do not support charities that use a political voice. Simple reason - taking the king's coin or along those lines. I mean if an charity takes money from ppl/orgs then their allegience is with the donors. And in the CBC article, note who the panel mbrs are:



> Panel members include the CEO of the David Suzuki Foundation, Peter Robinson, and a charities lawyer and partner at Miller Thomson, Susan Manwaring.



That brings up a red flag to me  

Sometimes I wish that Ezra wouldn't be so sensational in reporting


----------



## Haggis (15 Sep 2020)

Some news outlets are reporting that the Liberals have temporarily abandoned their $100B green focused COVID-19 economic recovery plan and will instead focus on the short term pandemic mitigation in the Speech from the Throne.


----------



## Jarnhamar (6 Oct 2020)

Jagmeet Singh bought and paid for.

*
Liberals, NDP vote to shut down Conservatives' renewed push to examine WE affair*

OTTAWA -- The Liberal and NDP members on a House of Commons committee voted on Tuesday to sunset another Conservative attempt to examine the WE Charity scandal, and invite the prime minister and key members of his cabinet to testify.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/liberals-ndp-vote-to-shut-down-conservatives-renewed-push-to-examine-we-affair-1.5134751


----------



## Halifax Tar (6 Oct 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Jagmeet Singh bought and paid for.
> 
> *
> Liberals, NDP vote to shut down Conservatives' renewed push to examine WE affair*
> ...



Who didnt see this coming ?  Is the NDP even an independent party anymore ?


----------



## Old Sweat (7 Oct 2020)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Who didnt see this coming ?  Is the NDP even an independent party anymore ?



There is precedent for this sort of deal. In the 1972 Federal election the Liberals were reduced to a minority, with a two seat edge over the PCs. The NDP agreed to support the Liberals in return for the introduction of some social programs such as a big boost to unemployment insurance. In due course, with an improved position in the polls, the Liberals went for and won a majority in a Federal election.


----------



## YZT580 (7 Oct 2020)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> There is precedent for this sort of deal. In the 1972 Federal election the Liberals were reduced to a minority, with a two seat edge over the PCs. The NDP agreed to support the Liberals in return for the introduction of some social programs such as a big boost to unemployment insurance. In due course, with an improved position in the polls, the Liberals went for and won a majority in a Federal election.


and, if I recall, the NDP were reduced to a rump party that was of absolutely no consequence for the following decade.  There wasn't enough of a difference between their two platforms to warrant voting for the third party when your riding could be represented by a government member along with the attendant perks and bribes.  Singh has just put the blocks to his party.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (7 Oct 2020)

YZT580 said:
			
		

> and, if I recall, the NDP were reduced to a rump party that was of absolutely no consequence for the following decade.  There wasn't enough of a difference between their two platforms to warrant voting for the third party when your riding could be represented by a government member along with the attendant perks and bribes.  Singh has just put the blocks to his party.



I am sure that he will land on his feet with a senate appointment or an ambassadorship...


----------



## ArmyRick (7 Oct 2020)

Singh is absolutely terrible. IMO, he has buried the NDP. In on instance he calls Trudeau behavior "racist" (black face scandal) and then he backs him on how many motions? To gain what? 

Ever since has come in as an MP, he has been mum on the serious issues and occasionally makes some noise.

This latest scam of "Lets NOT look into the alleged corruption of Trudeau Government and WE" absolutely looks disgraceful on both Trudeau and Singh.


----------



## Brad Sallows (7 Oct 2020)

The federal NDP seem to have two factions divided roughly into the people who will play hardball and know that the path to government is right through the Liberals; and people who just want an occasional tweak to EI and "ABC" at all costs, including self-irrelevance.  Layton seems to have been the last leader of the former; since his death, the handmaids-to-Liberals faction has been ascendant.


----------



## YZT580 (7 Oct 2020)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I am sure that he will land on his feet with a senate appointment or an ambassadorship...


The liberals look after their own ONLY.  After the NDP voted non-confidence in 74 I can't recall David Lewis, their leader, getting either a senate seat or a foreign posting and he was far more qualified for either than Singh is.  For him it will be 'thanks for your help, see you around, don't let the door catch you on the way out'


----------



## Jarnhamar (7 Oct 2020)

YZT580 said:
			
		

> The liberals look after their own ONLY.



But have a soft sport for rich friends  ;D

[quote author=NationalPost]
*Alleged mastermind of lavish mansion casino raided by police met twice with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau*
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/alleged-mastermind-of-lavish-mansion-casino-raided-by-police-met-twice-with-prime-minister-justin-trudeau

Wei is alleged to have been the mastermind behind the high-end “Mackenzie No. 5 Club,” where police seized an assault rifle from his bedroom, gaming tables and more than $1 million in cash.

“The money moving through these underground casinos leads to huge profits for criminals that fund other ventures such as prostitution and drug trafficking,” York Regional Police said in a statement last week.

Not long ago, however, the businessman accused of being at the centre of it all was moving in some of Canada’s loftiest business and political circles, partly as an advocate for China.

Wei met at least twice in 2016 with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, including at a controversial Liberal fundraiser in the home of another wealthy entrepreneur.
*
Wei also was among a delegation of four representing a Chinese government-endorsed industry group that met separately with Trudeau. Another member of the delegation donated $1 million to the Trudeau Foundation and the erection of a statue honoring the prime minister’s father.*[/quote]

And my favorite part.



> A person named Wei Wei owns almost 50 properties in Toronto alone, land-registry records indicate.



Someone shady owning property in Toronto? Where have WE seen that before.



Poor guy. I can picture PM Trudeau every time he reads about himself in the news for the first time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYvwLLxKqhM


----------



## CBH99 (8 Oct 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> But have a soft sport for rich friends  ;D
> 
> And my favorite part.
> 
> ...




Ya know...

Maybe I was just naive when I was younger.  Or maybe I'm turning into a cranky old man faster than I realized.  Probably a bit of both.


When I was younger, I just thought politicians had a thankless job.  That, and combined with the fact that MOST of them tend to be pretty clueless about anything, I just thought "Ah, some good intentioned person with a poli-sci degree, doing their best."

But now, as I get older and wiser, I realize...they truly are just shady scumbags.  Aren't they??  Either dumb as dirt, or well groomed slimeballs.


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Oct 2020)

This gave me a chuckle.


*Justin Trudeau says democracy must continue during pandemic, as Green Leader calls for Toronto byelections to be suspended amid rising COVID-19 *
https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal/2020/10/09/fearing-second-wave-in-toronto-green-leader-annamie-paul-calls-on-justin-trudeau-to-suspend-scheduled-byelections-in-the-city.html


----------



## SeaKingTacco (11 Oct 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> This gave me a chuckle.
> 
> 
> *Justin Trudeau says democracy must continue during pandemic, as Green Leader calls for Toronto byelections to be suspended amid rising COVID-19 *
> https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal/2020/10/09/fearing-second-wave-in-toronto-green-leader-annamie-paul-calls-on-justin-trudeau-to-suspend-scheduled-byelections-in-the-city.html



Fair bit of irony in this situation...


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Oct 2020)

He probably almost gave himself a hernia trying to keep a straight face.


----------



## Jarnhamar (15 Oct 2020)

This is what our government has become.

*Libs filibuster two House committees despite opposition’s efforts to reopen WE Charity probe*
Liberal MPs are continuing to filibuster two House of Commons committees to avoid voting on motions that would reopen the investigation of the WE Charity scandal. 

If adopted, motions before both the finance and ethics committees would request documents related to the WE Charity affair.

A filibuster is a political procedure where one or more members of Parliament debate over a proposed piece of legislation so as to delay or entirely prevent a decision being made on the proposal.

https://ipolitics.ca/2020/10/15/libs-filibuster-two-house-committees-despite-oppositions-efforts-to-reopen-we-charity-probe/


----------



## blacktriangle (16 Oct 2020)

WE? WE who?


----------



## ballz (16 Oct 2020)

I'm not entirely sure how committees work.. can the Liberals actually achieve "preventing a decision" by filibustering?

So far I've essentially seen filibustering as a method of protesting and raising the public's awareness of an issue by politicians. I don't see how filibustering can help the Liberals in this instance, as it just makes them look guilty and makes it look like they are trying to avoid transparency, but eventually the committee is going to get to vote right?


----------



## ArmyRick (16 Oct 2020)

If the NDP keep backing Trudeau, they will simply vote not to continue or show the hidden documents


----------



## Kat Stevens (16 Oct 2020)

ballz said:
			
		

> I'm not entirely sure how committees work.. can the Liberals actually achieve "preventing a decision" by filibustering?
> 
> So far I've essentially seen filibustering as a method of protesting and raising the public's awareness of an issue by politicians. I don't see how filibustering can help the Liberals in this instance, as it just makes them look guilty and makes it look like they are trying to avoid transparency, but eventually the committee is going to get to vote right?



The Liberals don't care about appearances, that much is obvious right now. They know that the people who put them in power once, and then did it again, will keep on doing it. To borrow, and slightly mangle, a phrase used by someone somewhere, that everyone loves to hate; Trudeau could shoot someone in the middle of Younge Street at high noon and the idiots would still vote for him.


----------



## Good2Golf (16 Oct 2020)

Target Up said:
			
		

> The Liberals don't care about appearances, that much is obvious right now. They know that the people who put them in power once, and then did it again, will keep on doing it. To borrow, and slightly mangle, a phrase used by someone somewhere, that everyone loves to hate; Trudeau could shoot someone in the middle of Younge Street at high noon and the idiots would still vote for him.



Well....he would of course, have to cry a little bit and apologize, but yeah....he’d be voted in again. 

The cabal is getting closer and closer to having to raise the GST...1,200,000,000,000CAD debt is not particularly sustainable.


----------



## Halifax Tar (16 Oct 2020)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Well....he would of course, have to cry a little bit and apologize, but yeah....he’d be voted in again.
> 
> The cabal is getting closer and closer to having to raise the GST...1,200,000,000,000CAD debt is not particularly sustainable.



Its brilliant in my opinion.  Its very forward thinking.  They are spending us into oblivion and providing cake and circus to the unwashed masses, who in turn have become addicted to the free money and a free and easy lifestyle.  Now try to be the follow on Gov that wants to come in and clean this up.  You'd be considered the son of Satan. 

Its brilliant IMHO.  They have created a system of setting any future fiscally responsible Gov's up for failure and quick return for them.  

If I were the Con's I wouldn't want to win an election for at least the next two cycles, in fact I would ensure we remain strong in opposition but ensure we don't win.  Let the Libs fester in this.


----------



## blacktriangle (16 Oct 2020)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Its brilliant in my opinion.  Its very forward thinking.  They are spending us into oblivion and providing cake and circus to the unwashed masses, who in turn have become addicted to the free money and a free and easy lifestyle.  Now try to be the follow on Gov that wants to come in and clean this up.  You'd be considered the son of Satan.
> 
> Its brilliant IMHO.  They have created a system of setting any future fiscally responsible Gov's up for failure and quick return for them.
> 
> If I were the Con's I wouldn't want to win an election for at least the next two cycles, in fact I would ensure we remain strong in opposition but ensure we don't win.  Let the Libs fester in this.



Exactly. It's grand strategy to create another progressive-friendly voting bloc that will be a powerful force for years to come. The elderly and vulnerable aren't going to be around to vote in the long-term, but the young voters who have had their economic prospects squeezed certainly will be.


----------



## QV (16 Oct 2020)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Well....he would of course, have to cry a little bit and apologize, but yeah....he’d be voted in again.
> 
> The cabal is getting closer and closer to having to raise the GST...1,200,000,000,000CAD debt is not particularly sustainable.



For many people, this doesn't really hit home until you show how many zeros are in that number.  It's like the "modest" ten billion statement.


----------



## QV (16 Oct 2020)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Its brilliant in my opinion.  Its very forward thinking.  They are spending us into oblivion and providing cake and circus to the unwashed masses, who in turn have become addicted to the free money and a free and easy lifestyle.  Now try to be the follow on Gov that wants to come in and clean this up.  You'd be considered the son of Satan.
> 
> Its brilliant IMHO.  They have created a system of setting any future fiscally responsible Gov's up for failure and quick return for them.
> 
> If I were the Con's I wouldn't want to win an election for at least the next two cycles, in fact I would ensure we remain strong in opposition but ensure we don't win.  Let the Libs fester in this.



Although I agree with what you are saying, for a more proper frame I am going to substitute the word "dreadful" everywhere you used "brilliant".


----------



## OldSolduer (16 Oct 2020)

reveng said:
			
		

> Exactly. It's grand strategy to create another progressive-friendly voting bloc that will be a powerful force for years to come. The elderly and vulnerable aren't going to be around to vote in the long-term, but the young voters who have had their economic prospects squeezed certainly will be.



There is a quote somewhere - maybe Mr Campbell can weigh in - on how democracy will defeat itself by the electorate voting themselves lavish gifts which in turn begets higher taxes etc.....We are almost there.


----------



## Brad Sallows (16 Oct 2020)

Alexander Fraser Tytler.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (16 Oct 2020)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Well....he would of course, have to cry a little bit and apologize, but yeah....he’d be voted in again.



The difference is that Trump while living in New York had a carry permit for two handguns and might actually know how they work. Trudeau on the other hand would probably shoot himself in the foot (or some other extremity).


----------



## OldSolduer (16 Oct 2020)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Alexander Fraser Tytler.


 that's the one. Thanks!!


----------



## Haggis (17 Oct 2020)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> The difference is that Trump while living in New York had a carry permit for two handguns and might actually know how they work. Trudeau on the other hand would probably shoot himself in the foot (or some other extremity).


It's been oft rumoured on gun forums and podcasts that the PM is Canada's only CCW permit holder. It wouldn't surprise me as Liberals, like any elite ruling class, are keen to have things and privileges they deny to others


----------



## brihard (17 Oct 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> It's been oft rumoured on gun forums and podcasts that the PM is Canada's only CCW permit holder. It wouldn't surprise me as Liberals, like any elite ruling class, are keen to have things and privileges they deny to others



Given his full bodyguard package, that seems bloody unlikely.


----------



## blacktriangle (17 Oct 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> It's been oft rumoured on gun forums and podcasts that the PM is Canada's only CCW permit holder. It wouldn't surprise me as Liberals, like any elite ruling class, are keen to have things and privileges they deny to others



Could he use it to apply blackface? If so, then maybe...


----------



## Jarnhamar (17 Oct 2020)

The Prime Minister went from painting his face black to painting documents highlighting his government's corruption black.


----------



## Haggis (17 Oct 2020)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Given his full bodyguard package, that seems bloody unlikely.



Agreed, but nothing coming out of the the Liberals surprises me anymore.


----------



## The Bread Guy (17 Oct 2020)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Given his full bodyguard package, that seems bloody unlikely.


Hey, a lot of the internet was ablaze when it found out the RCMP Commissioner and Morneau were related, so it _must_ be true if it's on the interwebs


----------



## Eaglelord17 (18 Oct 2020)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Its brilliant in my opinion.  Its very forward thinking.  They are spending us into oblivion and providing cake and circus to the unwashed masses, who in turn have become addicted to the free money and a free and easy lifestyle.  Now try to be the follow on Gov that wants to come in and clean this up.  You'd be considered the son of Satan.
> 
> Its brilliant IMHO.  They have created a system of setting any future fiscally responsible Gov's up for failure and quick return for them.
> 
> If I were the Con's I wouldn't want to win an election for at least the next two cycles, in fact I would ensure we remain strong in opposition but ensure we don't win.  Let the Libs fester in this.



Welcome to the failings of democracy. When to many people not invested in the system start making decisions that control the system it will eventually fall apart. Democracy only works if the citizenry are responsible, historically this was controlled by ensuring only certain people could vote (land owners for example). Watching the last few elections it seems the parties are less focused on responsibility, and more on what they will give to the people.


----------



## suffolkowner (18 Oct 2020)

I'm not really sure what people wanted to happen. The government made the decision to shut down the economy, to bankrupt business and unemploy people. There were people on this site for all intent's cheering that decision. Everyday for over 6 months we have been innundated with views on how dangerous the virus is. I personally know people that have lost significant money because of this in the restaurant/entertainment industry and resulting loss of employment. Has the government's(both federal and provincial) been bungled? Of course, but I have yet to see anyone espouse a credible alternative


----------



## Remius (18 Oct 2020)

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> I'm not really sure what people wanted to happen. The government made the decision to shut down the economy, to bankrupt business and unemploy people. There were people on this site for all intent's cheering that decision. Everyday for over 6 months we have been innundated with views on how dangerous the virus is. I personally know people that have lost significant money because of this in the restaurant/entertainment industry and resulting loss of employment. Has the government's(both federal and provincial) been bungled? Of course, but I have yet to see anyone espouse a credible alternative



Considering most western advanced nations have done similar things...


----------



## Brad Sallows (18 Oct 2020)

The credible alternative is the Swedish one.  The noteworthy thing isn't that Sweden didn't do a lot better; the noteworthy thing is that Sweden didn't do a lot worse.


----------



## blacktriangle (18 Oct 2020)

My big problem with the whole time is that all the politicians, public health officials etc are on the PUBLIC payroll. They are getting paid regardless. Full salaries for them (all pensionable time, right?), and two grand for everyone else. Not the end of the world for a month or two, but the longer they try to drag that on, I see it as an attempt to re-purpose (even weaponize) the virus against the middle class and small business owners etc.

I'm fine with it as long as the politicians and bureaucrats (not talking front line public employees) cut their pay & benefits down at the same time. The moment I see that happen, I'll be happy to defer to their "expert" opinions. In the meantime, I will remain at least somewhat skeptical of the motives behind some decisions being made.


----------



## Remius (18 Oct 2020)

reveng said:
			
		

> My big problem with the whole time is that all the politicians, public health officials etc are on the PUBLIC payroll. They are getting paid regardless. Full salaries for them (all pensionable time, right?), and two grand for everyone else. Not the end of the world for a month or two, but the longer they try to drag that on, I see it as an attempt to re-purpose (even weaponize) the virus against the middle class and small business owners etc.
> 
> I'm fine with it as long as the politicians and bureaucrats (not talking front line public employees) cut their pay & benefits down at the same time. The moment I see that happen, I'll be happy to defer to their "expert" opinions. In the meantime, I will remain at least somewhat skeptical of the motives behind some decisions being made.



Would you expect the politicians and bureaucrats to stop working?  Because the people getting 2k aren’t actually working.   And what would be the purpose of attacking the middle class?  To what end?


----------



## blacktriangle (18 Oct 2020)

Remius said:
			
		

> Would you expect the politicians and bureaucrats to stop working?  Because the people getting 2k aren’t actually working.   And what would be the purpose of attacking the middle class?  To what end?



I didn't say anything about having government employees stop working, I just said the compensation of politicians and certain senior decision makers should be adjusted in solidarity with those less fortunate. Everyone should share the pain. As for your last question, I think there are some that want to make people MORE dependent on the government, not less. For a variety of reasons, some discussed in this thread already, and others that I don't feel like posting - respectfully. 

I get that you're probably a PS employee of some kind, and I have no issue with you. In fact, I fully support you. I know you're just trying to do your job, provide for your family, and live your life. You aren't trying to call the shots or trying to force an ideology. I'm happy to agree to disagree on this, as at the time I logged in today, we still had that right here in Canada.

V/r

Edited for clarity, not the best writer.


----------



## Jarnhamar (19 Oct 2020)

*Liberals say creation of anti-corruption committee would have confidence implications*
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/liberals-say-creation-of-anti-corruption-committee-would-have-confidence-implications-1.5151017?cid=sm%3Atrueanthem%3Actvnews%3Apost&utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A+Trending+Content&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook


Sure frigging would lol


----------



## Remius (19 Oct 2020)

reveng said:
			
		

> I didn't say anything about having government employees stop working, I just said the compensation of politicians and certain senior decision makers should be adjusted in solidarity with those less fortunate. Everyone should share the pain. As for your last question, I think there are some that want to make people MORE dependent on the government, not less. For a variety of reasons, some discussed in this thread already, and others that I don't feel like posting - respectfully.
> 
> I get that you're probably a PS employee of some kind, and I have no issue with you. In fact, I fully support you. I know you're just trying to do your job, provide for your family, and live your life. You aren't trying to call the shots or trying to force an ideology. I'm happy to agree to disagree on this, as at the time I logged in today, we still had that right here in Canada.
> 
> ...



I never mentioned ps employees either.  Only bureaucrats and politicians.

Not sure what you interpreted.   :dunno:


----------



## Navy_Pete (19 Oct 2020)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> The credible alternative is the Swedish one.  The noteworthy thing isn't that Sweden didn't do a lot better; the noteworthy thing is that Sweden didn't do a lot worse.



One thing that doesn't get mentioned much is that, despite Sweden not having an official lockdown, lots of Swedes just looked at it, said 'F that' and stayed home anyway. Their death rate is also more then double Canada's (58.4 per 100k vice 24.6). 

Aside from social distancing, aggressive test/trace and effective quarantine where really effective at keeping the spread down, but where you look at a population that already is used to wearing masks for pollution or flu season, then half the battle is won.

We have arseclowns that still think the earth is flat, vaccines cause autism and there is a pedo pizza chain operating a shadowy cabal, so you can never discount the idiot factor to keeping the spread, but things like population age, average health, and all kinds of other things affect it the spread as well. Really hard to say that we would have had double the deaths if we'd gone the same route (instead of more then or less then double). But all things being equal, I guess you could say this is the cost of about 10, 000 lives, plus another 200k with some percentage of long term damage. As well, if we hit a point of overwhelming the medical system there would have been a bunch of other deaths that would have been avoidable otherwise, so it likely would have been worse overall.


----------



## Good2Golf (19 Oct 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> *Liberals say creation of anti-corruption committee would have confidence implications*
> https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/liberals-say-creation-of-anti-corruption-committee-would-have-confidence-implications-1.5151017?cid=sm%3Atrueanthem%3Actvnews%3Apost&utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A+Trending+Content&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook
> 
> 
> Sure frigging would lol



It fits with the growing rumblings in the city that the Liberals are maneuvering for an early-Spring ‘21 election.  :nod:


----------



## Brad Sallows (19 Oct 2020)

>lots of Swedes just looked at it, said 'F that' and stayed home anyway.

Exactly.  Relatively little compulsion required.


----------



## Jarnhamar (19 Oct 2020)

Really says it all about our government doesn't it. 

*Liberals threaten to call election if Parliament passes 'anti-corruption' committee motion *
The Liberals are threatening to send Canadians to the polls if Parliament passes an opposition motion to create an “anti-corruption” committee, calling the Conservative proposal “ultra-partisan” and “irresponsible.” 
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/politics/liberals-threaten-to-call-election-if-parliament-passes-anti-corruption-committee-motion/ar-BB1abCqQ?li=AAggNb9


They're against an anti-corruption committee. That speaks volumes, at least they're not beating around the bush anymore.


----------



## Kat Stevens (19 Oct 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Really says it all about our government doesn't it.
> 
> *Liberals threaten to call election if Parliament passes 'anti-corruption' committee motion *
> The Liberals are threatening to send Canadians to the polls if Parliament passes an opposition motion to create an “anti-corruption” committee, calling the Conservative proposal “ultra-partisan” and “irresponsible.”
> ...



Not even trying to pretend that this a democracy any more. Outright contempt for the people of this country and their future.


----------



## CBH99 (19 Oct 2020)

Target Up said:
			
		

> Not even trying to pretend that this a democracy any more. Outright contempt for the people of this country and their future.




Go ahead JT, call an election.  Do it.  

Your ego might be a wee bit surprised at how far you've fallen since you were first elected...


Or, save the taxpayers the money & the hassle, and just walk off the job.  Accomplish the same outcome with significantly less hassle.  

 :2c:


----------



## suffolkowner (19 Oct 2020)

CBH99 said:
			
		

> Go ahead JT, call an election.  Do it.
> 
> Your ego might be a wee bit surprised at how far you've fallen since you were first elected...
> 
> ...



I would not bet against the Liberals winning an election. O'Toole was probably the right man for the last election, but with Covid it's not a good time to be in opposition


----------



## Brad Sallows (19 Oct 2020)

>The Liberals are threatening to send Canadians to the polls if Parliament passes an opposition motion to create an “anti-corruption” committee

That's not anti-democratic or a display of contempt.  It would basically be a referral to the ultimate "anti-corruption" committee of Canada.


----------



## Jarnhamar (19 Oct 2020)

[quote author=Brad Sallows] 

That's not anti-democratic or a display of contempt.  It would basically be a referral to the ultimate "anti-corruption" committee of Canada.
[/quote]

Except in that case a large chunk of the committee doesn't care about corruption as long as they're getting taken care of.


----------



## Haggis (19 Oct 2020)

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> I would not bet against the Liberals winning an election. O'Toole was probably the right man for the last election, but with Covid it's not a good time to be in opposition


A quick glance at 338Canada.com predicts that the Liberals could form a majority if an election were held right now.


----------



## daftandbarmy (20 Oct 2020)

As of 2019 we weren't too bad corruption-wise according to these guys: Transparency International....

Transparency International is a global movement working in over 100 countries to end the injustice of corruption.

We focus on issues with the greatest impact on people’s lives and hold the powerful to account for the common good. Through our advocacy, campaigning and research, we work to expose the systems and networks that enable corruption to thrive, demanding greater transparency and integrity in all areas of public life.

Our mission
Our mission is to stop corruption and promote transparency, accountability and integrity at all levels and across all sectors of society.

Our vision
Our vision is a world in which government, politics, business, civil society and the daily lives of people are free of corruption.

We are independent, non-governmental, not-for-profit and work with like-minded partners across the world to end the injustice of corruption.


CORRUPTION PERCEPTIONS INDEX


https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi#


----------



## Halifax Tar (20 Oct 2020)

CBH99 said:
			
		

> Go ahead JT, call an election.  Do it.
> 
> Your ego might be a wee bit surprised at how far you've fallen since you were first elected...
> 
> ...



Now is not the time to have the Liberals lose and election.  They need to sit in this mess for 2 more terms.  Let them truly display their colors, and let Canadians truly see them.  And until this pandemic flattens out and begins to recede an election would simply refocus our efforts from where they need to be!


----------



## Remius (20 Oct 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> A quick glance at 338Canada.com predicts that the Liberals could form a majority if an election were held right now.



The Libs know this.  Probably why they made the threat.


----------



## Kat Stevens (20 Oct 2020)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Now is not the time to have the Liberals lose and election.  They need to sit in this mess for 2 more terms.  Let them truly display their colors, and let Canadians truly see them.  And until this pandemic flattens out and begins to recede an election would simply refocus our efforts from where they need to be!



It must be nice to have the kind of job that could survive 8 more years of this. Me? as I approach the slippery side of 60, I don't hold out much hope for my financial security in my "golden years". Maybe I'll be able to afford a van down by the river.


----------



## Halifax Tar (20 Oct 2020)

Target Up said:
			
		

> It must be nice to have the kind of job that could survive 8 more years of this. Me? as I approach the slippery side of 60, I don't hold out much hope for my financial security in my "golden years". Maybe I'll be able to afford a van down by the river.



I am very sorry you are in this situation.


----------



## Kat Stevens (20 Oct 2020)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I am very sorry you are in this situation.



I’m good as things stand now, but if that drunken monkey with my credit card gets eight more years, all bets are off.


----------



## Good2Golf (20 Oct 2020)

Target Up said:
			
		

> I’m good as things stand now, but if that drunken monkey with my credit card gets eight more years, all bets are off.



Well if Erin O’Toole can’t keep the monkeys to a minority, then maybe Rona Ambrose will have had enough time to settle down and put her name in the ring for the 2024, thus keeping the monkeys’ damage to only four years...


----------



## ModlrMike (20 Oct 2020)

I believe that the GG is not bound to dissolve parliament in this instance. She could offer the Conservatives the opportunity to form a government first. Although knowing which side her bread is buttered on makes that less likely.


----------



## suffolkowner (20 Oct 2020)

Personally I don't think things look good for the Conservative Party right now and that's saying something. An irrelevant NDP means that fewer votes will be bled off the Liberal Party to the Left. Leaving the Conservative Party to hope to bleed off the Blue Liberals especially as the Liberals as a whole appear to move to the left. I'm just not sure if there's enough there to make the swing happen. Has the whole country moved to the left? And by how much? In the end I think it's possible the Conservative Party is just the NDP of the right with a very strong rural/western base. Every 12-20 years voter dissatisfaction with the corruption of the Liberal Party will allow for their return to power for a term or two. On the WE charity scandal, I'm fairly convinced that something is there to be hidden, otherwise the Liberals are just making it worse on themselves. But unless it breaks out into the open I dont see it making a difference


----------



## dapaterson (20 Oct 2020)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> I believe that the GG is not bound to dissolve parliament in this instance. She could offer the Conservatives the opportunity to form a government first. Although knowing which side her bread is buttered on makes that less likely.



Generally, constitutional scholars suggest that Parliament falling in the first six months of a minority mandate would be rationale to ask another party to form government; more than a year into the mandate, custom strongly steers her towards granting dissolution (barring exceptional circumstances, none of which appear in this instance).

Look for Philippe Lagassé and Emmett Macfarlane; they have both done some writing on the topic.

https://carleton.ca/npsia/people/philippe-lagasse/
https://uwaterloo.ca/political-science/people-profiles/emmett-macfarlane


----------



## suffolkowner (20 Oct 2020)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Generally, constitutional scholars suggest that Parliament falling in the first six months of a minority mandate would be rationale to ask another party to form government; more than a year into the mandate, custom strongly steers her towards granting dissolution (barring exceptional circumstances, none of which appear in this instance).
> 
> Look for Philippe Lagassé and Emmett Macfarlane; they have both done some writing on the topic.
> 
> ...



I think a key factor here has to be the ability of the opposition to generate support, unlike in the Harper minority there is no clear path for the opposition parties to support each other. The NDP, BLOCQ and Conservatives make uneasy bedfellows


----------



## Halifax Tar (21 Oct 2020)

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> Personally I don't think things look good for the Conservative Party right now and that's saying something. An irrelevant NDP means that fewer votes will be bled off the Liberal Party to the Left. Leaving the Conservative Party to hope to bleed off the Blue Liberals especially as the Liberals as a whole appear to move to the left. I'm just not sure if there's enough there to make the swing happen. Has the whole country moved to the left? And by how much? In the end I think it's possible the Conservative Party is just the NDP of the right with a very strong rural/western base. Every 12-20 years voter dissatisfaction with the corruption of the Liberal Party will allow for their return to power for a term or two. On the WE charity scandal, I'm fairly convinced that something is there to be hidden, otherwise the Liberals are just making it worse on themselves. But unless it breaks out into the open I dont see it making a difference



And this is where the Cons have navigated poorly.  Unfortunately in our current electoral model votes outside of Que and Ont are just the icing on the cake.  Until we (as a nation) care enough to come to the realization that the Atlantic provinces are inconsequential and the west can be ignored because of our seat distribution nothing will change.  The foundation of winning Federal elections is in Ont and Que.  If you cannot make headway there and appeal to those voters you will be forever pissing into the wind.


----------



## dapaterson (21 Oct 2020)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> And this is where the Cons have navigated poorly.  Unfortunately in our current electoral model votes outside of Que and Ont are just the icing on the cake.  Until we (as a nation) care enough to come to the realization that the Atlantic provinces are inconsequential and the west can be ignored because of our seat distribution nothing will change.  The foundation of winning Federal elections is in Ont and Que.  If you cannot make headway there and appeal to those voters you will be forever pissing into the wind.


You mean "Unless you can get a majority from provinces which are proportionately underrepresented you won't win", right?  Urban ridings generally have more voters than rural, skewing power away from the majority.

As I recall, there are individual ridings in the Toronto area with nearly as many voters as all four of PEI's ridings combined.

Edit to add list of ridings.  Note that AB and BC are also under represented.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_of_Canadian_federal_ridings


----------



## mariomike (21 Oct 2020)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> You mean "Unless you can get a majority from provinces which are proportionately underrepresented you won't win", right?  Urban ridings generally have more voters than rural, skewing power away from the majority.
> 
> As I recall, there are individual ridings in the Toronto area with nearly as many voters as all four of PEI's ridings combined.



For reference to the discussion,



> One person one vote? In Canada, it's not even close
> https://www.thestar.com/politics/2019/10/13/one-person-one-vote-in-canada-its-not-even-close.html


----------



## Halifax Tar (21 Oct 2020)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> You mean "Unless you can get a majority from provinces which are proportionately underrepresented you won't win", right?  Urban ridings generally have more voters than rural, skewing power away from the majority.
> 
> As I recall, there are individual ridings in the Toronto area with nearly as many voters as all four of PEI's ridings combined.



You are echoing me.  

The danger we are running into now is that essentially two provinces are deciding the political fate of the country.  And this where I am envious of the US Electoral College as it seem to try to ensure that regions (concerns) cannot simply ignore others (concerns) because of population size and willful ignorance.  This is my elementary understanding, and I stand to be corrected. 

This country is in dire need of electoral reform or at a minimum a redistribution of the seats.  Ont and Que should be power houses but should not be allowed to hold the balance of power.  It needs to be distributed equally to ensure all regions are relevant and represented.  The Bloq earned only 1.3 million votes vs the NDP 2.9 million and still got more seats.  This a gross misjustice in our electoral system; and its a glowing example of how one region is allowed to dominate others.


----------



## dapaterson (21 Oct 2020)

So you oppose majority rule?  A vote in Labrador is worth five votes in Niagara Falls.  How is that fair or just?

Manitoba and Saskatchewan have the same number of seats, but a big population difference.  How is that fair?

You seem to want to further reduce the influence of areas that are already underrepresented.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (21 Oct 2020)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> You are echoing me.
> 
> The danger we are running into now is that essentially two provinces are deciding the political fate of the country.  And this where I am envious of the US Electoral College as it seem to try to ensure that regions (concerns) cannot simply ignore others (concerns) because of population size and willful ignorance.  This is my elementary understanding, and I stand to be corrected.
> 
> This country is in dire need of electoral reform or at a minimum a redistribution of the seats.  Ont and Que should be power houses but should not be allowed to hold the balance of power.  It needs to be distributed equally to ensure all regions are relevant and represented.  The Bloq earned only 1.3 million votes vs the NDP 2.9 million and still got more seats.  This a gross misjustice in our electoral system; and its a glowing example of how one region is allowed to dominate others.



The Bloc only ran 78 candidates while the NDP ran 338.  Bloc votes are nearly twice as efficient.

The Bloc literally embody the spirit of what our Parliament was designed for.  They are a regional party with regional issues and play to that strength.

It's not 1 election, it's 338 elections.


----------



## mariomike (21 Oct 2020)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> The danger we are running into now is that essentially two provinces are deciding the political fate of the country.



Then let the GTA, and other big Canadian cities, become provinces.

City-state provinces in Canada? Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver  
https://navy.ca/forums/threads/124115.0
7 pages.



			
				Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I am envious of the US Electoral College as it seem to try to ensure that regions (concerns) cannot simply ignore others (concerns) because of population size and willful ignorance.



It's great for those who get a kick out of seeing the minority of Americans wielding power over the majority.

The majority of Americans have voted against the Republicans in six of the last seven presidential elections. That does not include the 2018 Midterm, or the election in two weeks.

As for, "Who cares?"

He does,



> The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.
> https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/266038556504494082





			
				Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> This country is in dire need of electoral reform or at a minimum a redistribution of the seats.



Electoral Reform 
https://navy.ca/forums/threads/25692.0
42 pages.



			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> You seem to want to further reduce the influence of areas that are already underrepresented.



 :goodpost:


----------



## Halifax Tar (21 Oct 2020)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> So you oppose majority rule?  A vote in Labrador is worth five votes in Niagara Falls.  How is that fair or just?
> 
> Manitoba and Saskatchewan have the same number of seats, but a big population difference.  How is that fair?
> 
> You seem to want to further reduce the influence of areas that are already underrepresented.





			
				Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> The Bloc only ran 78 candidates while the NDP ran 338.  Bloc votes are nearly twice as efficient.
> 
> The Bloc literally embody the spirit of what our Parliament was designed for.  They are a regional party with regional issues and play to that strength.
> 
> It's not 1 election, it's 338 elections.



Not at all.  I want all regions to be able to bring their concerns forward in elections and have equal ability to be represented.  Right now you can almost disregard areas outside of _"the center"_.  

An area that has a higher population does not make their electoral concerns/issues correct or more important, nor does it entitle dominance of another region or peoples. 

Right now our system does not represent Canadians well enough and that is where I think it needs to go.  For the good or bad of our current political parties.  Canada above all else. 

Some excellent articles on how our last election may have looked had the Libs followed through on there Electoral Reform promise.  

https://ici.radio-canada.ca/info/2019/elections-federales/mode-scrutin-proportionnelle-mixte-compensatoire/index-en.html

https://theconversation.com/what-the-canadian-election-results-would-have-looked-like-with-electoral-reform-125848

https://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/who-wins-election-2019-under-a-ranked-ballot-system/


----------



## dapaterson (21 Oct 2020)

Calgary is about the same population as NL and NB combined, yet has fewer seats in Parliament and less voice, as they are municipal, not provincial.

Shouldn't we address that problem - urban voters are discriminated against in the current model.


----------



## Halifax Tar (21 Oct 2020)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Calgary is about the same population as NL and NB combined, yet has fewer seats in Parliament and less voice, as they are municipal, not provincial.
> 
> Shouldn't we address that problem - urban voters are discriminated against in the current model.



Why does it have to be one VS the other.  Why not find or create a model that allows both equal voice for their concerns as possible ?

I say again, higher population does not equate to higher priority problems.  It just equates to more voices.


----------



## Good2Golf (21 Oct 2020)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Some excellent articles on how our last election may have looked had the Libs followed through on there Electoral Reform promise.
> 
> https://ici.radio-canada.ca/info/2019/elections-federales/mode-scrutin-proportionnelle-mixte-compensatoire/index-en.html
> 
> ...



...which is likely why they didn’t keep their promise made during Their campaigning in 2015. :nod:


----------



## mariomike (21 Oct 2020)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Shouldn't we address that problem - urban voters are discriminated against in the current model.



May not be popular with some. But, I believe that is a "good idea".


----------



## GR66 (21 Oct 2020)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Not at all.  I want all regions to be able to bring their concerns forward in elections and have equal ability to be represented.  Right now you can almost disregard areas outside of _"the center"_.



Gee....if only there was some element of the Canadian parliamentary system that was designed to represent each of the Provinces/Regions in a more equitable manner....cough...Senate...cough.

An effective Senate would go a long way to making the less populous regions feel better represented in Ottawa.  

I think it might have been Edward Campbell  :dunno:. that may have previously mentioned the idea of having the Senate seats distributed by means of proportional party representation based on the outcome of the various Provincial elections.  That to me would make a lot of sense and make Senators less beholden to the Federal political parties and more focused on representing the needs of their home Provinces.

 :2c:


----------



## Halifax Tar (21 Oct 2020)

GR66 said:
			
		

> Gee....if only there was some element of the Canadian parliamentary system that was designed to represent each of the Provinces/Regions in a more equitable manner....cough...Senate...cough.
> 
> An effective Senate would go a long way to making the less populous regions feel better represented in Ottawa.
> 
> ...



Excellent post.  Thank you, I had never thought of that.


----------



## Jarnhamar (21 Oct 2020)

* Des millions pour un ex-députéLa firme de l’ancien député libéral Frank Baylis profite des retombées d’un contrat de 237 millions$* 

https://www.journaldequebec.com/2020/10/21/des-millions-pour-un-ex-depute?fbclid=IwAR0H9Pa3ECE0hmB88fhBOHhCWP_Rz1fXsYqhfuC2nSqBGfL-eXilQe3pSK4


-FTI Professional Grade was formed just seven days before securing the $ 237 million contract.

-non-competitive contract 



If I was the LPC I wouldn't want an anti-corruption committee snooping around the Covid19 books either.


----------



## Jarnhamar (21 Oct 2020)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Now is not the time to have the Liberals lose and election.  They need to sit in this mess for 2 more terms.  Let them truly display their colors, and let Canadians truly see them.  And until this pandemic flattens out and begins to recede an election would simply refocus our efforts from where they need to be!



I get the desire to let them sit in the mess they made and deal with it for a couple years but that's not punishing them. They're still getting their pay checks and their fat pensions. They're still making their contacts with the business world and giving their friends contracts setting themselves up for their departure from politics.


It's like if you had an unethical toxic ships captain or unit CO and suggest they stay in command for another 2 or 3 years to _really _show everyone their true colours. It's the troops that pay the price not the leadership.


----------



## Halifax Tar (21 Oct 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I get the desire to let them sit in the mess they made and deal with it for a couple years but that's not punishing them. They're still getting their pay checks and their fat pensions. They're still making their contacts with the business world and giving their friends contracts setting themselves up for their departure from politics.
> 
> 
> It's like if you had an unethical toxic ships captain or unit CO and suggest they stay in command for another 2 or 3 years to _really _show everyone their true colours. It's the troops that pay the price not the leadership.



I hear you and I can rationalize your example.  I just don't want the Cons to win and then be blamed for having to fix this and cuts and work it will take.


----------



## Haggis (21 Oct 2020)

And, thanks to the NDP, the Liberals survive a bit longer.

This is probably best in the short term as they are the only party ready to fight an election campaign right now and they are polling in weak majority territory.  Let them screw up and maybe slide a bit lower in the polls first while the opposition parties build their war chests.


----------



## Halifax Tar (21 Oct 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> And, thanks to the NDP, the Liberals survive a bit longer.
> 
> This is probably best in the short term as they are the only party ready to fight an election campaign right now and they are polling in weak majority territory.  Let them screw up and maybe slide a bit lower in the polls first while the opposition parties build their war chests.



I dont think the NDP will let them fail at this point.  They are in shambles financially, with leadership and membership.  I am not convinced they will exist past the next election.  Combine all that and with the Liberals preforming a hostile take over of the NDP platform and they really have no reason to exist.  The NDP are in survival mode.


----------



## SupersonicMax (21 Oct 2020)

I truly think a majoritarian system would be the closest to fairness.  Yes, a little more difficult to manage but in this day and age, there is no reason not to do this.  Ask people to rank each candidates in their riding.  At least each candidate (and the governing party) would be chosen through a majority (and the wins by a landslide would have a bigger impact on the outcome than now).


----------



## dapaterson (21 Oct 2020)

Riding based single-transferable vote still doesn't provide for any sort of strong regional voice, which I think is what Halifax Tar is talking about.  The initial bicameral design of Canada's Parliament was partially intended to provide that through the second, landed, selected (not elected) house, the Senate.


----------



## CBH99 (21 Oct 2020)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I hear you and I can rationalize your example.  I just don't want the Cons to win and then be blamed for having to fix this and cuts and work it will take.




Due to Covid, lockdowns, CERB, etc etc - I think may well be the first time in 'my memory' that a government could propose reasonable cuts to this & that to balance the books, and not face an immediate public bashlash.

Like you though, I don't want another political party suffering the inevitable disapproval for cuts, when they are just inheriting a mess & trying to fix it.


 :2c:


----------



## Kat Stevens (22 Oct 2020)

CBH99 said:
			
		

> Due to Covid, lockdowns, CERB, etc etc - I think may well be the first time in 'my memory' that a government could propose reasonable cuts to this & that to balance the books, and not face an immediate public bashlash.
> 
> Like you though, I don't want another political party suffering the inevitable disapproval for cuts, when they are just inheriting a mess & trying to fix it.
> 
> ...



Then the current clown college we refer to as our government will be in power for ever. As long as they have our credit card, they're going to spend us into the poor house. People wonder how Venezuela went from a thriving economy to what it is today? Just. Like. This. Eventually someone has to shut down the party, piss on the campfire, and call it a night.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (22 Oct 2020)

We will see how the Liberals and their NDP puppy respond to the next assault. 

https://www.nationalobserver.com/2020/10/22/news/second-confidence-showdown-liberal-minority-could-be-way


----------



## Jarnhamar (22 Oct 2020)

Proud to be Canadian moment.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (22 Oct 2020)

Colin P said:
			
		

> We will see how the Liberals and their NDP puppy respond to the next assault.
> 
> https://www.nationalobserver.com/2020/10/22/news/second-confidence-showdown-liberal-minority-could-be-way



Yeah, I mean the absolute temerity of the Official Opposition to, you know, oppose.

There ought to be a law against questioning a Liberal Government....<sarcasm, in case everyone wasn’t already clear>


----------



## Jarnhamar (21 Nov 2020)

*MP Yasmin Ratansi denies claims of abusive, inappropriate behaviour in social media post*
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/mp-yasmin-ratansi-denies-claims-of-abusive-inappropriate-behaviour-in-social-media-post/ar-BB1bdzu1?li=AAggNb9



MP Yasmin Ratansi secretly employed her sister in her office contrary to the rules. She allegedly told employees to call her sister by another name and told them to hide the fact they were related. Her sister would hide from cameras and physically hide in the office when members of the public would come in the office as to not recognize her.

MP Yasmin Ratansi is now accused of creating a toxic and verbally abusive work environment.  Members of the office were also apparently ordered to ignore the immigration files and family reunification files for some South Asian constituents' *because she felt they were "untrustworthy" or they "lied" because of their ethnicity.* (that's not racist at all)




Family members getting special treatment.
Employees being told and expected to 'get onboard' and be complicit with unethical behavior.
_Toxic work place _with a side order of _verbal abuse. 
_
Now that doesn't sound like the Liberal Party one bit.


----------



## brihard (21 Nov 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> *MP Yasmin Ratansi denies claims of abusive, inappropriate behaviour in social media post*
> https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/mp-yasmin-ratansi-denies-claims-of-abusive-inappropriate-behaviour-in-social-media-post/ar-BB1bdzu1?li=AAggNb9
> 
> 
> ...



FWIW, she got turfed from caucus back on the 9th and now sits as an independent.


----------



## dapaterson (21 Nov 2020)

While Andrew Scheer, who hired his sister in law (who in turned hired Scheer's wife to work in her business), remains in the Conservative caucus.  Before the 2012 rule change, his sister worked for him in the Speaker's office.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/scheer-sister-otoole-conservative-1.5805264


----------



## Jarnhamar (21 Nov 2020)

[quote author=dapaterson] Before the 2012 rule change, his sister worked for him in the Speaker's office.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/scheer-sister-otoole-conservative-1.5805264
[/quote]

Right, and before the rule change Yasmin Ratansi 's sister worked for her from 2005 to 2011. 

Did Scheers sister work for him after the rule change and hide under the desk and in other offices when members of the public came in the building? Did Scheer tell people to call his sister a different name and try to hide their relationship?


The comparison really seems apples and oranges here.


----------



## Jarnhamar (21 Nov 2020)

Brihard said:
			
		

> FWIW, she got turfed from caucus back on the 9th and now sits as an independent.



I seen that. It still blows my mind that a member of parliament whether they're an independent or not is allowed to remain in their position after blatantly pulling something like this.


----------



## dapaterson (21 Nov 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Right, and before the rule change Yasmin Ratansi 's sister worked for her from 2005 to 2011.
> 
> Did Scheers sister work for him after the rule change and hide under the desk and in other offices when members of the public came in the building? Did Scheer tell people to call his sister a different name and try to hide their relationship?
> 
> ...



Hiring your sister in law (after the rule change) who then hires your wife has a bad look.  Particularly when you are the party leader...


----------



## brihard (21 Nov 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I seen that. It still blows my mind that a member of parliament whether they're an independent or not is allowed to remain in their position after blatantly pulling something like this.



Ultimately it’s up to the voters. Our system preserves Parliamentary independence fiercely. Kady O’Malley did a decent dive into this a couple years back: https://ipolitics.ca/2018/12/03/process-nerd-can-an-mp-be-forced-to-give-up-his-or-her-seat/


----------



## Jarnhamar (21 Nov 2020)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Hiring your sister in law (after the rule change) who then hires your wife has a bad look.  Particularly when you are the party leader...



I'll buy that. A sister in law doesn't appear to constitute as immediate family under the same rule that Yasmin Ratansi broke. Sheers sister in law hiring his sister doesn't sound like it broke any rules but I'm comfortable firing all three of them, and also Yasmin Ratansi.

Like Brihard points out though it's up to the voters. I think we're seeing voters are willing to let rules be broken as long as they feel their interests are looked out for. That sounds like a broken system to me. 



The MP allegedly telling her office not to work on immigration files from South Asian constituents because they're untrustworthy or liars because of their ethnicity is quite the accusation.


----------



## brihard (21 Nov 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> The MP allegedly telling her office not to work on immigration files from South Asian constituents because they're untrustworthy or liars because of their ethnicity is quite the accusation.



It is indeed. Biting my tongue because I have to in these cases.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (21 Nov 2020)

IF TRUE, then there isn't any other Govt. job you wouldn't be fired on the spot from.  Be interesting to see the roadmap required to make that happen seeing how she's elected.


----------



## Jarnhamar (21 Nov 2020)

Brihard said:
			
		

> It is indeed. Biting my tongue because I have to in these cases.





			
				Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> IF TRUE, then there isn't any other Govt. job you wouldn't be fired on the spot from.  Be interesting to see the roadmap required to make that happen seeing how she's elected.



Can you imagine if a Canadian Forces recruiter told the office not to work on First Nation or Black Canadian applicant files because they're untrustworthy and liars?


----------



## brihard (21 Nov 2020)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> IF TRUE, then there isn't any other Govt. job you wouldn't be fired on the spot from.  Be interesting to see the roadmap required to make that happen seeing how she's elected.



The roadmap, unless she resigns, is that the PM asks the GG to dissolve Parliament and call an election.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (21 Nov 2020)

Brihard said:
			
		

> The roadmap, unless she resigns, is that the PM asks the GG to dissolve Parliament and call an election.



There is no other road map for elected officials.

For MPs, there is only and ultimately the voters of each riding to sort it out.

And for those who think it is wrong, imagine for a moment a system where a sitting MP could be removed without an election. That would be abused and democracy in Canada would die.


----------



## Jarnhamar (21 Nov 2020)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> There is no other road map for elected officials.
> 
> For MPs, there is only and ultimately the voters of each riding to sort it out.
> 
> And for those who think it is wrong, imagine for a moment a system where a sitting MP could be removed without an election. That would be abused and democracy in Canada would die.



You're right. It just seems like politicians have set themselves up in such a way that even when they're caught  breaking the rules they're hardly accountable outside of a fine and maybe having to find a new job. they're so connected that finding a new job is hardly the threat it would be to someone like us.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (21 Nov 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Can you imagine if a Canadian Forces recruiter told the office not to work on First Nation or Black Canadian applicant files because they're untrustworthy and liars?



There was a time when the military believed such things and it's long gone now, which is good.


----------



## MilEME09 (21 Nov 2020)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> There is no other road map for elected officials.
> 
> For MPs, there is only and ultimately the voters of each riding to sort it out.
> 
> And for those who think it is wrong, imagine for a moment a system where a sitting MP could be removed without an election. That would be abused and democracy in Canada would die.



I agree with you however, I feel we should have some kind of mechanism to allow constituents to recall an MP and force a Bi-election if the majority are unsatisfied.


----------



## Cloud Cover (21 Nov 2020)

Good summary by Kadie O’Malley on the near impossibility of removal of a sitting MP. 
https://ipolitics.ca/2018/12/03/process-nerd-can-an-mp-be-forced-to-give-up-his-or-her-seat/


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 Nov 2020)

Pretty well a done deal from the sounds of it. Break the rules, keep your job, screw what the voters think.

Switching gears.

What is the process for creating a national referendum on whether voters are ready to follow the PM into globalism, post nationalism and the Great Reset, as it's been called? Is there nothing, grass roots taxpayers can do to say no? If Parliamentarians are too fickle to tackle the problem, how do disgruntled citizens do it?
I know there is the, tried and true, age old solution. I'm looking for a solution without bloodshed.


----------



## YZT580 (22 Nov 2020)

What is the process for creating a national referendum on whether voters are ready to follow the PM into globalism, post nationalism and the Great Reset, as it's been called? Is there nothing, grass roots taxpayers can do to say no? If Parliamentarians are too fickle to tackle the problem, how do disgruntled citizens do it?
I know there is the, tried and true, age old solution. I'm looking for a solution without bloodshed.
[/quote]

Contact the local NDP and inform them that if they don't oppose in Parliament then they will be wiped out come the next election and build a grassroots push behind it.  Trudeau IS leading a minority government after all


----------



## brihard (22 Nov 2020)

Fishbone Jones said:
			
		

> Pretty well a done deal from the sounds of it. Break the rules, keep your job, screw what the voters think.
> 
> Switching gears.
> 
> ...



Create a political party and run for office. Next election at the absolute latest will be in three years. There is otherwise no mechanism for a ‘citizens’ referendum’, unless expressly provided for by some act of government. Otherwise, get enough Canadians to actually show they have these concerns and pressure the existing slate of MPs to push back. Same solutions as have been in place the whole time our system has been around. You may not get the results you like, but that’s a peaceful democracy for you.


----------



## CBH99 (22 Nov 2020)

Forgive me for asking what may be a silly question, I haven't been following the details of parliament for a while now.  (Just because of Covid, and paying attention to other things.)

Are our current opposition parties able to challenge/say anything in regards to Trudeua's suggestion of 'the great reset'?  I know for a while that MPs were not allowed in parliament due to COVID concerns, and some of them expressed serious concerns that many important decisions were being made by the government without the usual due processes.


----------



## Haggis (22 Nov 2020)

CBH99 said:
			
		

> Are our current opposition parties able to challenge/say anything in regards to Trudeau's suggestion of 'the great reset'?


  There is only one current opposition party.  The NDP and Bloc are now Liberal "lite" and support Trudeau at almost every turn. Together they outnumber the Conservatives which allows the Liberals to have a de-facto majority government.



			
				CBH99 said:
			
		

> I know for a while that MPs were not allowed in parliament due to COVID concerns, and some of them expressed serious concerns that many important decisions were being made by the government without the usual due processes.


  A lot of parliamentary business, particularly committees, was conducted via video and teleconferences.  Teleconferences have a "mute" function.  Don't like what the opposition is saying?  Click "mute".  Voila!  Consensus.


----------



## FJAG (22 Nov 2020)

Much as I hate to burst anyone's bubble but the Liberals, the NDP. the Bloc and the Greens combined garnered the votes of roughly 11.4 million Canadians while the Conservatives (and the Bernier's bunch) collectively got roughly 6.5 million.

Like it or not, this country is a Liberal lite country for the most part. They generally support globalism and a more socially and economically sensitive economy. The Great Reset as circulating now is a fake conspiracy theory, plain and simple, but the direction most Western countries were heading before the pandemic and certainly thereafter are definitely contrary to that which most of us in the fiscal conservative fold are happy with.

The trouble is that we can bleat and protest all that we want. Referendums, even if available, won't help. Neither will the old tried and true federal election process to throw the buggers out because in the end, the way we're heading, the majority of the population will demand that we continue down that road.

We're well and beyond political parties educating the electorate. The electorate is educating itself and the political party that can harness going along for the ride better than it's opposition, (barring any scandal that will truly outrage our blasé electorate) will win.

 :stirpot:


----------



## CBH99 (22 Nov 2020)

FJAG said:
			
		

> We're well and beyond political parties educating the electorate. The electorate is educating itself and the political party that can harness going along for the ride better than it's opposition, *(barring any scandal that will truly outrage our blasé electorate)* will win.
> 
> :stirpot:




At this point, I don't even know what kind of scandal would be necessary for people to actually care.  If none of the super shady stuff thus far has prompted the citizens to cry out for change, I honestly don't know what would.


Do they care when chatting with their friends?  Yes, outraged.

Are they internally disappointed and frustrated?  Yes.

Will some of them even jump on their computers and join the deep fryer of a CBC comments section?  You bet they will, albeit that has to be the most useless avenue ever to be heard on.


And that's it.  I've realized that most people are like fish.  The next day, they'll forget about the scandal and focus on whatever the media tells them to.


----------



## PMedMoe (23 Nov 2020)

CBH99 said:
			
		

> Do they care when chatting with their friends?  Yes, outraged.
> 
> Are they internally disappointed and frustrated?  Yes.
> 
> ...



Or, they just like to be outraged at something....anything.  :dunno:


----------



## Jarnhamar (28 Nov 2020)

Classic Liberal Party

*
PMO sends readout of Trudeau scolding O'Toole over 'COVID misinformation' in phone call. But the call hadn't happened*

_Shortly afterwards, Melanie Paradis, director of communications for O’Toole, tweeted, 'This is awkward. The call isn’t until 5.15pm today'_

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau scolded Conservative leader Erin O’Toole over “COVID misinformation” in a telephone call on Friday afternoon, according to a statement from the Prime Minister’s Office. Except the call hadn’t happened.

According to a “readout” of the “call” sent at 4.34 p.m. by the PMO, Trudeau updated O’Toole on several issues. Then, “the Prime Minister also raised concerns around COVID-19 misinformation being promoted by Conservative Members of Parliament, given Conservative MPs recently downplayed the deaths of Canadians in Alberta due to COVID-19 and compared COVID-19 to the flu.”


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (28 Nov 2020)

I guess this is what happens when 'they"  don't let him ever go off script


----------



## mariomike (3 Dec 2020)

Saw this in US Politics,



			
				Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> No, but we still are.....so you can stop being so smug about that tired old fact.



The majority of Americans voted for the Democratic candidate in seven of the last eight presidential elections.

You can let us know when something like that becomes a "tired old fact" in Canadian politics.


----------



## brihard (3 Dec 2020)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Saw this in US Politics,
> 
> The majority of Americans voted for the Democratic candidate in seven of the last eight presidential elections.
> 
> You can let us know when something like that becomes a "tired old fact" in Canadian politics.



Difficult to easily compare voting trends vs results with a Westminster Parliamentary system, against a perpetual two-party republic where the presidential candidate must win an outright majority of something to get the spot.


----------



## mariomike (3 Dec 2020)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Difficult to easily compare voting trends vs results with a Westminster Parliamentary system, against a perpetual two-party republic where the presidential candidate must win an outright majority of something to get the spot.



Right. Apples vs oranges,




			
				Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> No, but we still are......


----------



## Haggis (4 Dec 2020)

An opinion piece, published in the Toronto Star in early November, exonerates WE and the Liberals.

Back to business as usual now.


----------



## dapaterson (4 Dec 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> An opinion piece, published in the Toronto Star in early November, exonerates WE and the Liberals.
> 
> Back to business as usual now.



You left out "opinion piece by man paid by long time WE supporter" exonerates WE and the Liberals.


----------



## Haggis (4 Dec 2020)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> You left out "opinion piece by man paid by long time WE supporter" exonerates WE and the Liberals.



So did The Star.


----------



## Jarnhamar (7 Dec 2020)

More transparency. 

*Trudeau government won't say who got billions of dollars in aid* 

While some payments have been revealed, the destination of billions of dollars in aid remains secret

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/covid-spending-government-transparency-1.5826917


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (7 Dec 2020)

I realize the need for the 'money tossing', but we certainly have the right to know where every cent went.   This isn't deep black ops stuff money.....


----------



## Good2Golf (7 Dec 2020)

Classic LPC demonizing of those looking for answers:



> "Now is the time for us to focus on what we can do going forward to save Canadian lives and to preserve the Canadian economy," Freeland told the House on Oct. 29. "There will be a time for post-mortems, but while the plane is flying, one does not try to change the engine."



The issue is accountability, not a post-mortem that equates in any way to changing an airplane’s engine in flight.  

If Freeland wants to use an aviation analogy, is should be that we are conducting a standard in-flight systems check, making sure that all the Ts&Ps (temp, pressure) and fluids (fuel, oil, hydraulics) are all at their proper levels and that the FMS (flight management system) remains properly programmed to the correct destination. 

Her response to those asking for reasonable details in the use of public funds is insulting and disrespectful to all Canadians. 

Regards
G2G


----------



## OldSolduer (7 Dec 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> More transparency.
> 
> *Trudeau government won't say who got billions of dollars in aid*
> 
> While some payments have been revealed, the destination of billions of dollars in aid remains secret



And what do you want to bet it won't ever be revealed.....


----------



## Jarnhamar (7 Dec 2020)

_ Liberals are worried you're saving too much. They want "ideas on how the government can act to unlock" those savings. _ 

https://twitter.com/PierrePoilievre/status/1336008986068459525?s=20


----------



## PMedMoe (7 Dec 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> _ Liberals are worried you're saving too much. They want "ideas on how the government can act to unlock" those savings. _
> 
> https://twitter.com/PierrePoilievre/status/1336008986068459525?s=20



Had this discussion on FB.  Poilievre must be wearing his tinfoil hat over his ears because that it NOT what she said.  Basically, some Canadians have savings.  Those savings (if people decide to spend) could be a stimulus to the economy. 

Someone remarked:  "Pierre Poilievre is the merchant of doom and gloom. He's great at stimulating mistrust but not good at suggesting solutions. What I heard is that Canadians have saved a lot of money during the pandemic and when people start spending that will start an economic recovery. At no time did Freeland say they were going to raid your bank account."


----------



## Jarnhamar (7 Dec 2020)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Had this discussion on FB.  Poilievre must be wearing his tinfoil hat over his ears because that it NOT what she said.  Basically, some Canadians have savings.  Those savings (if people decide to spend) could be a stimulus to the economy.
> 
> Someone remarked:  "Pierre Poilievre is the merchant of doom and gloom. He's great at stimulating mistrust but not good at suggesting solutions. What I heard is that Canadians have saved a lot of money during the pandemic and when people start spending that will start an economic recovery. At no time did Freeland say they were going to raid your bank account."



Freeland said she wants ideas on how the government can unlock those savings.

The same government that's refusing to say who got billions of dollars for covid aid.


Should Canadians spend their savings to help the economy so the government can secretly give more money to mysterious beneficiaries?  rly:


----------



## blacktriangle (7 Dec 2020)

If the government wants people to spend more money, perhaps they should inspire some more confidence.


----------



## Good2Golf (7 Dec 2020)

More consumer-borne carbon taxes and an un-postponable increase to the GST would effectively do just that (_de facto_ raid your bank account). :nod:


----------



## AmmoTech90 (7 Dec 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> _ Liberals are worried you're saving too much. They want "ideas on how the government can act to unlock" those savings. _
> 
> https://twitter.com/PierrePoilievre/status/1336008986068459525?s=20



Pierre Poilievre is a the most weaselly politician I have ever had the displeasure to meet.  Twice.  Once at the WO & Sgt's Mess in Ottawa on a Remembrance Day where he hid in a corner, did not public engagement, and left after 10 minutes with a relieved look on his face.  Second time was a public meeting about some project in our riding, he hid behind the microphone and deferred every question to a public servant and took no responsibility for a single aspect of the project.

He has zero credibility in my books.


----------



## daftandbarmy (7 Dec 2020)

Here's a hint of what might be in store....“I believe that a large share of this excess cash is held by high-income individuals and they are really looking forward to spending it, mainly on services.”

Pre-Loaded Stimulus: must be the new words for 'Massive Tax and Spend Target' 


Ottawa eyes 'pre-loaded stimulus' in Canadians' savings accounts

As Canadians look to Ottawa to repair an economy ravaged by COVID-19, there’s a growing focus on our savings accounts as a source of potent fiscal stimulus just waiting to be “unleashed.”

Bay Street economists estimate businesses and households are sitting on upwards of $170 billion in excess cash. It’s an eye-popping figure the Trudeau Liberals are taking notice of, with no less than five references in the Fall Economic Statement to “unleashing” that money.

“I do see the cash mountain, in both Canada and the U.S., as a serious source of potential upside to next year’s growth,” Doug Porter, chief economist at BMO Capital Markets, wrote in an email.

“I believe there is a strong case for a powerful comeback next year – if you open it, they will spend.”

While much of the focus of the fiscal update was on supports to get businesses and workers through the immediate challenges of COVID-19, the document did cast an eye to the recovery period with a pledge to commit up to $100 billion in stimulus over three years.

Of course, that additional stimulus, when it comes, would only add to Canada’s mounting debt pile – which is set to push past $1.2 trillion as the country goes deep into deficit spending battling the pandemic.

So it’s easy to see why our savings accounts are creating such a stir.

Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland called that cash the “Canadian economy’s pre-loaded stimulus” in her fiscal update speech to the House of Commons. And the update itself makes clear that “unleashing these savings will be a key element of the government’s recovery plan.”

Some of the country’s top economists agree

“This money will be utilized aggressively, mainly by households,” Benjamin Tal, deputy chief economist at CIBC, said in an email.

“I believe that a large share of this excess cash is held by high-income individuals and they are really looking forward to spending it, mainly on services.”

In a report published last month, CIBC put the excess savings of households at $90 billion while businesses are thought to be sitting on some $80 billion. Businesses, said Tal, will put some of that cash toward repaying loans “and the rest will be spent more slowly.”

“That’s where government can be effective by simplifying and reducing red tape,” he said.

While Ottawa is promising more detail on its stimulus plan in the spring budget, the fiscal update did indicate the federal government would “prioritize investments that act fast and help unleash some of the additional savings.”

When it comes to households, it’s questionable just how much prodding they’ll need from Ottawa to spend – if any.

“Just distribute the vaccine and get out of the way,” said Tal. “There is enough motivation to spend, no need for help.”

Porter also expects “spending to come back strongly on its own” once the country is past the worst of the pandemic.

“If we attempt to force-feed spending now, we risk channeling even more spending into areas that are already hot, and won’t benefit the sectors that are in the most dire situation,” Porter said.

“If it turns out that as things re-open and consumers are still reluctant, then it may make sense for policy to shift.”

https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/ottawa-eyes-pre-loaded-stimulus-in-canadians-savings-accounts-1.1531766


----------



## Jarnhamar (7 Dec 2020)

[quote author=AmmoTech90]

He has zero credibility in my books.
[/quote]

I've never met him, the videos I've seen of him calling out the PM sounds like he's doing a good job bringing up salient questions and points. Is he credible? I'd argue he has more credibility than our own PM, certainly less ethical violations and shady dealing with shady companies used to getting sole-sourced contracts. I'm not a fan of my local MP, she still makes some good arguments.


----------



## Jarnhamar (7 Dec 2020)

[quote author=daftandbarmy]


Ottawa eyes 'pre-loaded stimulus' in Canadians' savings accounts
[/quote]
Maybe we can look forward to having our savings taxed if we don't decide to spend it to "do our part" and repair the economy.


----------



## ModlrMike (7 Dec 2020)

Any time a Liberal sets their sights on someone else's money we need to be on guard. I can unlock my savings without your help, than you very much.


----------



## Good2Golf (7 Dec 2020)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Any time a Liberal sets their sights on someone else's money we need to be on guard. I can unlock my savings without your help, than you very much.



Surely you agree that others deserve some (a socially-responsible share, of course) of your disproportionately gained savings, lest you confirm that your dedication, hard earnings and sound family fiscal management are greedily being kept from distribution to your fellow Canadians of greater need than you?


----------



## blacktriangle (7 Dec 2020)

If Ms Freeland wants to cough up half of a new truck or C8 Corvette for me, I'll go in for the other half. Sounds like a fair deal to me.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (7 Dec 2020)

reveng said:
			
		

> If Ms Freeland wants to cough up half of a new truck or C8 Corvette for me, I'll go in for the other half. Sounds like a fair deal to me.



She will, with the money she unlocked from your account.... :waiting:


----------



## blacktriangle (7 Dec 2020)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> She will, with the money she unlocked from your account.... :waiting:



Jokes on her then, I planned to finance my share...


----------



## FJAG (7 Dec 2020)

Sometimes I just need to give my head a shake. 

Most of us pile up savings because we know that there will come a time when our incomes will decrease or dry up and we'll need our savings to be seeing ourselves through in our older age. To put it simply, if we unleash our savings on the economy today, we'll become a burden on society in the future.

Personally I have everything I need right now, Chrystia. My current needs are modest. Even more modest now that I can't wander off for vacations. I'm not about to go out there and spend a lot of cash on stuff that I don't need just to make you and your gang of thieves happy.

Wanna kick start the economy? Bin your GST (and PST). Just like that there will be a 13% increase flowing into the economy. Oh, and just let me mention May 19th. That's the average Tax Freedom Day in Canada. Every penny that we earn prior to May 19th goes to some form or other of taxation. That's 38% of our collective earnings. Think of the boost to the economy if the governments could figure out a way to cut that back to say April 1st, or heaven forbid, March 1st. Or maybe change your cockamamie energy policies and your numerous nitpicking regulations so that the manufacturing industry can actually afford to remain in this country rather than run across the border.

Just spitballin' here Chrystia. Maybe the economy would pick up nicely if you let people decide which of their favourite stores or manufacturers or restaurants to spend money on rather than giving it to you to give to WE or Bombardier or some other such cocktail circuit buddies of the Liberal Party. Speaking of which; what did you do with the $240 billion you picked out of our collective pockets over the last eight months?

Asking for a friend.

rly:


----------



## SeaKingTacco (7 Dec 2020)

QFTFT


----------



## Kat Stevens (7 Dec 2020)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Sometimes I just need to give my head a shake.
> 
> Most of us pile up savings because we know that there will come a time when our incomes will decrease or dry up and we'll need our savings to be seeing ourselves through in our older age. To put it simply, if we unleash our savings on the economy today, we'll become a burden on society in the future.
> 
> ...



Heretic! Sounds like you could use a summer at camp.


----------



## blacktriangle (7 Dec 2020)

Target Up said:
			
		

> Heretic! Sounds like you could use a summer at camp.



Considering how easy it is to identify all of us on here, I'm sure he won't alone. Maybe there will be time for an Army.ca "reeducation meet & greet". Look forward to seeing you all there. 

Seriously though, if we aren't even allowed to know where our tax dollars are going, why would we want to go out of my way to purchase goods that will then be taxed? It's sort of like asking for blind loyalty... and I've already used up my blind loyalty for this lifetime, thanks.


----------



## Jarnhamar (8 Dec 2020)

_"high-income individuals"_

It's not like the LPC would vilify a group of Canadians, take their property away for "the greater good" based on bullshit "evidence" and make vague promises of compensating them down the road.


----------



## Brad Sallows (8 Dec 2020)

To unleash/unlock savings sounds more like an intention to encourage spending rather than confiscate and spend.  The LPC being what it is, people may be forgiven for assuming the latter.

Undoubtedly governments would like to channel what they are thinking of as unspent accumulations of wages by those who kept drawing a paycheque with fewer opportunities to spend.  However, some of that undoubtedly went into investment opportunities and some into paying down debt.

The best course of action would be for governments to stay out of the way and let people negotiate among themselves what to offer and what to buy.  Millions of minds, versus dozens.  It's a kind of test, really: are the politicians and various flavours of technocrat smart enough to know that they're not smart enough to optimally manage the recovery?


----------



## Jarnhamar (8 Dec 2020)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> To unleash/unlock savings sounds more like an intention to encourage spending rather than confiscate and spend.  The LPC being what it is, people may be forgiven for assuming the latter.



The LPC won't literary raid peoples bank accounts and start transferring money out. 

I can see them incovieniencing (bordering on punishing) people who don't spend x% of their savings or doing whatever the LPC wants them to do with their savings. 

Because they know what's best for Canadians and really don't like being told no.


----------



## Good2Golf (8 Dec 2020)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> The best course of action would be for governments to stay out of the way and let people negotiate among themselves what to offer and what to buy.  Millions of minds, versus dozens.  It's a kind of test, really: are the politicians and various flavours of technocrat smart enough to know that they're not smart enough to optimally manage the recovery?



Brad, by any chance do you appreciate theatre?  

For tonight’s performance of the old fable of ‘The Scorpion and the Frog,’ the part of the Scorpion will be played by the LPC.


----------



## OldSolduer (8 Dec 2020)

Target Up said:
			
		

> Heretic! Sounds like you could use a summer at camp.



Yes - the "Re Education " Camp. Ask the Cambodians and a few dozen other groups how those went.


----------



## Jarnhamar (12 Dec 2020)

*
Government isn't making it easy to see where all that federal pandemic spending is going*
https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/opinion-federal-government-fiscal-transparency-1.5833495


Can't people just leave the LPC alone and let them spend money on whatever and whoever they want without having to answer annoying questions?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (12 Dec 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> *
> Government isn't making it easy to see where all that federal pandemic spending is going*
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/opinion-federal-government-fiscal-transparency-1.5833495
> 
> ...



Right? I mean, what fun is it being the government if you keep having to face Parliament and face annoying questions all day long...


----------



## Weinie (12 Dec 2020)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Brad, by any chance do you appreciate theatre?
> 
> For tonight’s performance of the old fable of ‘The Scorpion and the Frog,’ _*the part of the Scorpion will be played by the LPC.*_



It's in their nature.


----------



## dapaterson (11 Jan 2021)

CBC reports a cabinet shuffle tomorrow with a small number of ministers changing portfolios:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1348816776344334336


----------



## Remius (11 Jan 2021)

Too many vacationing ministers that need replacing.


----------



## dapaterson (11 Jan 2021)

Mercedes Stephenson reports:

"Multiple sources telling me Bains will not run in the next election and will no longer be in cabinet. Two separate sources saying Champagne replaces Bains, Garneau goes to GAC and Alghabra goes into cabinet to replace Garneau"


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1348818635683459072


----------



## dapaterson (11 Jan 2021)

Reading into this a little, sounds as if they are maintaining the 905 quota in cabinet as they reshuffle in advance of an election later this year.

That prediction, together with $2, may get you coffee at Tim's.


----------



## Altair (27 Jan 2021)

Federal Politics: Liberals hold lead in vote intention as unfavourable views of CPC leader intensify - Angus Reid Institute
					

Half (51%) say top priority for federal government is getting COVID-19 under control January 27, 2021 – As the prime minister hints at the probability of a 2021 election, the




					angusreid.org
				






> Justin Trudeau finds his conduct on COVID-19 management – especially vaccine rollout – under the microscope, but Canadians are also evaluating the performance of Conservative leader Erin O’Toole.
> 
> And while the Liberal leader sees neither significant improvement nor deterioration in the way Canadians perceive him, views of his main opponent are trending in a more negative direction.
> 
> ...



Just a poll, but it's clear why you heard rumblings about a election in the middle of a pandemic.


----------



## ModlrMike (27 Jan 2021)

I imagine the vaccine rollout struggle might diminish that opinion.


----------



## cavalryman (27 Jan 2021)

And yet, yesterday I saw a TV ad by one of the usual liberal astroturf organizations whom I'd never heard of before, demonizing Erin O'Toole on the health care file. Reading the entrails shows an early election call this spring.


----------



## Good2Golf (27 Jan 2021)

cavalryman said:


> And yet, yesterday I saw a TV ad by one of the usual liberal astroturf organizations whom I'd never heard of before, demonizing Erin O'Toole on the health care file. Reading the entrails shows an early election call this spring.


Yup.  Counting on the blind non-fact checking nature of Trudeaumania types...


----------



## Altair (27 Jan 2021)

ModlrMike said:


> I imagine the vaccine rollout struggle might diminish that opinion.


Yeah, but as much as Trudeau needs to wear it, it means little if the leader of the opposition is disliked more and more.


----------



## Good2Golf (27 Jan 2021)

Altair said:


> Yeah, but as much as Trudeau needs to wear it, it means little if the leader of the opposition is disliked more and more.


Exactly as Trudeau and his strategists would have it...demonizing O’Toole to distract attention away from the shortcomings of he and his government.


----------



## Kat Stevens (28 Jan 2021)

The libs and all their friends just voted down a private members bill that would have led to crackdown on the cross border trafficking of illegal firearms. Legal firearms? Hang the bastards! Illegal firearms? Have at ‘er boys!


----------



## Altair (28 Jan 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> Exactly as Trudeau and his strategists would have it...demonizing O’Toole to distract attention away from the shortcomings of he and his government.


Have they though?

Really, in a sense that the public would take note of?

This might have to do with the missteps O'Toole has had with the residential school remarks or the Derek Sloan thing than anything that Trudeau or the liberals have said about O'Toole.


----------



## Good2Golf (28 Jan 2021)

So:

• taking action against a party member who, inadvertently or not, received fundraising from an inappropriate group = bad...shouldn’t be the next PM.

• taking action against a party member who spoke out about concerns of another party member’s alleged associations with a foreign terrorist organization = okay...should continue as PM for potentially fourth, fifth, etc. ethics violation.

Got it.  To think that folks felt so strongly about crowd/groupthink in support of a weak leader elsewhere...but at home...apologize, cry, repeat...keep the false virtues signaling... 🙄


----------



## Altair (28 Jan 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> So:
> 
> • taking action against a party member who, inadvertently or not, received fundraising from an inappropriate group = bad...shouldn’t be the next PM.
> 
> ...


I hope that this isn't directed at me, because I said nothing of the sort.

I just posted a poll that shows a growing number of Canadians have a unfavorable view of O'Toole while Trudeau has had no change in what Canadians think of him.

The reasons for this are up for debate, of course.


----------



## Good2Golf (28 Jan 2021)

Just a juxtapositional thought...


----------



## Good2Golf (28 Jan 2021)

In other business.  Looks like Trudeau and his associates don’t want stronger legislation against illegal gun smuggling.  His extended team supported his soft-on-illegal-guns/tough-on-legal-gun-owners approach to vote collecting.

Bill C-238 voted down by Liberals, NDP and Green.
https://www.ourcommons.ca/members/en/votes/43/2/41

For: 150 - Conservatives (all), Bloc (all), Liberal (2 - Suhk Dhaliwal, Surrey BC; Adam Vaughan, Spadina-Fort York ON), Independent (1 - Ramesh Sangha, Brampton Center ON)

Against: 171 - Liberal (142), NDP (all), Green (all), Independent (3)

Interestingly, the two liberals and one independent (recently ejected from the Liberal caucus) who voted yes are MPs for large metropolitan population centers with disproportionately high illegal gun use....so they feel that legislation was justified.

Regards
G2G


----------



## CBH99 (28 Jan 2021)

The advantage JT had when first elected was that he 'stood out' amongst the political crowd.  Young, handsome, decent speaker / BS'er, could connect with younger Canadians, and stood out on the world stage during the honeymoon phase after he was elected.

The Conservatives need someone that 'stands out' from the crowd.  O'Toole isn't that guy, in my opinion.


----------



## Good2Golf (28 Jan 2021)

CBH99 said:


> The advantage JT had when first elected was that he 'stood out' amongst the political crowd.  Young, handsome, decent speaker / BS'er, could connect with younger Canadians, and stood out on the world stage during the honeymoon phase after he was elected.
> 
> The Conservatives need someone that 'stands out' from the crowd.  O'Toole isn't that guy, in my opinion.


Fully agree, CBH.  Another swing and a miss by the CPC. Maybe in 2025, they’ll have figured it out.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (28 Jan 2021)

They only lost by 20,000 votes last election (in strategic areas), it isn't too hard to imagine a election swinging either way.


----------



## Kat Stevens (28 Jan 2021)

CBH99 said:


> The advantage JT had when first elected was that he 'stood out' amongst the political crowd.  Young, handsome, decent speaker / BS'er, could connect with younger Canadians, and stood out on the world stage during the honeymoon phase after he was elected.
> 
> The Conservatives need someone that 'stands out' from the crowd.  O'Toole isn't that guy, in my opinion.


Decent speaker? If I would have “ummm ahhhh errrrred” that  much on my CLC it would have been a big fat Freddy and a long walk to the man eating truck.


----------



## Spencer100 (28 Jan 2021)

JT won the first election on one thing.  The legalization of weed.  My son and his friends at was the only thing that mattered.  And they tell my that was the millennial consensus.  That is what pull them over the top.  And then they got a minority because those voters did not care the next time.


----------



## Haggis (28 Jan 2021)

Spencer100 said:


> JT won the first election on one thing.  The legalization of weed.  My son and his friends at was the only thing that mattered.  And they tell my that was the millennial consensus.  That is what pull them over the top.  And then they got a minority because those voters did not care the next time.


My Liberal campaign promise predictions for 2021:


forgive un-repaid CERB loans;
a tax credit for the amount of those CERB loans already paid back;
implementation of a national immunization "passport";
complete prohibition of handguns, semi-automatic, pump and lever action long guns;
decriminalization of simple possession of certain narcotics;
abandonment of any ongoing or future pipeline projects;
whatever the NDP wants, but bigger;
decriminalization of simple soliciting for the purpose of prostitution;
whatever Biden wants to avoid reopening the USMCA/CUSMA;
national standardized drinking age of 18;
withdrawal from NATO; and
abandonment of the monarchy and associated ties (i.e. the GG).

The cool thing about campaign promises is that you don't have to keep any of them once you're (re)elected.


----------



## Good2Golf (28 Jan 2021)

Haggis said:


> My Liberal campaign promise predictions for 2021:
> ...
> The cool thing about campaign promises is that you don't have to keep any of them once you're (re)elected.


I think you forgot:
• Government MPs (including the PM himself) to comply with Ethics Code of Conduct and Conflict of Interest Act. 😉


----------



## Weinie (28 Jan 2021)

Haggis said:


> My Liberal campaign promise predictions for 2021:
> 
> 
> forgive un-repaid CERB loans;
> ...


You had me at HELLO.


----------



## Jarnhamar (28 Jan 2021)

Altair said:


> This might have to do with the missteps O'Toole has had with the residential school remarks


Do Canadians really give a shit about residential schools though? I mean beyond being a reason to get worked up and outraged at a politician, do people really care?  I didn't see much outrage when Trudeau laughed and cracked jokes towards the first nations woman who paid $2000 to attend a pay for play supper, you know the one from the reserve where the water was poison. The Residential school topic is manufactured outrage. It's a convenient minefield.


----------



## daftandbarmy (28 Jan 2021)

Jarnhamar said:


> Do Canadians really give a shit about residential schools though? I mean beyond being a reason to get worked up and outraged at a politician, do people really care?  I didn't see much outrage when Trudeau laughed and cracked jokes towards the first nations woman who paid $2000 to attend a pay for play supper, you know the one from the reserve where the water was poison. The Residential school topic is manufactured outrage. It's a convenient minefield.



My kids have had it drummed into them at school since Kindergarten, and I deal with issues like that on a regular basis at work in the natural resource sector space. 

It's a big, huge deal in certain parts of the civilian world, believe me.


----------



## Jarnhamar (28 Jan 2021)

If you're saying it then I believe it.  But could you explain a bit how it's a big deal in those parts? I really struggle to see how it has any impact outside of being treated like asking conservative politicians whether or not they'll march in Pride. Less so.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (28 Jan 2021)

Jarnhamar said:


> Do Canadians really give a shit about residential schools though? I mean beyond being a reason to get worked up and outraged at a politician, do people really care?  I didn't see much outrage when Trudeau laughed and cracked jokes towards the first nations woman who paid $2000 to attend a pay for play supper, you know the one from the reserve where the water was poison. The Residential school topic is manufactured outrage. It's a convenient minefield.



I suppose it depends on the Canadian.  Probably a majority of the 1.67 million Canadians who identified themselves as an Aboriginal person on the 2016 census have a different point of view than, say, a rural Albertan who identifies from a strictly European  background.  It might be safe to say that the audience for Mr. O'Toole's residential school comments at the Ryerson event probably didn't think it mattered much, otherwise why did he make the comment he did.  But that was a *C*onservative audience, directly concerned by chatter about changing the name of their school due to the history of that namesake as one of the architects of the residential school system.  It's very easy to say what the base likes to hear, but putting one's foot into it when not necessary is foolish.  And that's what O'Toole did - unable to present an alternative and "acceptable" option to those not in the CPC base.

So, do Canadians really give a shit about residential schools?  Well, this Canadian does.  And it's not manufactured and I don't get worked up nor am I outraged at politicians.  It's an embarrassing episode in our country's history and the unfortunate thing is that it is still affecting us.  Would I have felt the same way forty or fifty years ago?  Probably not, I was likely much the same as most Canadians with a similar heritage.  What changed?  I grew up.


----------



## Jarnhamar (28 Jan 2021)

Blackadder1916 said:


> So, do Canadians really give a shit about residential schools?  Well, this Canadian does.  And it's not manufactured and I don't get worked up nor am I outraged at politicians.  It's an embarrassing episode in our country's history and the unfortunate thing is that it is still affecting us.


I should have been more clear and asked if the majority of Canadians care, and by care I mean like it's a major current concern and not an embarrassing episode. And I absolutely agree it's an embarrassing episode in our country's history and shouldn't have happened. Personally I think the reserve system is just taking a longer approach at to accomplishing the residential schools goals.

Does it effect the daily lives of most Canadians? The only time it's in the news seems to be when a politician puts their foot in their mouth about it. Are Canadians demanding reconciliation? How did it factor when you voted?


----------



## Kat Stevens (28 Jan 2021)

Blackadder1916 said:


> I suppose it depends on the Canadian.  Probably a majority of the 1.67 million Canadians who identified themselves as an Aboriginal person on the 2016 census have a different point of view than, say, a rural Albertan who identifies from a strictly European  background.  It might be safe to say that the audience for Mr. O'Toole's residential school comments at the Ryerson event probably didn't think it mattered much, otherwise why did he make the comment he did.  But that was a *C*onservative audience, directly concerned by chatter about changing the name of their school due to the history of that namesake as one of the architects of the residential school system.  It's very easy to say what the base likes to hear, but putting one's foot into it when not necessary is foolish.  And that's what O'Toole did - unable to present an alternative and "acceptable" option to those not in the CPC base.
> 
> So, do Canadians really give a shit about residential schools?  Well, this Canadian does.  And it's not manufactured and I don't get worked up nor am I outraged at politicians.  It's an embarrassing episode in our country's history and the unfortunate thing is that it is still affecting us.  Would I have felt the same way forty or fifty years ago?  Probably not, I was likely much the same as most Canadians with a similar heritage.  What changed?  I grew up.


This European descended rural Albertan grew up fifteen miles from a residential school. I happen to think they were pretty fucking awful. I refuse to share in the collective blame over it however, because it ain’t my fucking fault. Funny how those who think we should give the PM a pass because his blackface antics were so far in the past, expect me to eat the guilt over something that was instigated in a country I wasn’t born in, before my parents were even born. Hard pass, thanks.


----------



## YZT580 (28 Jan 2021)

Blackadder1916 said:


> So, do Canadians really give a shit about residential schools?  Well, this Canadian does.  And it's not manufactured and I don't get worked up nor am I outraged at politicians.  It's an embarrassing episode in our country's history and the unfortunate thing is that it is still affecting us.  Would I have felt the same way forty or fifty years ago?  Probably not, I was likely much the same as most Canadians with a similar heritage.  What changed?  I grew up.



As did the country so why are we still wearing a hair shirt about it?  It happened 50 years ago and all the initiators of the system have been dead for at least that long.  At least some of the teachers and workers that participated in the abuse have seen jail time (I think) so it is time to focus on more relevant issues and not be distracted by the past.  It is a convenient way to draw attention away from the issues of water, health, education, mismanagement of funds, theft of funds by avaricious leaders: in other words the failures of this government and previous ones to address today's issues.  And by the way, there were some well-run schools with staff that really cared.  The entire concept though left itself wide-open to abuse as does anytime you put children under the care of those other than family. i.e.hockey coaches, juvenile detention centrres etc.


----------



## Weinie (28 Jan 2021)

YZT580 said:


> As did the country so why are we still wearing a hair shirt about it?  It happened 50 years ago and all the initiators of the system have been dead for at least that long.  At least some of the teachers and workers that participated in the abuse have seen jail time (I think) so it is time to focus on more relevant issues and not be distracted by the past.  It is a convenient way to draw attention away from the issues of water, health, education, mismanagement of funds, theft of funds by avaricious leaders: in other words the failures of this government and previous ones to address today's issues.  And by the way, there were some well-run schools with staff that really cared.  The entire concept though left itself wide-open to abuse as does anytime you put children under the care of those other than family. i.e.hockey coaches, juvenile detention centrres etc.


"Collective guilt' as defined by activists, has no timeframe.


----------



## Jarnhamar (28 Jan 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> In other business.  Looks like Trudeau and his associates don’t want stronger legislation against illegal gun smuggling.  His extended team supported his soft-on-illegal-guns/tough-on-legal-gun-owners approach to vote collecting.
> 
> Bill C-238 voted down by Liberals, NDP and Green.
> https://www.ourcommons.ca/members/en/votes/43/2/41
> ...


That's got CERB forgiveness all over it with a side order of _'we'll use money earmarked for firearms buy back to help pay down the national debt instead'._


----------



## Altair (28 Jan 2021)

Jarnhamar said:


> Do Canadians really give a shit about residential schools though? I mean beyond being a reason to get worked up and outraged at a politician, do people really care?  I didn't see much outrage when Trudeau laughed and cracked jokes towards the first nations woman who paid $2000 to attend a pay for play supper, you know the one from the reserve where the water was poison. The Residential school topic is manufactured outrage. It's a convenient minefield.











						Canadians want pharmacare, action on reconciliation: Mainstreet poll
					

Voters in Canada want the federal government to implement a national pharmacare program and to take action on reconciliation with Indigenous peoples, suggests new results from a Mainstreet Research poll for iPolitics. Most respondents in the 2,463-person phone survey, conducted between July...




					ipolitics.ca
				






> Voters in Canada want the federal government to implement a national pharmacare program and to take action on reconciliation with Indigenous peoples, suggests new results from a Mainstreet Research poll for iPolitics.
> 
> Most respondents in the 2,463-person phone survey, conducted between July 30-31, also want Ottawa to do more about racist and xenophobic statements and language and believe the gender wage gap is real, though think the private sector can do more to address it than the government.
> 
> ...


 So 70 percent of people care. Residential schools probably being widely known as the worst offense. 

Then O'Toole goes and says residential schools were for education.

So I would say a lot of people who care would probably take offense with those comments.


----------



## Weinie (28 Jan 2021)

Blackadder1916 said:


> I suppose it depends on the Canadian.  Probably a majority of the 1.67 million Canadians who identified themselves as an Aboriginal person on the 2016 census have a different point of view than, say, a rural Albertan who identifies from a strictly European  background.  It might be safe to say that the audience for Mr. O'Toole's residential school comments at the Ryerson event probably didn't think it mattered much, otherwise why did he make the comment he did.  But that was a *C*onservative audience, directly concerned by chatter about changing the name of their school due to the history of that namesake as one of the architects of the residential school system.  It's very easy to say what the base likes to hear, but putting one's foot into it when not necessary is foolish.  And that's what O'Toole did - unable to present an alternative and "acceptable" option to those not in the CPC base.
> 
> So, do Canadians really give a shit about residential schools?  Well, this Canadian does.  And it's not manufactured and I don't get worked up nor am I outraged at politicians.  It's an embarrassing episode in our country's history and the unfortunate thing is that it is still affecting us.  Would I have felt the same way forty or fifty years ago?  Probably not, I was likely much the same as most Canadians with a similar heritage.  What changed? * I grew up.*


Outstanding. I applaud your growth.

Now take that sanctimony that you apply in this forum, and cast it upon your MP. Demand that he/she immediately propose a bill that states that residential schools were embarrassing, your considerations on this have been influenced by your reflections, you have reconsidered, and reparations need to be made.  After all, _it's very easy to say what the base likes to hear._


----------



## PuckChaser (28 Jan 2021)

Altair said:


> Then O'Toole goes and says residential schools were for education.
> 
> So I would say a lot of people who care would probably take offense with those comments.


I know this is going to totally blow your confirmation bias out of the water here, but actually listen to what he says and you'll see they took the "meant for education" part completely out of context. This article has a video with his FULL statement, not a clickbait title designed to manufacture partisan outrage.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/erin-otoole-residential-schools-comments-1.5844307


----------



## Jarnhamar (28 Jan 2021)

Altair said:


> So 70 percent of people care. Residential schools probably being widely known as the worst offense.


Maybe I'm the one out of touch then.

Out of curiosity what number of that 70% do you think have actually read the 94 calls to action line by line and understand reconciliation? And if someone interviewed those respondents on camera, what percent do you think would sound like the Canadians interviewed and asked questions about gun laws and eagerly nodded their head at _finally_ making machine assault gun AK rifles illegal in Canada?

70% of Canadians care enough to say they care on a phone survey, I wonder how many take reconciliation promises into account when voting. Donated money, mailed their local MPs and so on.


----------



## CBH99 (28 Jan 2021)

I think we're all on the same page here, if looking at it from different angles.

Most people agree, residential schools were bad.  Maybe in the context of the times, they had good intentions - but all in all, they turned out be a pretty bad idea.

Do Canadians care?  They care to the extent of saying "residential schools were bad!" when asked in a survey or the conversation comes up.  

Do they in the sense that they think about the issue daily?  No.  (Unless ofcourse they were directly involved or affected somehow)


Politicians say what they moreso not to offend anybody, in the fear of losing potential voters - what they think voters want to hear - and what will keep them out of hot water.  It is what it is, but the reality is that politics boils down to a 'popularity contest for adults'.  The more 'likeable or popular' you are, the more likely to get voted into office.  

0.02


----------



## Altair (28 Jan 2021)

PuckChaser said:


> I know this is going to totally blow your confirmation bias out of the water here, but actually listen to what he says and you'll see they took the "meant for education" part completely out of context. This article has a video with his FULL statement, not a clickbait title designed to manufacture partisan outrage.
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/erin-otoole-residential-schools-comments-1.5844307


I watched the video back when it came out originally, and I really don't see where it was taken out of context.



> Let’s learn from the bad mistakes and, in some cases, tragic circumstances of our past. But when Egerton Ryerson was called in by Hector Langevin and people, it was meant to try and provide education.It became a horrible program that really harmed people, and we have to learn from that, and I wear orange, and I do that. But we’re not helping anyone by misrepresenting the past.



Now I could go on about how it wasn't meant for education, and started off from the get go as a horrible shameful program, but I don't need to. Erin O'Toole says it best.









						O’Toole backtracks, says residential school system ‘was not’ created to ‘provide education’ - National | Globalnews.ca
					

Conservative Leader Erin O'Toole walked back his comments about residential schools, stating they were 'not' created to 'try and provide education.'




					globalnews.ca
				






> Conservative Leader Erin O’Toole walked back his comments about residential schools in a statement Wednesday, saying the system was not intended to try and “provide education.”
> 
> “The system was intended to remove children from the influence of their homes, families, traditions, and cultures,” O’Toole said in a statement emailed to Global News.
> 
> O’Toole added that the “very existence” of the schools is “a terrible stain on Canada’s history that has had sweeping impacts on generations of Indigenous Canadians.”


----------



## Altair (28 Jan 2021)

Jarnhamar said:


> Maybe I'm the one out of touch then.



Not impossible.


Jarnhamar said:


> Out of curiosity what number of that 70% do you think have actually read the 94 calls to action line by line and understand reconciliation?



Probably not many, but that doesn't mean they don't understand the historical wrongs in a broad sense and support the idea of reconciliation.


Jarnhamar said:


> And if someone interviewed those respondents on camera, what percent do you think would sound like the Canadians interviewed and asked questions about gun laws and eagerly nodded their head at _finally_ making machine assault gun AK rifles illegal in Canada?



I'm not going to touch comparing historical and significant wrongs suffered by first nations to people effected by gun laws.


Jarnhamar said:


> 70% of Canadians care enough to say they care on an phone survey, I wonder how many take reconciliation promises into account when voting. Donated money, mailed their local MPs and so on.


It's hard to say how many care enough to effect the way they vote, but it can frame how they think about a leader and that can effect the way they vote.

Whether Canadians are Gung ho about reconciliation or just want some small steps made towards reconciliation is up for debate, I don't know the answer. What I do know is that what O’Toole said didn't serve either. The recent poll showing that near half of Canadians now have a unfavorable opinion on him isn't a surprise to me considering his comments and Canadians views on reconciliation.


----------



## Jarnhamar (29 Jan 2021)

Altair said:


> Probably not many, but that doesn't mean they don't understand the historical wrongs in a broad sense and support the idea of reconciliation.





Altair said:


> I'm not going to touch comparing historical and significant wrongs suffered by first nations to people effected by gun laws.


I used those interviews of gun laws as an example because the people interviewed seemed to think it sounded like a good idea (perhaps in a broad sense?) but didn't have a clue what they were talking about.  
I've seem similar videos about Canadians supporting *ending* woman's suffrage.


Altair said:


> The recent poll showing that near half of Canadians now have a unfavorable opinion on him isn't a surprise to me considering his comments and Canadians views on reconciliation.


Again I wonder how many people felt what he said was wrong compared to how many were told what he said was wrong and nodded their head. But I agree the perception is enough to sink him. 

Do you think Conservatives are held to a different standard than Liberals by the media in Canada?


----------



## Altair (29 Jan 2021)

Jarnhamar said:


> I used those interviews of gun laws as an example because the people interviewed seemed to think it sounded like a good idea (perhaps in a broad sense?) but didn't have a clue what they were talking about.
> I've seem similar videos about Canadians supporting *ending* woman's suffrage.
> 
> Again I wonder how many people felt what he said was wrong compared to how many were told what he said was wrong and nodded their head. But I agree the perception is enough to sink him.
> ...


I think Canadians are smart enough to make their own opinions on matters.

Canadians didn't need to be told blackface was bad, they heard the stories about it, knew how it hurt certain people and could come to the obvious conclusion that the PM done goofed, even if it was in the past.

In that same sense, Canadians know now how bad the residential school system was, how it hurt generations of first nations, and that it is inexcusable. Then when O'Toole said what he said, Canadians naturally came to the opinion that what he said wasn't acceptable, and to his credit, he backpeddled from that position right quick.

The media may try to shift a story one way or another, but I feel like these days of social media and instant commenting, a lot of opinion is shaped online before the news can even break a story. The influence on opinions by the media is shrinking IMHO, with people reading stuff on Twitter or Facebook, sharing it with friends, family and coworkers in real time, so what you get is probably a more pure visceral reaction than days of media trying to spin anything.

In this case, I don't think the media went overboard with it,  he apologized and people moved on. The unfortunate thing for O'Toole was that it was probably the in first impression many Canadians got of him due to his winning the leadership in the middle of a pandemic and not having huge name recognition beforehand.


----------



## Jarnhamar (29 Jan 2021)

That's a good post with good points, thanks.

If you don't mind me going down a bit of a rabbit hole about the Conservative vs Liberal media different standard I have a question. I don't mean it to come across as whataboutisim either , it's a genuine question.

Suppose the Conservatives have a pay for play $2000 a plate dinner and a first nations woman stands up and points out she had to scrape the money together from the reserve to pay the price to get in. She starts giving O'Toole shit about a first nation issue on the reserves, and O'Toole cracks a joke saying "thanks for the donation lol". Do you think O'Toole would get away with a quick apology and the media would move on? Or would it be a huge conservatives are racist, right wing whie supremecy strikes again, conservatives hate first nations kind of thing?


----------



## Haggis (29 Jan 2021)

Jarnhamar said:


> ...a first nations woman stands up and points out she had to scrape the money together from the reserve to pay the price to get in. She starts giving O'Toole shit about a first nation issue on the reserves, and O'Toole cracks a joke saying "thanks for the donation lol".


Now that you've put this out on the Internet, the MSM will pick it up and O'Toole will be called to account and have to apologize.  It won't be accepted and the Liberals will run with "_conservatives are racist, right wing white supremacy strikes again, conservatives hate first nations kind of thing_"


----------



## Altair (29 Jan 2021)

Jarnhamar said:


> That's a good post with good points, thanks.
> 
> If you don't mind me going down a bit of a rabbit hole about the Conservative vs Liberal media different standard I have a question. I don't mean it to come across as whataboutisim either , it's a genuine question.
> 
> Suppose the Conservatives have a pay for play $2000 a plate dinner and a first nations woman stands up and points out she had to scrape the money together from the reserve to pay the price to get in. She starts giving O'Toole shit about a first nation issue on the reserves, and O'Toole cracks a joke saying "thanks for the donation lol". Do you think O'Toole would get away with a quick apology and the media would move on? Or would it be a huge conservatives are racist, right wing whie supremecy strikes again, conservatives hate first nations kind of thing?


Replace O'Toole with harper and you get a different answer.

Trudeau, harper, they are old hats now. Everyone knows how they fit, you either like them or you don't, and no matter what they do at this point people largely aren't going to change their minds.

So Trudeau did blackface and mocked a first nations woman. Peoples opinion of him moved very little.

Now you get O'Toole, or any new party leader. Little name recognition, a blank slate. People don't know what to expect from said person, good or negative. Then they start saying and doing things as leader of a political party,  filling in the canvas so to say. It's going to affect people's opinion of them more than the old hat.

So to answer your question, it depends on the leader. If new party leader Marc Garneau were to hypothetical mock a first nations lady at a pay for access dinner, it might sink him. If a returned harper did it, not so much.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (29 Jan 2021)

CBH99 said:


> I think we're all on the same page here, if looking at it from different angles.
> 
> Most people agree, residential schools were bad.  Maybe in the context of the times, they had good intentions - but all in all, they turned out be a pretty bad idea.
> 
> ...


People forget that the residential schools, the restrictions on movements by FN's, the internments of Canadians of Austro-Hungarian and Japanese descent were all the "Political Correct" thinking of the day. That same attitude persists.


----------



## Jarnhamar (29 Jan 2021)

Altair said:


> So to answer your question, it depends on the leader.


I guess so. Can you imagine the circus of O'Toole had a blackface picture pop up? I think it would go a little farther than "us" learning a lesson and moving on lol
Anyhow thanks


----------



## Good2Golf (29 Jan 2021)

Jarnhamar said:


> I guess so. Can you imagine the circus of O'Toole had a blackface picture pop up? I think it would go a little farther than "us" *experiencing things differently, *learning a lesson and moving on lol
> Anyhow thanks


You forgot a step, Jarn...


----------



## Journeyman (30 Jan 2021)

Altair said:


> I think Canadians are smart enough to make their own opinions on matters.


But are they _informed _opinions?
I'd recommend reading Tom Nichols' book, The Death of Expertise.


----------



## Altair (2 Feb 2021)

Leger Poll out today

LPC - 37
CPC - 28
NDP - 22
BQ - 7
GR -5


86% of Canadians agree with travel restrictions (snowbirds, we see you)
87% answered yes to "should we ban international travel until end of covid"
75% of Quebecers think their curfew is working
70% intend on getting vaccincated. 15% do not intend, 15% to not know (vs 56% Y, 30% N, 14% DNK in the US.....we might be fucked)
Intent to vaccinate is up 8% in Canada since October
68% expect covid safety measures (masks in public, social distancing, etc) to remain in place after covid
78% do not believe vaccines to be dangerous. 9% do, 13% DNK (19% anti vaxx in the US)
60% afraid of contracting covid, 37% not afraid
54% very or somwhat satisfied with Federal Government response, decline from high 60's for most of the covid crisis
53% of Ontarians very or somewhat satisfied with Doug Fords response, this is a significant decline from months ago, down from the low 80's
26% of Albertans satisfied with Kenney's response

The voting intent breakdown is interesting. LPC is winning Ontario 42%-28% over the CPC at the moment, that's big. Alberta is vote splitting away from moving away from being such a CPC fortress. 48% CPC support, 25% Liberal support, 24% NDP support.

- O'toole doing terribly with women, 25%



			https://2g2ckk18vixp3neolz4b6605-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Legers-North-American-Tracker-February-1st-2021-min.pdf


----------



## Haggis (2 Feb 2021)

Altair said:


> Leger Poll out today
> 
> LPC - 37
> CPC - 28
> ...


338Canada is showing similar numbers but with the Tories showing a bit more strength:

Lib: 35.6
CPC: 30.6
NDP: 18.2
BQ: 7.0
Grn: 6.5
PPC: 1.7

Both polls put the Liberals within striking distance of a majority.


----------



## Altair (2 Feb 2021)

Haggis said:


> 338Canada is showing similar numbers but with the Tories showing a bit more strength:
> 
> Lib: 35.6
> CPC: 30.6
> ...


I wonder if anyone but the liberals or the bloc want a election this spring.


----------



## ModlrMike (3 Feb 2021)

By anyone, you mean the public, because we're the only ones to whom it should matter? There's any number of parties that were punished at the polls because the public didn't want an election.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Feb 2021)

Does anyone really believe polls are accurate?


----------



## Altair (3 Feb 2021)

Fishbone Jones said:


> Does anyone really believe polls are accurate?


Yup. The polls last election were pretty much right on the money.


----------



## Altair (3 Feb 2021)

ModlrMike said:


> By anyone, you mean the public, because we're the only ones to whom it should matter? There's any number of parties that were punished at the polls because the public didn't want an election.


Premier Horgan wasn't punished, nor Premier Higgs, two others who pulled the plug on their minority government and waltzed into majorities.


----------



## LittleBlackDevil (3 Feb 2021)

Fishbone Jones said:


> Does anyone really believe polls are accurate?



Canadian polls seem to be more accurate than US ones, at least. As others have noted, last election they were pretty accurate.

It seems realistic, I don't think Erin O'Toole is making great inroads. And what is he going to campaign on? "The federal government should have locked you down more harshly!" and "I would get vaccines out faster!"

These just don't really seem likely to sway any LPC voters over to the CPC and may simply further alienate people who would usually vote CPC.


----------



## Navy_Pete (3 Feb 2021)

Altair said:


> I wonder if anyone but the liberals or the bloc want a election this spring.


With having seen how the government effectively shuts down for decision making I would personally vote against the liberals if they called an election this spring while all the vaccine issues are up in the air.

I think that the approach they are taking to procuring the vaccines made sense, and the various contracts are fine, with the delay a direct result of no Canadian production facilities at the start (which is being ramped up and hopefully is maintained post COVID as a strategic asset). The rollout is a provincial responsibility, and we're a huge country, so not really surprised it's complicated and running into problems getting rolling, but that will get sorted out. The delay issue is really out of Canada's hands, and different parties in power would have hit the exact same issue with really no alternate options other than to ask nicely to keep shipping us vaccines.

The last thing we need is a federal or provincial election right now though; even though it doesn't change anything in terms of the civil servants in effective control, it really paralyzes Ottawa in getting decisions made, and sure it does the same in the provinces. Honestly one talking head politician in the top is the same as any other talking head at the top for what we're doing.

If one of the parties starts playing stupid games to trigger an election for political gain, I'd be happy to (figuratively) burn their political house down. I've seen similar sentiment expressed elsewhere, so not sure if there wouldn't be a significant backlash, especially outside the core group of party supporters whose votes are really the determining factor in the closely competed ridings.


----------



## Altair (3 Feb 2021)

Navy_Pete said:


> With having seen how the government effectively shuts down for decision making I would personally vote against the liberals if they called an election this spring while all the vaccine issues are up in the air.
> 
> I think that the approach they are taking to procuring the vaccines made sense, and the various contracts are fine, with the delay a direct result of no Canadian production facilities at the start (which is being ramped up and hopefully is maintained post COVID as a strategic asset). The rollout is a provincial responsibility, and we're a huge country, so not really surprised it's complicated and running into problems getting rolling, but that will get sorted out. The delay issue is really out of Canada's hands, and different parties in power would have hit the exact same issue with really no alternate options other than to ask nicely to keep shipping us vaccines.
> 
> ...


would a poison pill budget be considered a stupid game?

I assume the CPC would vote against any budget, maybe the bloc as well. 

That leaves the NDP and if the Liberals don't give the NDP what they want, that may be enough to plunge the country into a election.


----------



## Kilted (3 Feb 2021)

I think that there is a very good chance that there will be an election this year. If. The government lasts till the fall, it will have been two years since the last election, which is around the timeframe that most minority government's last for. The thing is that no one wants to be the one who causes it.


----------



## Altair (3 Feb 2021)

Kilted said:


> I think that there is a very good chance that there will be an election this year. If. The government lasts till the fall, it will have been two years since the last election, which is around the timeframe that most minority government's last for. The thing is that no one wants to be the one who causes it.


There are going to be 2 distinct times for a election. 

One centered around the budget, another in the fall if most canadians are vaccinated and the pandemic is at its end.


----------



## Good2Golf (3 Feb 2021)

If the NDP voted against the budget, they would give up the leverage they have now with the Liberals, assuming a Liberal majority win thereafter.  🤔  It wouldn’t be very astute of the NDP to vote against....then again....


----------



## Altair (3 Feb 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> If the NDP voted against the budget, they would give up the leverage they have now with the Liberals, assuming a Liberal majority win thereafter.  🤔  It wouldn’t be very astute of the NDP to vote against....then again....


But if they vote for a decidedly unprogressive budget, with goodies for their supporters, there is the green party right there as the alternative.


----------



## RangerRay (3 Feb 2021)

ModlrMike said:


> By anyone, you mean the public, because we're the only ones to whom it should matter? There's any number of parties that were punished at the polls because the public didn't want an election.


AFAIK the last government to be punished for this was the Pederson Liberals in Ontario a million years ago. But I could be wrong.


----------



## Good2Golf (3 Feb 2021)

All three Green MPs?  There are more Independents as an ‘alternative’.

Voting FOR the budget keeps them alive as the necessary coalition partner in the minority Govt.  Voting AGAINST essentially hands Liberals the win and the lose any real influence.  Why would they vote against?


----------



## Altair (3 Feb 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> All three Green MPs?  There are more Independents as an ‘alternative’.
> 
> Voting FOR the budget keeps them alive as the necessary coalition partner in the minority Govt.  Voting AGAINST essentially hands Liberals the win and the lose any real influence.  Why would they vote against?


Independents don't poll at 5 percent nationally. 

I just think there are risks if the NDP are propping up the liberals without getting anything in return. Sure, it might save them from the polls for 5-7 months, but it also risks alienating their supporters. 

The problem for the NDP is that they don't have any leverage right now. The only thing they have to offer the liberals is propping up their government and preventing a election. But the Liberals likely want a election. So why give any goodies?


----------



## dapaterson (3 Feb 2021)

As when things go off the rails n a large scale exercise, all the parties are trying to find someone else to blame the inevitable election on...


----------



## Good2Golf (3 Feb 2021)

Altair said:


> The problem for the NDP is that they don't have any leverage right now.


 They do. They can actually keep Canadians from going to the polls.  They just vote with the LPC and the minority continues. 



Altair said:


> The only thing they have to offer the liberals is propping up their government and preventing a election. But the Liberals likely want a election. So why give any goodies?


See, you just confirmed that the NDP still have leverage, because the Liberals want an election, and the NDP can keep that from happening...at least via votes of confidence.

If the PM want to dissolve government without a poisoned Confidence Vote, he just needs to go to the Governor General Chief Justice Wagner and ask him to dissolve it....it would be a very flakey excuse for dissolution...other than blatant “we want the majority and it’s worth putting Canadians to the polls in the midst of a pandemic to secure it...”

Not nearly the slam dunk some think it will be...


----------



## Altair (3 Feb 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> They do. They can actually keep Canadians from going to the polls.  They just vote with the LPC and the minority continues.
> 
> 
> See, you just confirmed that the NDP still have leverage, because the Liberals want an election, and the NDP can keep that from happening...at least via votes of confidence.
> ...


The NDP have no leverage to get what they want other than preventing a election.

Before they were able to get sick leave and extended CERB, this time all they could say is we prevented a election by completely supporting the liberals 100 percent without getting anything in return.

I'm not sure NDP supporters would be very impressed with that.


----------



## Haggis (3 Feb 2021)

Kilted said:


> The government lasts till the fall, it will have been two years since the last election, which is around the timeframe that most minority government's last for. The thing is that no one wants to be the one who causes it.


Except that this minority government is acting as if it has/will have a majority.  The PM will force a vote of no confidence and it may be on what many consider to be a minor item (not the budget) so as to, once again, deflect blame onto someone else.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 Feb 2021)

I think, Jagmeet and his party should think really hard about continued support for the liberals. People are becoming less than enthralled with their support of trudeau. It won't  take much, one small slip or one too many supporting of liberal plans, and people will turn on a dime. I myself would like to see them consigned to the wilderness, along with trudeau and his party. The government push to socialism won't  help them either. Socialism might be a real fear to people by election time. And the NDP has always been socialist, though we don't see it much anymore. However, an opposing campaign could make a lot of hay by refreshing peoples memories.


----------



## Good2Golf (5 Feb 2021)

Fishbone Jones said:


> I think, Jagmeet and his party should think really hard about continued support for the liberals. People are becoming less than enthralled with their support of trudeau. It won't  take much, one small slip or one too many supporting of liberal plans, and people will turn on a dime. I myself would like to see them consigned to the wilderness, along with trudeau and his party. The government push to socialism won't  help them either. Socialism might be a real fear to people by election time. And the NDP has always been socialist, though we don't see it much anymore. However, an opposing campaign could make a lot of hay by refreshing peoples memories.


where can the majority of the NDPers go? Go further left, or swing through the broad Left-Center band that is LPC 🦄 land to the right?


----------



## Eaglelord17 (5 Feb 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> where can the majority of the NDPers go? Go further left, or swing through the broad Left-Center band that is LPC 🦄 land to the right?


The NDP is a party splitting in two. On one hand you have the traditional worker/blue collar based party, on the other you have the socialist/environmentalists. The traditional workers/blue collar guys are quickly shifting to the Conservatives due to how they are quickly abandoning their position as the protectors of the workers in exchange for the more left leaning policies. The socialists/environmentalists are not particularly loyal to the party, just using it as a means to a end, if the Green Party or Liberals offer a better chance of pushing their agendas they will follow them not stick to the NDP. 

Could be a complete collapse of that party in a few years if they don't sort out who they want as their base as clearly they can't have both.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (7 Feb 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> where can the majority of the NDPers go? Go further left, or swing through the broad Left-Center band that is LPC 🦄 land to the right?


I could give you a few ideas where they should go, however, you'll  be overwhelmed with Report to Mods requests for my crucifixion. 😉


----------



## PuckChaser (7 Feb 2021)

Fishbone Jones said:


> I could give you a few ideas where they should go, however, you'll  be overwhelmed with Report to Mods requests for my crucifixion. 😉


With the forum upgrade, we changed the admin measures scale. We tar and feather now, crucifixion is too barbaric.

- Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## daftandbarmy (8 Feb 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> where can the majority of the NDPers go? Go further left, or swing through the broad Left-Center band that is LPC 🦄 land to the right?



They've lost their touch, sadly, with the death of Jack Layton.

I'm no 'leftie', but I can respect a guy who knows what he stands for; like workers rights. Ironically, this tends to pull the NDP into the 'heavy industry' camp, which might be one of the things they've not yet figured out how to play with an increasingly 'white collar' electorate.


----------



## MilEME09 (8 Feb 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> They've lost their touch, sadly, with the death of Jack Layton.
> 
> I'm no 'leftie', but I can respect a guy who knows what he stands for; like workers rights. Ironically, this tends to pull the NDP into the 'heavy industry' camp, which might be one of the things they've not yet figured out how to play with an increasingly 'white collar' electorate.


The most crippling blow to the NDP was Layton's death, nothing political has come close to the damage as the loss of a leader like him.


----------



## Good2Golf (8 Feb 2021)

One wonders how long it will take Über-woke PM Trudeau to find a replacement token he can traipse around to show how virtuous he and his party truly are?

‘Fake as ****’: Ex-Politician Details Racism in Ottawa and Her Blowout with Trudeau.


----------



## Brad Sallows (8 Feb 2021)

The only path to government for the NDP is through the wreck of the LPC.  Layton understood that the LCP was the NDP's enemy in line ahead of the CPC.


----------



## Altair (8 Feb 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> One wonders how long it will take Über-woke PM Trudeau to find a replacement token he can traipse around to show how virtuous he and his party truly are?
> 
> ‘Fake as ****’: Ex-Politician Details Racism in Ottawa and Her Blowout with Trudeau.


Considering she stepped down in March 2019 and has been out of federal politics since October 2019, I would say that she would have been replaced by now.


----------



## Altair (8 Feb 2021)

Brad Sallows said:


> The only path to government for the NDP is through the wreck of the LPC.  Layton understood that the LCP was the NDP's enemy in line ahead of the CPC.


This isn't true.

The two NDP government out west exposed to everyone where the fault lines are in the party.

Rachel notley and the union workers NDP and premier Horgan and the environmentalists NDP butting heads for the better part of a year with Singh  more or less awkwardly trying to stay neutral but being in Horgans corner at the same time was cringy to watch.

Toss in there that those in Quebec have no great love for the NDP and you have a party that is strong in a few regions but not strong nationally.


----------



## Jarnhamar (8 Feb 2021)

Altair said:


> Considering she stepped down in March 2019 and has been out of federal politics since October 2019, *I would say that she would have been replaced by now.*


But was it a boring old white guy who replaced her or another "token" (as Celina Caesar-Chavannes says) pick?


----------



## Blackadder1916 (8 Feb 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> One wonders how long it will take Über-woke PM Trudeau to find a replacement token he can traipse around to show how virtuous he and his party truly are?
> 
> ‘Fake as ****’: Ex-Politician Details Racism in Ottawa and Her Blowout with Trudeau.



I briefly glanced at the link and was left wondering "why now" - I couldn't recall any controversary/commentary at the time of her resignation (or at least any more than is normal), then I read further down in the story . . .

"The incident is one of many allegations of racism, tokenizing, and microaggressions Caesar-Chavannes wrote about in *her new memoir Can You Hear Me Now?, which came out February 2*." 

Okay, that explains it.


----------



## Good2Golf (8 Feb 2021)

Altair said:


> Considering she stepped down in March 2019 and has been out of federal politics since October 2019, I would say that she would have been replaced by now.


I meant as a replacement minority token...as Jarnhamar pointed out, WASP male doesn’t count.  Funny how the minority becomes undesirable by challenging the motivations of the Leader. 


Jarnhamar said:


> But was it a boring old white guy who replaced her or another "token" (as Celina Caesar-Chavannes says) pick?


Well, a white guy with an eco-ethical-economical investment company is still 6-years younger than WASFRC PM, so I wouldn’t call him old, Jarn... 😉


----------



## Brad Sallows (8 Feb 2021)

What I mean about the path through the LPC is that the NDP, federally, will never win enough seats to form government by carving out a chunk of the CPC's voters (the heaviest lift).  The NDP must take over a chunk of the LPC's voters (a lighter lift).  The NDP cannot do this by favouring policies which turn off those voters, or by supporting the LPC so that those voters can comfortably continue to vote for the LPC.  Mulcair made the mistake of allowing "ABC" to get in line ahead of breaking the LPC; Layton might have worked with Harper to use that election to break the LPC and deal with the NDP vs CPC down the road.  I have read enough opinions to believe that Layton understood this.  Singh is even more useless.  More likely for now is that the LPC continues to borrow the NDP's potential voters.

Both the NDP and CPC each have at least one large internal division.  So does the LPC, if the "Trudeau" and "Martin" (both "senior") wings of the party still exist.  The challenge is not insurmountable.  But the LPC is the obvious hunting ground for either the NDP or CPC, not each other.  The federal NDP is not, right now, serious about competing for power.


----------



## Good2Golf (8 Feb 2021)

Blackadder1916 said:


> I briefly glanced at the link and was left wondering "why now" - I couldn't recall any controversary/commentary at the time of her resignation (or at least any more than is normal), then I read further down in the story . . .
> 
> "The incident is one of many allegations of racism, tokenizing, and microaggressions Caesar-Chavannes wrote about in *her new memoir Can You Hear Me Now?, which came out February 2*."
> 
> Okay, that explains it.


I had looked at it in light of the Liberals taking great pleasure in expounding on the importance of Black History Month and someone else wishing to reinforce their concerns over the alleged disingenuous nature of the PM’s closed views versus his public signaling.

Perhaps we can agree on “experiencing things differently(TM)” when it comes to the legitimacy of Trudeau’s vs others’ perspectives on the validity and/or sincerity of his virtue signaling?


----------



## Altair (8 Feb 2021)

Brad Sallows said:


> What I mean about the path through the LPC is that the NDP, federally, will never win enough seats to form government by carving out a chunk of the CPC's voters (the heaviest lift).  The NDP must take over a chunk of the LPC's voters (a lighter lift).  The NDP cannot do this by favouring policies which turn off those voters, or by supporting the LPC so that those voters can comfortably continue to vote for the LPC.  Mulcair made the mistake of allowing "ABC" to get in line ahead of breaking the LPC; Layton might have worked with Harper to use that election to break the LPC and deal with the NDP vs CPC down the road.  I have read enough opinions to believe that Layton understood this.  Singh is even more useless.  More likely for now is that the LPC continues to borrow the NDP's potential voters.
> 
> Both the NDP and CPC each have at least one large internal division.  So does the LPC, if the "Trudeau" and "Martin" (both "senior") wings of the party still exist.  The challenge is not insurmountable.  But the LPC is the obvious hunting ground for either the NDP or CPC, not each other.  The federal NDP is not, right now, serious about competing for power.


Layton is a bit over rated IMHO.

He didn't break the LPC, he broke the BQ.

2008 election, NDP had 1 Quebec seat, 36 in the ROC. BQ had 49 seats.

2011 election, NDP had 103 seats, 59 in Quebec,  44 in the ROC. BQ had 4.

Net gain for Layton in the ROC was 8 seats. Not a path to government as much as a path of how to catch a moment in time in Quebec when the nationalists didn't know where to go.


----------



## Jarnhamar (8 Feb 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> Funny how the minority becomes undesirable by challenging the motivations of the Leader.



Jody Wilson-Raybould-> David Lametti
Celina Caesar-Chavannes -> Ryan Turnbull
Julie Payette -> Richard Wagner

Not sure what you mean 
​


----------



## Brad Sallows (8 Feb 2021)

"Layton might have worked with Harper to use that election to break the LPC" is not a claim that "Layton broke the LPC".

Other things about the 2011 election result: the NDP became the Official Opposition; the LPC was reduced to 34 seats.  A stepping stone on the path to perhaps a minority if not a majority, for those that can select and maintain the correct aim.


----------



## Ostrozac (8 Feb 2021)

Altair said:


> Layton is a bit over rated IMHO.
> 
> He didn't break the LPC, he broke the BQ.
> 
> ...


This is key. There were large numbers of left-leaning Quebecers skeptical of the Libs and who had given up on sovereignty. They were willing to vote for Jack Layton. Tom Mulcair, a Quebecer himself, couldn’t sustain this. At all. And in retrospect it was a flash in the pan.

Currently the NDP have 1 seat in the province Quebec. One. They have fallen a long way in 10 years.


----------



## Altair (8 Feb 2021)

Brad Sallows said:


> "Layton might have worked with Harper to use that election to break the LPC" is not a claim that "Layton broke the LPC".
> 
> Other things about the 2011 election result: the NDP became the Official Opposition; the LPC was reduced to 34 seats.  A stepping stone on the path to perhaps a minority if not a majority, for those that can select and maintain the correct aim.


The impossible calculus there. The challenging tightrope walk. How to promote soft sovereignty, even more rights for Quebec within Canada, 50+1 for any referendum and still be a popular pan Canadian political party. Or to put another way, if the bloc was a national party, how many seats could they win? Because the NDP stole the Blocs lunch but overall, the average Canadian wasn't going to go for it. Even with the near collapse of the LPC in 2011, the NDP picked up 8 seats in the 233 seats not in Quebec. 52 more for a majority, they needed to win in 16-20 where the CPC won in order to win a minority.  If there was a party that found a path forward after the LPC collapsed it was the CPC. Strong NDP= Government.


----------



## Altair (8 Feb 2021)

Ostrozac said:


> This is key. There were large numbers of left-leaning Quebecers skeptical of the Libs and who had given up on sovereignty. They were willing to vote for Jack Layton. Tom Mulcair, a Quebecer himself, couldn’t sustain this. At all. And in retrospect it was a flash in the pan.
> 
> Currently the NDP have 1 seat in the province Quebec. One. They have fallen a long way in 10 years.


While Quebec is more left leaning than many other provinces in Canada, where the bloc (in every year save 2011) has been strong is not  in the liberal urban areas around Montreal, its in the countryside. It was the nationalist vote that Layton courted and in my opinion it was a trap.   Because 2011 was about as high as the NDP could ever hope to get in Quebec, and how to translate that to the rest of Canada? 

Mulcair, a smart man by any measure, couldn't do it. 

Singh didn't even try.


----------



## daftandbarmy (9 Feb 2021)

Meanwhile, in Alberta, they've figured out how to finally get the PM's attention in a 'Say good bye to all your global Climate Leadership dreams' kind of way.

And also, I'm glad that country music stars are finally being recognized for their expertise in natural resource economics 


Alberta reverses direction on coal development and reinstates 1976 policy, for now​In the wake of mounting opposition to its sudden decision to cancel a 44-year-old policy that protected parts of the Rockies from coal development, the Alberta government now says it will reinstate that policy and consult with the public about future changes.

"What we're doing today — keeping the 1976 coal policy in place and committing to consult on a modernized policy — is what we should have done in the beginning," Energy Minister Sonya Savage said Monday.

"We didn't do it then, but we're going to do it now."

The shift in strategy comes after growing pressure from municipal councils, First Nations, environmentalists, country music stars and everyday Albertans upset by the coal-policy changes the government initially announced nine months ago.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-coal-policy-changes-press-conference-1.5905484


----------



## Kat Stevens (9 Feb 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> Meanwhile, in Alberta, they've figured out how to finally get the PM's attention in a 'Say good bye to all your global Climate Leadership dreams' kind of way.
> 
> And also, I'm glad that country music stars are finally being recognized for their expertise in natural resource economics
> 
> ...


Hey, you're the one that keeps taking shots at us for only pursuing one industry. Here we are diversifying like you keep going on about and now you're mad at that too.


----------



## CBH99 (9 Feb 2021)

First time I've ever been lumped in with my banjo-rapping colleagues, I'll take it!


----------



## CBH99 (9 Feb 2021)

Kat Stevens said:


> Hey, you're the one that keeps taking shots at us for only pursuing one industry. Here we are diversifying like you keep going on about and now you're mad at that too.


I'm not sure extracting coal from national parks is really the direction we should be going, even if it means diversification...


----------



## Kat Stevens (9 Feb 2021)

CBH99 said:


> I'm not sure extracting coal from national parks is really the direction we should be going, even if it means diversification...


Bitch, bitch, bitch. You just can't please some people. And I play baritone ukulele, not a banjo.


----------



## daftandbarmy (9 Feb 2021)

Kat Stevens said:


> Hey, you're the one that keeps taking shots at us for only pursuing one industry. Here we are diversifying like you keep going on about and now you're mad at that too.



I'm a big fan of 'Smart Coal' technology! https://www.masterresource.org/japan-energy-policy/japan-smart-coal/

And 'take that' Virtue Signaller in Chief!


----------



## CBH99 (9 Feb 2021)

Kat Stevens said:


> Bitch, bitch, bitch. You just can't please some people. And I play baritone ukulele, not a banjo.


No banjo rap for you?  Clearly not one of the country music stars they were referring to then


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 Mar 2021)

Given Blair's rant of lies the other day, this government doesn't  know what truth is and will look the camera in the eye and say whatever they think will further their socialist agenda. Trudeau's daily Messages from the My Porch are no different. Any government as dishonest and demeaning to the population as this one, belongs nowhere on the world stage or in power. I am totally flummoxed how some Canadians continue to support liars and thieves, even while their pockets, jobs and stability are being seized by the same.


----------



## PMedMoe (4 Mar 2021)

Fishbone Jones said:


> I am totally flummoxed how some Canadians continue to support liars and thieves, even while their pockets, jobs and stability are being seized by the same.


Funny, I also think that of some Trump supporters Americans.


----------



## Lumber (4 Mar 2021)

PMedMoe said:


> Funny, I also think that of some Trump supporters Americans.


Yea good things there's none of those on here (the crossed out bit).


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 Mar 2021)

PMedMoe said:


> Funny, I also think that of some Trump supporters Americans.


----------



## PuckChaser (4 Mar 2021)

PMedMoe said:


> Funny, I also think that of some Trump supporters Americans.


Is the whataboutism needed or can we stay on topic?


----------



## brihard (4 Mar 2021)

Fishbone Jones said:


> Given Blair's rant of lies the other day, this government doesn't  know what truth is and will look the camera in the eye and say whatever they think will further their socialist agenda. Trudeau's daily Messages from the My Porch are no different. Any government as dishonest and demeaning to the population as this one, belongs nowhere on the world stage or in power. I am totally flummoxed how some Canadians continue to support liars and thieves, even while their pockets, jobs and stability are being seized by the same.


Just goes to show how out of touch with too many Canadians the CPC have managed to get then, if they can’t even win against the spectre of that, doesn’t it? Maybe they have to do further soul searching on how to appeal to centrist voters if against even this backdrop, they’re still staring down the barrel of a potential Liberal majority.

I think at this point it’s clear that, absent some really solid underlying policy, simply running on ‘gotcha!’ and controversy won’t cut it.

If the LPC can be on side with this kind of crap and still be lining up wins, that says more about the alternatives than anything.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (5 Mar 2021)

So what you are saying is that the LPC can repeatedly act entirely without morals or ethics; virtue signal while incompetently delivering services to Canadians; lie about just about everything; play region off against region (national unity be damned) but as long as they clear the low bar of continuing to bribe Canadians with borrowed money, they are good to go, until the money runs out?

Why even bother giving a shit anymore?


----------



## Blackadder1916 (5 Mar 2021)

SeaKingTacco said:


> . . . repeatedly act entirely without morals or ethics; . . .  incompetently delivering services . . . ; lie about just about everything; play region off against region (national unity be damned) but as long as they clear the low bar of continuing to bribe . . .  with borrowed money, they are good to go, until the money runs out?
> 
> Why even bother giving a shit anymore?



You could be describing just about any politician, political party or government (local, regional or national) anywhere in the world, not just in Canada, not just in the present but just about any time in the recorded history of representative or responsible government.  The only thing that marks a difference in the players is the perception of their credibility for that "brief, brief moment" when the electorate tires of one group and accepts the bullshit of another.


----------



## brihard (5 Mar 2021)

SeaKingTacco said:


> So what you are saying is that the LPC can repeatedly act entirely without morals or ethics; virtue signal while incompetently delivering services to Canadians; lie about just about everything; play region off against region (national unity be damned) but as long as they clear the low bar of continuing to bribe Canadians with borrowed money, they are good to go, until the money runs out?
> 
> Why even bother giving a shit anymore?


I’m saying it would be nice to see the opposition get their poop in a group and start campaigning like they intend to govern the county, not double down on prairie grievances that boost their popular vote but do nothing for their seat count. If they want to be in perpetual opposition, they’ve figured that formula out.

For my own reasons I choose to be very careful about what I say about he antics of the government of the day. Suffice to say I’m not impressed, but am also unimpressed at an opposition who somehow still fail to make themselves more palatable.


----------



## Halifax Tar (5 Mar 2021)

brihard said:


> I’m saying it would be nice to see the opposition get their poop in a group and start campaigning like they intend to govern the county, not double down on prairie grievances that boost their popular vote but do nothing for their seat count. If they want to be in perpetual opposition, they’ve figured that formula out.
> 
> For my own reasons I choose to be very careful about what I say about he antics of the government of the day. Suffice to say I’m not impressed, but am also unimpressed at an opposition who somehow still fail to make themselves more palatable.



I wholeheartedly agree.  I would like nothing more than to see a Con gov following the next election but only if they can actually provide a positive alternative and well laid out plan.  I am tired of this "gotcha" stuff.  My party cannot get over its own internal problems it seems.

At the same time, I am not sure I want to see us win.  Let the Libs sit in the bed they made for a while.  The citizenry will come around and maybe in 4-6 years so will Rona Ambrose


----------



## PMedMoe (5 Mar 2021)

PuckChaser said:


> Is the whataboutism needed or can we stay on topic?


Yeah, because threads never go off topic.  

And, back to your regularly scheduled topic.


----------



## PuckChaser (5 Mar 2021)

PMedMoe said:


> Yeah, because threads never go off topic.
> 
> And, back to your regularly scheduled topic.


I mean you can be part of the problem or part of the solution, thats the beauty of free will.


----------



## OldSolduer (5 Mar 2021)

SeaKingTacco said:


> So what you are saying is that the LPC can repeatedly act entirely without morals or ethics; virtue signal while incompetently delivering services to Canadians; lie about just about everything; play region off against region (national unity be damned) but as long as they clear the low bar of continuing to bribe Canadians with borrowed money, they are good to go, until the money runs out?
> 
> Why even bother giving a shit anymore?


And Canadians - the majority - will shrug their shoulders and accept it. Sadly this is now the norm.


----------



## Good2Golf (5 Mar 2021)

PMedMoe said:


> Yeah, because threads never go off topic.
> 
> And, back to your regularly scheduled topic.


 The Government of the day and alternates and how they do business are not irrelevant to this thread, I would posit. 



Halifax Tar said:


> I wholeheartedly agree.  I would like nothing more than to see a Con gov following the next election but only if they can actually provide a positive alternative and well laid out plan.  I am tired of this "gotcha" stuff.  My party cannot get over its own internal problems it seems.
> 
> At the same time, I am not sure I want to see us win.  Let the Libs sit in the bed they made for a while.  The citizenry will come around and maybe in 4-6 years so will Rona Ambrose


Hopefully she is back in politics when the 2024/2025 election comes around.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Mar 2021)

brihard said:


> Just goes to show how out of touch with too many Canadians the CPC have managed to get then, if they can’t even win against the spectre of that, doesn’t it? Maybe they have to do further soul searching on how to appeal to centrist voters if against even this backdrop, they’re still staring down the barrel of a potential Liberal majority.
> 
> I think at this point it’s clear that, absent some really solid underlying policy, simply running on ‘gotcha!’ and controversy won’t cut it.
> 
> If the LPC can be on side with this kind of crap and still be lining up wins, that says more about the alternatives than anything.


Or perhaps it's  a desperate attempt by the grits to pull the Tories into a drawn out, no resolution, stick in the eye back and forth to dominate the message. Just like they did with Scheer. Perhaps O'Toole isn't  going to play their game.

It could also be an attempt, by Trudeau, to find something to take the attention off the newly refreshed WE debacle and the vaccine fiasco. Maybe O'Toole recognises that and isn't  taking the bait. I know, as many others do, when something like this happens today, I immediately start looking for what other controversy he's  trying to hide.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Mar 2021)

Halifax Tar said:


> I wholeheartedly agree.  I would like nothing more than to see a Con gov following the next election but only if they can actually provide a positive alternative and well laid out plan.  I am tired of this "gotcha" stuff.  My party cannot get over its own internal problems it seems.
> 
> At the same time, I am not sure I want to see us win.  Let the Libs sit in the bed they made for a while.  The citizenry will come around and maybe in 4-6 years so will Rona Ambrose


My concern is if the libs get another majority, there won't  be any more elections. Or, if there is, they'll  be run just like Maduro's are. Trudeau is already pushing new voting rules. Crazy how they are so similar to the bill the democrats are railroading through the Senate right now. The one that totally infringes on individual state constitutions.

I'd  rather see Leslyn Lewis than Ambrose. I want new blood in the hierarchy.


----------



## Remius (5 Mar 2021)

Fishbone Jones said:


> Or perhaps it's  a desperate attempt by the grits to pull the Tories into a drawn out, no resolution, stick in the eye back and forth to dominate the message. Just like they did with Scheer. Perhaps O'Toole isn't  going to play their game.


A lot of it is self inflicted.  Even now with the CPC convention coming, the anti abortionists in the party are trying to dominate the convention.  If they keep trying to make that an agenda item then it won’t matter what game Otoole plays or not.  I don’t envy O’toole’s position right now.   Scheer was outclassed, outmanoeuvred and let himself get beat up with his own hands last election.  Hopefully O’toole can handle it better.


----------



## TCM621 (5 Mar 2021)

brihard said:


> Just goes to show how out of touch with too many Canadians the CPC have managed to get then, if they can’t even win against the spectre of that, doesn’t it? Maybe they have to do further soul searching on how to appeal to centrist voters if against even this backdrop, they’re still staring down the barrel of a potential Liberal majority.
> 
> I think at this point it’s clear that, absent some really solid underlying policy, simply running on ‘gotcha!’ and controversy won’t cut it.
> 
> If the LPC can be on side with this kind of crap and still be lining up wins, that says more about the alternatives than anything.



I think it says more about what people want from politicians. I recently saw a discussion in regards to the WE controversy where people were saying, if it isn't illegal then it isn't a problem. The don't expect good behaviour, they expect them to say the right things and not overtly break the law.


----------



## ModlrMike (5 Mar 2021)

Society is held together by a system of laws, ethics, and morals. If you diminish any one of them, the others don't take up the slack.


----------



## Weinie (5 Mar 2021)

ModlrMike said:


> *Western *Society is held together by a system of laws, ethics, and morals. If you diminish any one of them, the others don't take up the slack.


FTFY


----------



## Altair (5 Mar 2021)

Fishbone Jones said:


> My concern is if the libs get another majority, there won't  be any more elections. Or, if there is, they'll  be run just like Maduro's are.


Ah yes, the illegitimate election trope, where have we heard that one before...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Mar 2021)

Altair said:


> Ah yes, the illegitimate election trope, where have we heard that one before...


Nice. I'm sorry, I have a healthy fear of the creeping socialism/communism, loss of free expression, the out of control borrowing and spending. I spent the younger years of my life watching it happen around the world. I ducked and covered at school. I looked across the frontier through a tank gunners sight in the very early 70s Germany, stood sentry against the Red Brigade/ Baader–Meinhof Group. I watched the Castro/Guevara campaigns through Cuba and South America. I even read as much of Mao's Little Red Book as I could stomach, for perspective. I think I know communism when I see it.

And now I'm  seeing the same indicators in my own country.

Be the naysayer if you wish, ostracized and humiliate those you think can't see your utopia. It's exactly how the current North American governments cancel people, their opinions and their concerns. Make them irrelevant. Demonise and disaffect them.

However, all the time throwing out your own trope of ridicule without telling anyone why I'm wrong in my thoughts. Just a personal attack on my point of view. Am I right? Am I predicting the future? Am I out to lunch? I don't know. What I do know is the indicators are there  and are increasing all the time. The move to the hard left by our neighbors does nothing to end those concerns. Already Biden and Trudeau are moving to combine and syncronize their agendas and steamroll them through without concern for the soveriegn citizens of their respective populations.

But go ahead and ridicule. I'm more than used to your style. Try put some meat on those funny bones before you attack next time.


----------



## Altair (5 Mar 2021)

Fishbone Jones said:


> Nice. I'm sorry, I have a fear of the creeping socialism, loss of free expression, the out of control borrowing and spending. I spent the younger years of my life watching it happen around the world and now I'm  seeing the same indicators in my own country.
> Be the naysayer if you wish, ostracized and humiliate those you think can't see your utopia. It's exactly how the current North American governments cancel people, their opinions and their concerns. Make them irrelevant. Demonise and disaffect them.
> 
> However, all the time throwing out your own trope of ridicule without telling anyone why I'm
> ...


Forgive me for placing the burden of truth on you for claiming that if the liberals win another majority government that the country will turn into a socialist dictatorship.


----------



## Weinie (5 Mar 2021)

Altair said:


> Forgive me for placing the burden of truth on you for claiming that if the liberals win another majority government that the country will turn into a socialist dictatorship.


FJ actually answered your question with his concerns. Now the "burden of truth" is back on you with your illegitimate election trope comment.

It's fine to take a side or make a stand. It's not fine to make snide comments about someone's concerns. If you can rebut it, then do so.

Your posting history would seem to indicate that you are a strong supporter of a liberal approach; OK. I could equally call you a zealot or useful idiot and attach several dozens of your previous posts to substantiate my position. I would prefer to engage you and others on this forum in a dialogue, and potentially educate all of us.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Mar 2021)

Fishbone Jones said:


> Nice. I'm sorry, I have a healthy fear of the creeping socialism/communism, loss of free expression, the out of control borrowing and spending. I spent the younger years of my life watching it happen around the world. I ducked and covered at school. I looked across the frontier through a tank gunners sight in the very early 70s Germany, stood sentry against the Red Brigade/ Baader–Meinhof Group. I watched the Castro/Guevara campaigns through Cuba and South America. I even read as much of Mao's Little Red Book as I could stomach, for perspective. I think I know communism when I see it.
> 
> And now I'm  seeing the same indicators in my own country.
> 
> ...


Done. I've modified my previous post to expand my one sided conversation with you, in an attempt to give you more grist for your mill.


----------



## Altair (5 Mar 2021)

Weinie said:


> FJ actually answered your question with his concerns. Now the "burden of truth" is back on you with your illegitimate election trope comment.


Concerns =/= truth

What evidence is there of this other than concerns?

That said, it's so utterly ridiculous I'm going to go off and do other things rather than discuss canada somehow turning into Venezuela if the libs win another majority government.


----------



## Weinie (5 Mar 2021)

Altair said:


> Concerns =/= truth
> 
> What evidence is there of this other than concerns?
> 
> That said, it's so utterly ridiculous I'm going to go off and do other things rather than discuss canada somehow turning into Venezuela if the libs win another majority government.


I updated my post above.

It is said that Perception = reality. 

What is utterly ridiculous is for you to trash a poster, get called on it, and then decide that you are taking your ball and going home. I simply asked that you rebut his concerns. Your failure to even contemplate this COA would confirm my zealot comment above.


----------



## ModlrMike (5 Mar 2021)

Oil rich, cash poor. I think we're already there.


----------



## mariomike (5 Mar 2021)

Blackadder1916 said:


> The only thing that marks a difference in the players is the perception of their credibility for that "brief, brief moment" when the electorate tires of one group and accepts the bullshit of another.


My approach to Canadian politics is non-partisan. Does Canada have term limits? If not, perhaps something for "the powers that be" to consider.  PMJT is on his third president.


----------



## Altair (5 Mar 2021)

Weinie said:


> I updated my post above.
> 
> It is said that Perception = reality.
> 
> What is utterly ridiculous is for you to trash a poster, get called on it, and then decide that you are taking your ball and going home. I simply asked that you rebut his concerns. Your failure to even contemplate this COA would confirm my zealot comment above.


If this pandemic has taught me anything, it's that my time is precious.

I could use it to do things I enjoy doing or spend it trying in vain to convince FJ that the liberals winning another majority would no more lead to a socialist dictatorship than if the Conservatives winning a majority would lead to a fascist dictatorship. 

I have no interest in trying to bash my head against a brick wall, I used all my GAF on trying to convince him that there was no evidence of electoral fraud in the US election.


----------



## Weinie (5 Mar 2021)

Altair said:


> If this pandemic has taught me anything, it's that my time is precious.
> 
> I could use it to do things I enjoy doing or spend it trying in vain to convince FJ that the liberals winning another majority would no more lead to a socialist dictatorship than if the Conservatives winning a majority would lead to a fascist dictatorship.
> 
> I have no interest in trying to bash my head against a brick wall, I used all my GAF on trying to convince him that there was no evidence of electoral fraud in the US election.


Fair enough. Your time is yours.

But if you don't want to bash your head against a brick wall, then maybe don't throw bricks either.


----------



## Altair (5 Mar 2021)

Weinie said:


> Fair enough. Your time is yours.
> 
> But if you don't want to bash your head against a brick wall, then maybe don't throw bricks either.


It was a mere scouting attempt to see if FJ realized how(in my opinion) ridiculous that sounded, upon meeting heavy resistance I came to the conclusion that it was not worth it and disengaged


----------



## Weinie (5 Mar 2021)

Altair said:


> It was a mere scouting attempt to see if FJ realized how(in my opinion) ridiculous that sounded, upon meeting heavy resistance I came to the conclusion that it was not worth it and disengaged


Fine, recce away. 

You still are engaging, now with me, and you still haven't addressed his points. As such, now I am disengaging.


----------



## Altair (5 Mar 2021)

Weinie said:


> Fine, recce away.
> 
> You still are engaging, now with me, and you still haven't addressed his points. As such, now I am disengaging.


Sounds good to me.


----------



## suffolkowner (5 Mar 2021)

I've never been a huge fan of Minister's resigning over errors in their Ministry but this is a pretty clear case in my mind where the Minister should resign, however I am not holding my breath


----------



## Jarnhamar (5 Mar 2021)

Agreed but he's not going anywhere.


----------



## Haggis (5 Mar 2021)

The PM isn't going to sacrifice a high profile, long serving Minister from a visible minority community in a Liberal stronghold during the run-up to an election.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Mar 2021)

Weinie said:


> Fine, recce away.
> 
> You still are engaging, now with me, and you still haven't addressed his points. As such, now I am disengaging.





Altair said:


> If this pandemic has taught me anything, it's that my time is precious.
> 
> I could use it to do things I enjoy doing or spend it trying in vain to convince FJ that the liberals winning another majority would no more lead to a socialist dictatorship than if the Conservatives winning a majority would lead to a fascist dictatorship.
> 
> I have no interest in trying to bash my head against a brick wall, I used all my GAF on trying to convince him that there was no evidence of electoral fraud in the US election.


Still stating your opinion as fact. Energizer bunny just keeps going and going and.............ignored.


----------



## Remius (5 Mar 2021)

Haggis said:


> The PM isn't going to sacrifice a high profile, long serving Minister from a visible minority community in a Liberal stronghold during the run-up to an election.


Absolutely.  O’Toole and his team should use that to their advantage though.


----------



## TCM621 (5 Mar 2021)

Altair said:


> Forgive me for placing the burden of truth on you for claiming that if the liberals win another majority government that the country will turn into a socialist dictatorship.


I don't agree with him but how can you place the burden of proof with him over something that hasn't happened yet? He said he fears it could happen. It isn't something that can be proven until it either happens or doesn’t. 

He can make his case and persuade you, or not, but it is literally impossible for him to give any type of proof.


----------



## Altair (6 Mar 2021)

TCM621 said:


> I don't agree with him but how can you place the burden of proof with him over something that hasn't happened yet? He said he fears it could happen. It isn't something that can be proven until it either happens or doesn’t.
> 
> He can make his case and persuade you, or not, but it is literally impossible for him to give any type of proof.


While something may not have yet happened there can be evidence presented that something may happen.

So what evidence is there for Canada turning into a socialist dictatorship if the liberals win a majority in the next election?

FJ didn't present any. Just unfounded concerns. 

Which is why I didn't bother getting into it with them, because when someone feels a certain way with no evidence other than feelings, no amount of evidence to the contrary would satisfy them. So why waste my time?


----------



## Weinie (6 Mar 2021)

Altair said:


> While something may not have yet happened there can be evidence presented that something may happen.
> 
> So what evidence is there for Canada turning into a socialist dictatorship if the liberals win a majority in the next election?
> 
> ...


So you have taken the Schrödinger's cat approach.

Take a stance, and support it with facts, rather than ad hominem attacks. Rebut his conjecture, run rings around him logically. Otherwise, your postings merit no more consideration than his, but at least he presented an argument. 

You keep talking about how time is precious to you. The time required to put this issue to rest is likely then worth it to you.


----------



## mariomike (6 Mar 2021)

Altair said:


> , because when someone feels a certain way with no evidence other than feelings, no amount of evidence to the contrary would satisfy them.



Reminds me of something I read on here about party politics from another member.

"They don't care about the data because it doesn't address their issues, their _*feelings*_."

( Italics from the original post. )


----------



## Altair (6 Mar 2021)

Weinie said:


> So you have taken the Schrödinger's cat approach.
> 
> Take a stance, and support it with facts, rather than ad hominem attacks. Rebut his conjecture, run rings around him logically. Otherwise, your postings merit no more consideration than his, but at least he presented an argument.
> 
> You keep talking about how time is precious to you. The time required to put this issue to rest is likely then worth it to you.


I did this for days and a dozen posts about the US election and I think the man is still of the opinion that the election was fraudulent. So...no.

I don't enjoy doing that, and their opinion doesn't change so there is no point.

Explaining my position is a net neutral for me so I'll spend the time doing it. Once it gets to the point where it's not ill stop that too.


----------



## Brad Sallows (6 Mar 2021)

> So what evidence is there for Canada turning into a socialist dictatorship if the liberals win a majority in the next election?



"Socialist" and "dictatorship" represent extremes, but Canada is not uniformly moving along a vector towards increasing liberty.  There have been some important advances in extending human rights to all humans, but the constant ankle-biting nannyism is starting to add up.


----------



## LittleBlackDevil (6 Mar 2021)

Brad Sallows said:


> "Socialist" and "dictatorship" represent extremes, but Canada is not uniformly moving along a vector towards increasing liberty.  There have been some important advances in extending human rights to all humans, but the constant ankle-biting nannyism is starting to add up.



Dictatorship is a bit extreme, agreed, but I think you are 100% spot-on that we are not, and will not, move along a vector of increasing liberty. I wouldn't even add the caveat of "uniformly". A lot of the "advances in extending human rights" aren't really granting of liberty so much as awarding of certain privileges and preferential treatment which isn't the same thing as liberty at all. If anything it may be another form of subtle dependence on the state/servitude.

Meanwhile on the other hand, I think we can expect to see more of the same ...


A court case is decided in a manner that the woke people don't like, so they take away more rights from all citizens -- for example, the changes to jury selection laws in the wake of Gerald Stanley's acquittal by a jury. Or the new "guilty until proven innocent" and presumptive (albeit rebuttable) prohibitions on defence leading exculpatory evidence in sex assault trials in the wake of Jian Ghomeshi's acquittal.
The war on firearms owners continues, with more confiscations and more firearms being outlawed, with an ultimate end game (if the LPC has enough consecutive majorities) of complete outlawing of firearms. 
More redistribution of wealth -- increased taxes and then spending that money on ideologically motivated projects.

In fairness, as to point #1, the CPC was certainly not innocent of this. Although they tended not to react to outrage among the media and ignorance of what actually happened in court cases, they at least under Harper had a general tendency towards laws that made convictions easier to obtain and sentences higher.

Again, "Socialist Dictatorship" is a bit of an overstatement. But I think it is fair to say that a continued, sharp turn towards the authoritarian (in nanny state "for your own good" guise) and socially leftist part of the political compass is assured upon the election of another LPC government. Whereas I think as usual we can expect four years of the _status quo_ established during the previous Liberal rule can be anticipated in the event of a CPC victory. Those who claim the CPC will turn Canada into a "Handmaid's Tale" style nightmare have not paid close attention to the inactivity every time the CPC has been in power.


----------



## Weinie (11 Mar 2021)

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/cana...iamentary-committee/ar-BB1eujVm?ocid=msedgdhp

So they will testify, but with conditions.

Smart, from a legal and culpability standpoint.

Dumb as hell, from a public perception standpoint.

Apparently, scales weighed for legal.

And I suspect that they are scrambling to save as much of their empire as they possibly can.


----------



## Altair (25 Mar 2021)

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/supreme-court-of-canada-rules-that-federal-carbon-tax-law-is-constitutional/wcm/36293936-803d-436b-8944-ad6d70200466/amp/&ved=2ahUKEwiV0tG33svvAhVDwlkKHSxuAagQFjAAegQIAxAC&usg=AOvVaw0OOns0VXRgWWhxT0SBjPlo&ampcf=1
		


Carbon tax is constitution, go figure.


----------



## Altair (25 Mar 2021)

10 percent of Canadians have gotten 1 does of a vaccine. 

Encouraging.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (25 Mar 2021)

Or a crime....


----------



## Halifax Tar (25 Mar 2021)

What are our allies at ?  UK, USA, Aus and NZ ?


----------



## Altair (25 Mar 2021)

Halifax Tar said:


> What are our allies at ?  UK, USA, Aus and NZ ?


We are behind the USA and UK and ahead of Aus and NZ


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (27 Mar 2021)

In order to drop the ball they would have at least been able to pick it up first.....I think history will judge the federal Govt. very harshly on so many things in 20 years.










						Ford says vaccine supply 'becoming a joke'
					

Doug Ford -- under pressure over his province's distribution of vaccines -- launched into a tirade Friday against the fed's supply issues.




					torontosun.com


----------



## Altair (27 Mar 2021)

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> In order to drop the ball they would have at least been able to pick it up first.....I think history will judge the federal Govt. very harshly on so many things in 20 years.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





			https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://beta.cp24.com/news/2021/3/26/1_5363488.html&ved=2ahUKEwjH6oCmgdHvAhVLw1kKHcmfCcwQFjAEegQIBhAC&usg=AOvVaw1Vi7aZb_IzCty7BdUc1P6R&ampcf=1
		




> Toronto will allow people over the age of 70 to book an appointment to receive a COVID-19 vaccine at a city-run clinic as of tomorrow.
> 
> Mayor John Tory announced the change on Friday afternoon as he revealed that there are 30,000 vaccination appointments still available at city-run clinics next week.



Lack of supply, but city of Toronto is scrambling to fill appointments. 

Disconnect.


----------



## RangerRay (27 Mar 2021)

John Ivison: Majority of Canadians are feeling politically homeless, poll finds
					

The poll gives no sense of where on the spectrum the greatest dissatisfaction is felt but it seems a fair bet to suggest it is the gaping chasm in the centre




					nationalpost.com
				




This describes me. I will probably vote Tory only because Trudeau isn’t their leader.  But their increasing use of Trumpist-like rhetoric, habit of picking useless but ham-fisted ideological battles and failure to acknowledge certain inconvenient facts (which all parties are guilty of) leave me cold.  I used to view the Tories as, if nothing else, serious.  Now I don’t see any serious parties in Canada.


----------



## Altair (27 Mar 2021)

RangerRay said:


> John Ivison: Majority of Canadians are feeling politically homeless, poll finds
> 
> 
> The poll gives no sense of where on the spectrum the greatest dissatisfaction is felt but it seems a fair bet to suggest it is the gaping chasm in the centre
> ...


As I have said previously, I am socially progressive and fiscally conservative.

The priority for me social so I vote liberal, although I wish for balanced budgets.

That said, since no serious party has a path to balance I only have social issues to go off of.

I actually had hopes for the PPC to be anti government in the lives of the citizens, while fiscally conservatives but they just decided the best thing to do was be the home of the social conservatives. A libertarian party that is anti abortion is quite the paradox to me.


----------



## Jarnhamar (27 Mar 2021)

Altair said:


> The priority for me social so I vote liberal



Would you be interested in expanding on that a bit more?  What kind of social issues lead you down that path?
It seems to me the liberal party in power right now is the most unethical one in our history. What social things ahvr you so entrenched with the LPC?


----------



## Altair (27 Mar 2021)

Jarnhamar said:


> Would you be interested in expanding on that a bit more?  What kind of social issues lead you down that path?
> It seems to me the liberal party in power rigjt now is the most unethical one in our history. What social things ahvr you so entrenched with the LPC?


Abortion rights for women, fair representation for women, gender equality, legalized pot , income disparity, rights for LGBTQ individuals, climate change.

So while trudeau isn't perfect, or even good a lot of the time voting for another party would be like throwing out the baby with the baby with the bathwater.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (27 Mar 2021)

Fair representation??  I guess as long as you submit meekly to The Man.


----------



## Altair (27 Mar 2021)

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> Fair representation??  I guess as long as you submit meekly to The Man.


Flawed fair representation better than no fair representation.


----------



## Jarnhamar (27 Mar 2021)

Thanks.


Altair said:


> Abortion rights for women


I'm not sure what other rights they need.
Abortion wasn't touched when the Conservatives were in power for nearly 10 years as far as I understand.
You can get an abortion when your 8 months along in Canada, we're one of the most, if not thee most, "progressive" when it comes to abortion. What additional abortion rights are women fighting for? 



Altair said:


> fair representation for women


Not sure what you mean here. Like gender parity?  At this point with the LPC it seems more for show than a true belief. 


Altair said:


> gender equality


That's important. I think identity politics landed us Payette. Think the LPC has ran into a few snags with their pro-women image. 


Altair said:


> legalized pot


I was against this personally but I think I was wrong. Seems fine.


Altair said:


> income disparity,


Between who?


Altair said:


> rights for LGBTQ individuals


Are LGBTQ individuals missing rights that straight Canadians enjoy?
Isn't it a criminal offense in Canada to not use someone's prefered pronoun? I'm not sure what rights they're missing.


Altair said:


> climate change.


Another really important issue. Liberals really capatialized on this one with young Canadians. They(young Canadians) can't articulate much besides conservatives are old fogies and the future is theirs and they need to protect the climate. 



Altair said:


> So while trudeau isn't perfect, or even good a lot of the time voting for another party would be like throwing out the baby with the baby with the bathwater.


Seems to me the Liberals can be counted on to act in their best interest. They're good at making Canadians think their own best interests and  the LPC coincide. 

LPC has continued to let their true colours slip. Lots of Canadians either don't see it or don't care. If it effects someone else but not me I'm fine with it. Not socially progressive IMO.


----------



## Altair (27 Mar 2021)

Jarnhamar said:


> Thanks.
> 
> I'm not sure what other rights they need.
> Abortion wasn't touched when the Conservatives were in power for nearly 10 years as far as I understand.
> You can get an abortion when your 8 months along in Canada, we're one of the most, if not thee most, "progressive" when it comes to abortion. What additional abortion rights are women fighting for?


Yet there is a faction within the CPC that continues to advocate for limits on abortion which leaves me uneasy.


Jarnhamar said:


> Not sure what you mean here. Like gender parity?  At this point with the LPC it seems more for show than a true belief.


As I said before, even flawed gender parity is better than no gender parity. The CPC has left no doubt they wouldn't seek to improve on the LPC in this regard, they would simply do away with it.


Jarnhamar said:


> That's important. I think identity politics landed us Payette. Think the LPC has ran into a few snags with their pro-women image.


I'm sure there are thousands of other women or men who could do a better job than Payette. Simply a matter of getting the right one.


Jarnhamar said:


> I was against this personally but I think I was wrong. Seems fine.


Yet it was the LPC who put it in place, the CPC ran against it in the past.


Jarnhamar said:


> Between who?


the average middle and low class worker who is trying to keep up with the ever increasing price of everything and especially housing.

it was the LPC who put in place things like the CCB which is helpful to those who make under 90k and have children


Jarnhamar said:


> Are LGBTQ individuals missing rights that straight Canadians enjoy?
> Isn't it a criminal offense in Canada to not use someone's prefered pronoun? I'm not sure what rights they're missing.


Considering they are more likely to be assaulted, killed, commit suicide and harm themselves than the general population, I would say more needs to be done. And considering a part of the CPC base advocates for conversion therapy and the previous leader wouldn't walk in a gay pride parade it leave me feeling like they are not the party who would recognize that.


Jarnhamar said:


> Another really important issue. Liberals really capatialized on this one with young Canadians. They(young Canadians) can't articulate much besides conservatives are old fogies and the future is theirs and they need to protect the climate.


and the CPC has yet to come up with a plan for the environment beyond carbon tax bad, we will come up with something better. At a later date. Trust us.

Which is hard to do when they vote against climate change is real at a policy convention. 


Jarnhamar said:


> Seems to me the Liberals can be counted on to act in their best interest. They're good at making Canadians think their own best interests and  the LPC coincide.


All politicians do. It's baked in. But the question I am left with is what are they doing (I've named things above) and what are the other guys offering (currently underwhelming)


Jarnhamar said:


> LPC has continued to let their true colours slip. Lots of Canadians either don't see it or don't care. If it effects someone else but not me I'm fine with it. Not socially progressive IMO.


Liberal bad. Okay. 

Let me look at the alternatives?

Hmmmmm..


Nope.


----------



## RangerRay (27 Mar 2021)

If the Liberals weren’t an unserious, corrupt, Sinophilic, corporatist Trudeau cult of personality that held Westerners in contempt, I might consider voting for them.


----------



## Altair (27 Mar 2021)

RangerRay said:


> If the Liberals weren’t an unserious, corrupt, Sinophilic, corporatist Trudeau cult of personality that held Westerners in contempt, I might consider voting for them.


Well, at least you have the NDP to vote for then.


----------



## RangerRay (27 Mar 2021)

Altair said:


> Well, at least you have the NDP to vote for then.


Hence why I feel politically homeless.


----------



## Jarnhamar (27 Mar 2021)

Altair said:


> Yet there is a faction within the CPC that continues to advocate for limits on abortion which leaves me uneasy.


Despite not touching abortion with a 10 foot pole for 10 years if they get elected that small faction will ban abortions or tinker with it? Seems like a nonsensical concern.



Altair said:


> As I said before, even flawed gender parity is better than no gender parity. The CPC has left no doubt they wouldn't seek to improve on the LPC in this regard, they would simply do away with it.


Didn't the CPC have near gender parity in their cabinet? Ensuring it's 50/50 for the sake of it seems more akin to virtue signaling then good governing.  And what about trans members? Do you think trans men and trans women should be equally represented as well?


Altair said:


> I'm sure there are thousands of other women or men who could do a better job than Payette. Simply a matter of getting the right one.


Yup. But the reasons why the LPC took her on board, and the manner they did it, should be alarming. Once again, a lot of people over look that stuff because image is more important than ethics.


Altair said:


> Yet it was the LPC who put it in place, the CPC ran against it in the past.


Right.


Altair said:


> the average middle and low class worker who is trying to keep up with the ever increasing price of everything and especially housing.


What's the cut off line between low and middle class?


Altair said:


> it was the LPC who put in place things like the CCB which is helpful to those who make under 90k and have children


Agreed.


Altair said:


> Considering they are more likely to be assaulted, killed, commit suicide and harm themselves than the general population, I would say more needs to be done. And considering a part of the CPC base advocates for conversion therapy and the previous leader wouldn't walk in a gay pride parade it leave me feeling like they are not the party who would recognize that.


Then nothing to do with rights then since LGBTQ have the same rights as heterosexual Canadians.

Sexual orientation is not usually included in a cause of death report or on a death certificate so there is little hard data connecting sexual orientation and suicide s o I don't know if they're more likely to commit suicide. Are the majority of Canadians assaulted in Canada LGBTQ?

Conversion therapy seems messed up to me. 
I find the practice of demanding politicians walk in pride parades obnoxious. Pressuring politicians to do it contributes to how shallow our politics have become.


Altair said:


> and the CPC has yet to come up with a plan for the environment beyond carbon tax bad,


I get the feeling the LPC plan is to tell people what they want to hear while lining up their friends for juicy contracts. I also get the feeling they would oppose any snooping into those deals just like we seen with SNC and WE.


Altair said:


> we will come up with something better. At a later date. Trust us.


Sounds like the LPC plan for budget.


Altair said:


> Which is hard to do when they vote against climate change is real at a policy convention.


You also know that the statement goes deeper than simply acknowledging our climate is changing.


Altair said:


> All politicians do. It's baked in. But the question I am left with is what are they doing (I've named things above) and what are the other guys offering (currently
> underwhelming)


I see one underwhelming and one full of BS.


----------



## RangerRay (27 Mar 2021)

Jarnhamar said:


> Despite not touching abortion with a 10 foot pole for 10 years if they get elected that small faction will ban abortions or tinker with it? Seems like a nonsensical concern.
> 
> 
> Didn't the CPC have near gender parity in their cabinet? Ensuring it's 50/50 for the sake of it seems more akin to virtue signaling then good governing.  And what about trans members? Do you think trans men and trans women should be equally represented as well?
> ...



I believe most the things the Tories are accused of being are overblown by many in the media because they want to see boogeymen in the night and it makes the Liberals look better in comparison. However, the Tories can be their own worst enemies in some of the things they do and say. It seems that in recent years it’s like they are trying to give the Liberals ammunition and prove all the negative stereotypes about who conservatives are.


----------



## Altair (27 Mar 2021)

Jarnhamar said:


> Despite not touching abortion with a 10 foot pole for 10 years if they get elected that small faction will ban abortions or tinker with it? Seems like a nonsensical concern.


Do I think they will? No. Do I feel very comfortable in the same tent as those who do? No.


Jarnhamar said:


> Didn't the CPC have near gender parity in their cabinet? Ensuring it's 50/50 for the sake of it seems more akin to virtue signaling then good governing.  And what about trans members? Do you think trans men and trans women should be equally represented as well?


Seeing as trans women just see themselves as women that's not really an issue.


Jarnhamar said:


> Yup. But the reasons why the LPC took her on board, and the manner they did it, should be alarming. Once again, a lot of people over look that stuff because image is more important than ethics.


I never notice the GG unless they mess up. Sucks that JP was a bag of hammers but beyond that I don't really care.


Jarnhamar said:


> Right.


Yup.


Jarnhamar said:


> What's the cut off line between low and middle class?


Interesting question, varies for everyone. But I do know that CEOs used to make 60 times more than their employees in 1989 and now that ratio is 300 times. I would start there and work my way down.


Jarnhamar said:


> Then nothing to do with rights then since LGBTQ have the same rights as heterosexual Canadians.
> 
> Sexual orientation is not usually included in a cause of death report or on a death certificate so there is little hard data connecting sexual orientation and suicide s o I don't know if they're more likely to commit suicide. Are the majority of Canadians assaulted in Canada LGBTQ?


The majority of Canadians assaulted in Canada are not LGBTQ but a large percentage of LGBTQ are assaulted.






						Violent victimization of lesbians, gays and bisexuals in Canada, 2014
					

This Juristat article presents information on the experiences of violent victimization among lesbian, gay and bisexual populations in Canada using self-reported data from the 2014 General Social Survey on Canadians’ Safety (Victimization). Experiences of discrimination and perceptions of safety...




					www150.statcan.gc.ca
				




"Compared with heterosexual Canadians, bisexual individuals were almost nine times more likely to be sexually assaulted (151E versus 17 incidents per 1,000 population) in the previous 12 months."


Jarnhamar said:


> Conversion therapy seems messed up to me.
> I find the practice of demanding politicians walk in pride parades obnoxious. Pressuring politicians to do it contributes to how shallow our politics have become.


As a show of support for a often victimized community, it's really the least one can do.


Jarnhamar said:


> I get the feeling the LPC plan is to tell people what they want to hear while lining up their friends for juicy contracts. I also get the feeling they would oppose any snooping into those deals just like we seen with SNC and WE.


I think the carbon tax is pretty self simole to understand, and I think the federal backstop that refunds the tax is better than plans like BC and QC that just pocket it.


Jarnhamar said:


> Sounds like the LPC plan for budget.


sounds like every government these days  have you seen the Ontario, Alberta and Quebec budgets?


Jarnhamar said:


> You also know that the statement goes deeper than simply acknowledging our climate is changing.


Maybe. Again, doesn't fill one with good feelings if someone has the climate as a concern.


Jarnhamar said:


> I see one underwhelming and one full of BS.


Well, I'll back the BS legal weed and cash my BS CCB payments, and take my BS carbon tax rebate I guess


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 Mar 2021)

Catherine McKenna’s Minister of Infrastructure fails another Audit, billions unaccounted for​I'm not surprised, not even a little bit. Almost $94,000,000,000 unaccounted for. Breaches in the Treasury Board Contracting Policy. Substantial mispractices on the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities. The department lacked mandatory checklists, proper due diligence and presented serious “control failures”. Of 32 projects, picked at random by auditors, they found that 22 of them had incomplete checklists, signalling a failure rate of nearly 70%. Perhaps it's time that Commissioner Lucki does some soul searching and gets some investigations going in earnest for a change.









						Catherine McKenna’s Minister of Infrastructure fails another Audit, billions unaccounted for
					

News for all




					westphaliantimes.com
				




Perhaps someone better versed in in the goings on of parliament can tell me if a vote of no confidence can be brought against the trudeau government for something like malfeasance.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (27 Mar 2021)

Except they'd love that right now........with all the "free" money they thrown out to people, who don't give a flying frig they've just ruined our kids future, they'd get voted back in for sure.    The days of a Govt actually governing are gone forever I fear.   Nothing matters but the next election....nothing at all.


----------



## Jarnhamar (28 Mar 2021)

Fishbone Jones said:


> Catherine McKenna’s Minister of Infrastructure fails another Audit, billions unaccounted for​I'm not surprised, not even a little bit. Almost $94,000,000,000 unaccounted for. Breaches in the Treasury Board Contracting Policy. Substantial mispractices on the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities. The department lacked mandatory checklists, proper due diligence and presented serious “control failures”. Of 32 projects, picked at random by auditors, they found that 22 of them had incomplete checklists, signalling a failure rate of nearly 70%. Perhaps it's time that Commissioner Lucki does some soul searching and gets some investigations going in earnest for a change.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yea sure , a few bucks are unaccounted for. What about CLIMATE CHANGE AND ABORTIONS?


----------



## YZT580 (28 Mar 2021)

In the 1960's science was predicting a new ice age.  Abortion was considered murder.  Altair, what makes you right and the people that thought that way wrong?


----------



## Altair (28 Mar 2021)

YZT580 said:


> In the 1960's science was predicting a new ice age.  Abortion was considered murder.  Altair, what makes you right and the people that thought that way wrong?


And interracial marriage was illegal in places, Jim crow laws were in place, gay individuals could not marry, turns out with increased knowledge and society moving forward things that were okay back then are not today.


----------



## Altair (28 Mar 2021)

Jarnhamar said:


> Yea sure , a few bucks are unaccounted for. What about CLIMATE CHANGE AND ABORTIONS?











						Delays plague 'inconsistent and incomplete' $188B infrastructure program: auditor general
					

The report found that 'funds were not being spent as quickly as planned' and 'objectives might not be met' after the full 12-year life of the program




					www.google.com
				




"The report found that 'funds were not being spent as quickly as planned' and 'objectives might not be met' after the full 12-year life of the program"

National post>westphaliantimes


----------



## RangerRay (28 Mar 2021)

Never heard of Westphalian Times before. I thought Westphalia was in Germany?  Sounds dodgy to me.


----------



## Jarnhamar (28 Mar 2021)

RangerRay said:


> Never heard of Westphalian Times before. I thought Westphalia was in Germany?  Sounds dodgy to me.


Isn't that where the fresh Prince hails from?


----------



## Altair (28 Mar 2021)

RangerRay said:


> Never heard of Westphalian Times before. I thought Westphalia was in Germany?  Sounds dodgy to me.


Reading through a few of the articles explains where fishbone Jones gets his views from.

Very very disingenuous reporting.

Like not spending all the money somehow equals LOSING all the money.


----------



## Jarnhamar (28 Mar 2021)

I'm sure it will be all accounted for in the end. 

Like this shinning example of transparency.
Trudeau government won't say who got billions of dollars in aid​


			https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/covid-spending-government-transparency-1.5826917


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Mar 2021)

RangerRay said:


> Never heard of Westphalian Times before. I thought Westphalia was in Germany?  Sounds dodgy to me.


You can always Google the details, from other outlets, for yourself.


----------



## Remius (28 Mar 2021)

Fishbone Jones said:


> You can always Google the details, from other outlets, for yourself.


I never heard of them either.  I read it.  Then read the NP article.  Then went to the actual source.  





__





						Report 9—Investing in Canada Plan
					





					www.oag-bvg.gc.ca
				




The link is to the summary of the AG report.  You can read the whole thing.  

Westphalia news like any other news outlet seems to use the “catchy headline to get attention but not really what the the story is about” tactic.


----------



## YZT580 (28 Mar 2021)

Altair said:


> And interracial marriage was illegal in places, Jim crow laws were in place, gay individuals could not marry, turns out with increased knowledge and society moving forward things that were okay back then are not today.


you totally avoided the question.  Try again.


----------



## Jarnhamar (28 Mar 2021)

Tories demand Trudeau testify on WE deal after Liberals reject hearing from PM staf​Link
Trudeau's promised transparency.


----------



## Jarnhamar (29 Mar 2021)

Federal carbon-offset proposal will likely give illusion of progress, even as it increases emissions​Link


----------



## MilEME09 (30 Mar 2021)

Chinese diplomat blasts Trudeau, says he ruined relations with China and is a U.S. 'running dog'
					

Li Yang, based in Rio de Janeiro, also referred to Trudeau as 'boy' and a spendthrift in an apparent retort to Canada’s recent Uyghur-related sanctions against…




					ottawacitizen.com
				




Not that I care what China thinks, but nice to see we got under their skin a bit


----------



## RangerRay (30 Mar 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> Chinese diplomat blasts Trudeau, says he ruined relations with China and is a U.S. 'running dog'
> 
> 
> Li Yang, based in Rio de Janeiro, also referred to Trudeau as 'boy' and a spendthrift in an apparent retort to Canada’s recent Uyghur-related sanctions against…
> ...



Ironic considering how much Trudeau and the Liberals kowtow to Beijing compared to our allies...


----------



## Brad Sallows (30 Mar 2021)

Not really ironic.  The more influence they think they have, the more likely they are to come down hard at signs of backsliding.


----------



## Mills Bomb (31 Mar 2021)

RangerRay said:


> Ironic considering how much Trudeau and the Liberals kowtow to Beijing compared to our allies...


I'm not defending Justin but this statement is only from a Chinese consul in Brazil.

Do we really need to be worried about what some random Chinese consul in Brazil says about Justin? Will it even really influence anything? 

Just seems like a non-story to me no matter what side of the political spectrum you fall under.

Maybe this will keep escalating but for now it should be kept in perspective.


----------



## Mills Bomb (31 Mar 2021)

cavalryman said:


> Do you think that Chinese consul in Brazil acted on his own, or did he do it on orders from Beijing? The PRC regime rarely does things at random, let alone allow its officials to speak without permission. China was sending Trudeau a message via said random consul. Bet on it.


Perhaps. It just seems a bit overblown to me. If a nation of 1 billion+ wants to break up with Justin, I'm sure they can do it to his face instead of through a friend. That being said it seems pretty consistent with China's recent relationship with Canada so I suppose we'll see what the fallout is from this, if any.


----------



## Jarnhamar (31 Mar 2021)

Mills Bomb said:


> Perhaps. It just seems a bit overblown to me. If a nation of 1 billion+ wants to break up with Justin, I'm sure they can do it to his face instead of through a friend. That being said it seems pretty consistent with China's recent relationship with Canada so I suppose we'll see what the fallout is from this, if any.



The honourable Justin Trudeau isn't afraid to poke the dragon.

See?


----------



## brihard (31 Mar 2021)

cavalryman said:


> Do you think that Chinese consul in Brazil acted on his own, or did he do it on orders from Beijing? The PRC regime rarely does things at random, let alone allow its officials to speak without permission. China was sending Trudeau a message via said random consul. Bet on it.



100% this. The Chinese consul in Brazil posted in English on a social media platform that’s banned in his own country. The intended audience was neither Chinese, nor Brazilian. Chinese foreign affairs are highly choreographed. This was deliberate. They knew it would get lots of media play here, without exposing their consul to the loss of face of getting PNGed.


----------



## PuckChaser (31 Mar 2021)

You can find your COVID tangent here: CDN/US Covid-related political discussion


----------



## dapaterson (7 Apr 2021)

Calgary's mayor has announced he will not run for re-election as mayor...

Hmm... wonder what other options he may have in the future.


----------



## Haggis (7 Apr 2021)

dapaterson said:


> Calgary's mayor has announced he will not run for re-election as mayor...
> 
> Hmm... wonder what other options he may have in the future.


Being Trudeau's handpicked hope of defeating Michele Rempel-Garner?


----------



## Altair (17 Apr 2021)

So I guess next election I need to decide between liberal carbon tax that pays me back 90 percent of what I spend, or conservative carbon tax where I get a green account and can only buy green stuff.


----------



## Jarnhamar (17 Apr 2021)

Altair said:


> So I guess next election I need to decide between liberal carbon tax that pays me back 90 percent of what I spend, or conservative carbon tax where I get a green account and can only buy green stuff.


Yes. Please don't let something like ethics and integrity sway your vote.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (17 Apr 2021)

Altair said:


> So I guess next election I need to decide between liberal carbon tax that pays me back 90 percent of what I spend, or conservative carbon tax where I get a green account and can only buy green stuff.



Are you serious??
Isn't "green stuff" the whole idea???  You are quite entertaining...

EDIT: and I will admit to not even knowing what Mr. O'Tooles plan is.......only know how stupid what you just posted sounded like.


----------



## Jarnhamar (17 Apr 2021)

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> Are you serious??
> Isn't "green stuff" the whole idea???


Climate Change is real Bruce. And it's important, and it's science.


----------



## Mills Bomb (17 Apr 2021)

I've been following this story, so far my observations have been;

Under the Liberal plan they are saying that they plan to put a $40 price on carbon, that will increase to $50 next year, and will only stop when it hits $170 in 2030.

It seems as if this plan will most be most hurtful for low income Canadians and students as these taxes will not only inflate the price of gas to European levels but will also surely inflate the price of common groceries, shipping, and everything else that currently requires fuel to be transported. Probably not a big deal for the wealthy and higher end of the middle class who will likely just pay a little more and keep doing whatever they're doing without caring much about it. I could see this maybe causing our lowest income members of society to possibly do some carpooling if they're short on money for gas, or maybe it will also cause the poorest Canadians to cancel on some trips and vacations they can no longer afford? I'm not really sure how else a little inflation and extra tax will actually restrict carbon use of anyone who's not financially struggling.

In exchange for this plan, the Liberal's are saying we'll get "90%" back in the form rebates that will be same for all Canadians regardless of income, which we can all use for whatever we want, including gas for our cars or to offset the inflation. That is of course assuming the Liberal's actually give us 90% back in rebates, if not, it would seem it's just more tax.

Under the Conservative plan O'Toole wants to put a $50 price cap on carbon, so we'll likely still see some minor inflation with them as well, but not to the $170 price on carbon levels.

In exchange for this, the Conservatives are saying we'll get "100%" of the money (which they insist is not a tax) back in a loyalty program, but the only thing we can spend that money on is green stuff, for example; bikes or public transportation. This could actually reduce some carbon usage, if everyone has all these credits sitting around for green initiative type stuff they might be likely to use it on a new bike or some free bus rides. Not terribly helpful for the poorest Canadians either though, but at least there could be in theory less inflation and gas will be some sort of reasonably affordable with the $50 cap for those with low income.

Some critics of the Conservative plan are saying they are rewarding people for using carbon, but that seems a bit ridiculous if the only reward is green stuff that actually reduces the carbon footprint. If you're rewarded for driving, with a bike you can use instead of driving, that to me seems like a carbon friendly reward that will reduce polluting which seems to somewhat offset this type of criticism.

For those of us who are relatively well off I don't think either of these plans will really effect us much either way or save the planet, for example both are just leading to more inflation for Canadians including CAF members that will likely be off-set by federal pay raises. I don't think we'll see big trucks and sports cars leaving the parking lots anytime soon. Both plans seem to attempt to satisfy green minded voters with minimal effort, the Conservative plan seemingly to make slightly more sense for the environment (I think?).

Curious to hear more opinions on this one, a lot remains to be seen...


----------



## Weinie (17 Apr 2021)

Jarnhamar said:


> Climate Change is real Bruce. And it's important, and *it's science.*


Maybe.


----------



## Altair (17 Apr 2021)

Mills Bomb said:


> I've been following this story, so far my observations have been;
> 
> Under the Liberal plan they are saying that they plan to put a $40 price on carbon, that will increase to $50 next year, and will only stop when it hits $170 in 2030.
> 
> ...


So carbon tax A vs carbon tax B?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (17 Apr 2021)

One green and one just a tax?


----------



## Jarnhamar (17 Apr 2021)

Weinie said:


> Maybe.


The LPC is using "Science" just like the 1950s (or 1980s?) US used _Democracy_ or _Freedom_ to coerce citizens. 
You don't hate _democracy_ do you? Why don't you believe in _freedom_?


----------



## Mills Bomb (17 Apr 2021)

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> One green and one just a tax?



That seems to be the general consensus I've gathered. The Liberal plan is much more bold, it basically just stiffs poor people with another tax and tells them to like it because it's "green" and that they will "get 90% back". There's very little information provided on how exactly any of this is going to save the planet. 

Here's the plan in their words;






						Carbon pollution pricing systems across Canada - Canada.ca
					

Each province and territory will have its own unique way of pricing carbon pollution.




					www.canada.ca
				




Notice how the link to find out what refund you'll be getting is broken.

Anyway, if you're well off this really only effects the poorest Canadians, the average middle class and up will just absorb the extra costs as part of general inflation, I think...


----------



## RangerRay (17 Apr 2021)

Mills Bomb said:


> That seems to be the general consensus I've gathered. The Liberal plan is much more bold, it basically just stiffs poor people with another tax and tells them to like it because it's "green" and that they will "get 90% back". There's very little information provided on how exactly any of this is going to save the planet.
> 
> Here's the plan in their words;
> 
> ...


Add to that lower income people are least likely to have extra cash to buy a new efficient furnace or a hybrid/EV.  Especially when what little disposable income have gets hoovered up in taxes.

But they may get a slightly bigger tax return due to the rebate. Which may or may not go towards more efficient furnaces/vehicles.

Edited because I missed a word.


----------



## daftandbarmy (17 Apr 2021)

Carbon tax: it's complicated:















						Carbon Tax - Pros and Cons - Economics Help
					

Arguments for and against a carbon tax - idea to make polluters pay cost of carbon pollution - raise revenue and reduce pollution. Critics argue damages business and will not solve problems.




					www.economicshelp.org


----------



## PuckChaser (17 Apr 2021)

To be honest both are stupid ideas. You will never make something expensive enough to reduce emissions, and the best part about giving a 90% back climate rebate is it's impossible to prove it's covering the cost increases because you can just fudge the stats or claim price increases are inflationary not due to carbon tax.

What we should be doing is investing in SMR/Thorium Reactors and building new nuclear reactors to push us off coal completely. Natural Gas power generation used only as a stop gap until the nuclear/thorium reactors are online. Electric vehicles aren't even viable as no one is quantifying the carbon/environmental cost of the open pit strip mine for rare earth materials in the batteries that are manned by $2 USD a day child labour in Africa.


----------



## Altair (17 Apr 2021)

PuckChaser said:


> To be honest both are stupid ideas. You will never make something expensive enough to reduce emissions, and the best part about giving a 90% back climate rebate is it's impossible to prove it's covering the cost increases because you can just fudge the stats or claim price increases are inflationary not due to carbon tax.
> 
> What we should be doing is investing in SMR/Thorium Reactors and building new nuclear reactors to push us off coal completely. Natural Gas power generation used only as a stop gap until the nuclear/thorium reactors are online. Electric vehicles aren't even viable as no one is quantifying the carbon/environmental cost of the open pit strip mine for rare earth materials in the batteries that are manned by $2 USD a day child labour in Africa.


I still give the edge to the one who would let me spend my carbon tax rebate on burgers as opposed to getting a new bicycle every year.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (18 Apr 2021)

So to pollute?


----------



## Altair (18 Apr 2021)

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> So to pollute?


If burgers are polluting. 

#Harveys


----------



## Altair (18 Apr 2021)

Come to think if it, I don't mine the CPC plan that much.

I get my green savings account, use it to buy a bicycle, then sell the bicycle,  and pocket the money.

Rinse and repeat every year.

Same as the LPC plan, just more work on my part.


----------



## Remius (18 Apr 2021)

I’m just glad the CPC actually have a plan.  So we can stop the denial part of climate change.  The deniers can sit in their corner and pout for all I care.  At least there is an acknowledgement by the CPC about this.  I’m sure there is a segment of the party though whose heads are exploding right now but whatever.

I think their plan is innovative and different but will have to look at it a bit closer.


----------



## Remius (18 Apr 2021)

Altair said:


> Come to think if it, I don't mine the CPC plan that much.
> 
> I get my green savings account, use it to buy a bicycle, then sell the bicycle,  and pocket the money.
> 
> ...


If everyone is getting a free bike why would they buy yours?  It’ll probably be the same bike.


----------



## Jarnhamar (18 Apr 2021)

Altair said:


> I get my green savings account, use it to buy a bicycle, then sell the bicycle,  and pocket the money.
> 
> Rinse and repeat every year.


Do you currently do this with boots bought with the boot Canforgen?


----------



## Jarnhamar (18 Apr 2021)

Remius said:


> I’m just glad the CPC actually have a plan.  So we can stop the denial part of climate change.  The deniers can sit in their corner and pout for all I care.  At least there is an acknowledgement by the CPC about this.  I’m sure there is a segment of the party though whose heads are exploding right now but whatever.
> 
> I think their plan is innovative and different but will have to look at it a bit closer.


It's going to upset a lot of people that the Conservative plan seems more green than the Liberals plan. 

Speaking of deniers what's your definition of one? Is it someone who thinks our climate isn't changing? Is it someone who thinks we should pump the breaks on just buying into anything the LPC says when they attach climate and science to the end of the sentence?


----------



## daftandbarmy (18 Apr 2021)

Jarnhamar said:


> It's going to upset a lot of people that the Conservative plan seems more green than the Liberals plan.
> 
> Speaking of deniers what's your definition of one? Is it someone who thinks our climate isn't changing? Is it someone who thinks we should pump the breaks on just buying into anything the LPC says when they attach climate and science to the end of the sentence?



Like true 'Big Government Ninnies', they both ignore the power of the consumer and consequent market forces driving changes in corporate behaviour. The actions of individuals are minuscule, in comparison to the impact of industry, on emmissions.

Every industry is trying to look as green as possible to its customers and other stakeholders. If government doesn't audit them and internationally publish good performance, they do it themselves - using third parties - to show consumers in Europe and elsewhere that they are good corporate actors with respect to achieving climate change goals.

Finding a way to do this faster, more effectively and consistently will weed out the bad performers while incenting the good one to do better. Getting industry buy in would not be difficult.

Instead, they choose to treat all industry like criminals, which will likely cause some of them to act that way. 

You know, kind of like when 'that CO' levies group punishments for the bad performance of a few.


----------



## Altair (18 Apr 2021)

Jarnhamar said:


> Do you currently do this with boots bought with the boot Canforgen?


I rent, so I can't get solar panels. I cannot reasonably take public transit, so a bus pass does me no good. The place I rent doesn't support electric vehicles. What green stuff can a renter and personal vehicle user get with a green account?

I'll get a bike. Then sell the bike.


----------



## Altair (18 Apr 2021)

Remius said:


> If everyone is getting a free bike why would they buy yours?  It’ll probably be the same bike.


Canada might be a great exporter of bicycles internationally.


----------



## Jarnhamar (18 Apr 2021)

Altair said:


> I rent, so I can't get solar panels. I cannot reasonably take public transit, so a bus pass does me no good. The place I rent doesn't support electric vehicles. What green stuff can a renter and personal vehicle user get with a green account?
> 
> I'll get a bike. Then sell the bike.


Sure, if you have a VAC claim you can rip off Soldier On for $1000 using this gimmick too.

Have you bought and sold boots through the 'bootforgen'?


----------



## RangerRay (18 Apr 2021)

From what I’ve seen, both plans aren’t great. How is this “account” supposed to be managed?  How much will it cost?  Seems like more bureaucracy to me.

As for the current plan, even with the rebate and being solidly middle class, I can’t afford a new furnace that would reduce what I pay in carbon tax, or a hybrid.  Like government revenue, that rebate just ends up in my “general revenues”. I imagine the situation is the same for most folks.


----------



## Altair (18 Apr 2021)

Jarnhamar said:


> Sure, if you have a VAC claim you can rip off Soldier On for $1000 using this gimmick too.
> 
> Have you bought and sold boots through the 'bootforgen'?


Nope. 

Haven't bought boots yet. 

And when I do, I'll likely wear them. 

As things stand, I currently get money back, that I can use on anything I want. 

Under the CPC plan, I get a green account which I can use on stuff like green cars, new greener furnace, bus passes, solar panels, bicycles. I hope more stuff is added to a comprehensive list, but stuff for houses I cannot use because I rent, bus passes are not reasonable, and I already have a bicycle. 

So that green account gets nice and fat, and I cannot use the money, as opposed to getting money back now and having the freedom to buy burgers. 

So if I need to get a bike, and sell it on amazon, I'll do that, pocket the money, and buy burgers.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (18 Apr 2021)

How much has trudeau given us back? His carbon tax was pushed as revenue neutral. The money was supposed to be returned to the tax payer. I've  only seen a few bucks a month 'energy rebate' on my hydro bill, which I think is a provincial initiative anyway. Not even close to what was promised. Now the CPC has a plan, which will make trudeau change one of his biggest attack points.

'The Conservatives don't  believe in climate change. They have no plan.'

It is the liberals who don't have one now. Taking your money, putting it into the general account and then handing it out around the world except in Canada, is not a plan.

Is the CPC Climate Plan perfect? Hell no, but it's way ahead of the just plain theft and lies of the liberals.

Being strident, unbending, ancient, unchanging and smug has hurt the CPC. There's lots of one issue voters out there. There are lots, who vote on nothing but the environment. They always went with the LPC, because they APPEARED to be interested also. Now, they have a choice. Those who make the environment their main voting reason, but are tired of the smoke and mirrors of the grits, may come over to the CPC now. We'll  have to wait for the election, not the polls, to see if was an effective strategy. I think it will be. Especially, if I can use it to purchase big ticket items for my home.


----------



## Altair (18 Apr 2021)

I will agree that this is the best plan for the environment that the CPC has ever come up with.

It doesn't do anything for me, but I can see those who own a home getting some use out of it. 

I do hope it's not a screw the poor type plan like the old tax credits for kids the CPC used to have, but on a whole, much better than anything they previously came up with.

Imagine 2 years ago every party in the HOC supporting a carbon tax. Wild.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (18 Apr 2021)

If you actually want to help the environment you would be banning goods that are made without pollution controls (or similar pollution controls as us) from entering the country. Make it illegal to export goods or resources to other countries that will turn those into goods with no pollution controls, and make it so companies have to manufacture goods which have a long life span as well as parts for long term maintenance. 

We already have the technology needed. Bring back trolley cars instead of busses. Increase spending on trains and railways well reducing it on the highways. We could use green initiatives to create a economic boom in this country. Instead we are pretending that reducing 'carbon' in Canada is going to actually stop global warming when we are still buying these products from other countries with no controls which are then shipped across the oceans causing a ton of emissions in that process as well. 

All the policies the political parties are proposing are jokes made to appease people and get votes rather than actually trying to solve this problem.


----------



## Loachman (19 Apr 2021)

Remius said:


> So we can stop the denial part of climate change.


Climate change is real.

We will be able to control it when we can put a thermostat on the sun.

Until then, natural solar activity cycles will continue to drive climate change as they have for millions of years.


----------



## mariomike (19 Apr 2021)

For reference to the discussion,









						Global Warming/Climate Change Super Thread
					

So we've all heard about the beef industry and global warming. How about the dairy industry:  Can dairy adapt to climate change? By Emily Kasriel 8th December 2020  Amid polarised debate, Emily Kasriel asks how dairy farmers see the role of their industry in climate change – and finds a mixture...




					milnet.ca
				



148 pages.


----------



## Weinie (19 Apr 2021)

Loachman said:


> Climate change is real.
> 
> We will be able to control it when we can put a thermostat on the sun.
> 
> Until then, natural solar activity cycles will continue to drive climate change as they have for millions billions of years.


Slight update.


----------



## Loachman (19 Apr 2021)

What's three places of decimal before we were even around?


----------



## Weinie (19 Apr 2021)

Loachman said:


> What's three places of decimal before we were even around?


Good point. Today, it makes a difference in my beer for alcohol by volume. Just saying.


----------



## Brad Sallows (19 Apr 2021)

> it's science



Science is a method of inquiry.  We use it to explain the way things are.  It can not tell us how things ought to be.

Computer simulations and mathematical approximations do not tell us the way things are; they are tools for helping to decide what questions to ask and where to look for answers.

Carbon taxes and other such schemes can be summarized with one "pro" and one "con".

Pro: mitigating externalities.
Con: mitigating externalities has opportunity costs.


----------



## Altair (19 Apr 2021)

I mean, people can talk about it being science or not science, but I think the more pertinent point is how every single party in the HOC now supports some form of a carbon tax.

The only party of note that doesn't is the PPC, and I don't see all the non carbon taxers flocking to them for some reason.

The discussion, politically, is over. Much like abortion.


----------



## YZT580 (19 Apr 2021)

and anyone who claims that science is settled knows nothing about science.


----------



## blacktriangle (19 Apr 2021)

YZT580 said:


> and anyone who claims that science is settled knows nothing about science.


Exactly. Certain people have figured out certain things throughout history. Some of them are quite impressive. In the grand scheme of things however, we know very little as a species. And the average person knows basically nothing.

We are terrible stewards of this planet. I think many of us can agree on that. Taxes aren't going to solve the issue. At best they are a low hanging fruit solution for the masses.


----------



## Loachman (19 Apr 2021)

Altair said:


> The discussion, politically, is over. Much like abortion.


Sure, it is.


----------



## Remius (19 Apr 2021)

YZT580 said:


> and anyone who claims that science is settled knows nothing about science.


Your argument is the same that flat earthers,  anti vaccers and creationists use.    I lump climate change deniers in the same Middle Ages style of thinking.


----------



## blacktriangle (19 Apr 2021)

Remius said:


> Your argument is the same that flat earthers,  anti vaccers and creationists use.    I lump climate change deniers in the same Middle Ages style of thinking.


Doesn't Flat Earth originate in antiquated science? Something that was settled, until it wasn't?


----------



## Loachman (19 Apr 2021)

Erin O'Toole faces backlash from 'surprised and frustrated' Conservatives over carbon pricing plan
Critics argue O'Toole has yet again abruptly contradicted his own leadership campaign, and is now playing word games about what constitutes a 'carbon tax'
Brian Platt Apr 17, 2021

OTTAWA - When Conservative leader Erin O’Toole announced on Thursday that his party will include a carbon price on consumer fuels as part of their election platform, internal backlash was inevitable.

Scrapping “Trudeau’s carbon tax” is a core promise the Conservative Party has made to its supporters for years. O’Toole won the Conservative leadership race last year while repeatedly promising to get rid of it, even signing a pledge that he would never introduce a carbon tax of his own.

Now, he’s committed the party to putting a carbon levy on fuel, while insisting it can’t be called a tax because the money doesn’t go into government accounts. The blowback was bound to happen; the big question is how O’Toole manages the dissent from the party’s caucus and grassroots, and whether it grows more organized or gradually fades away.

More at link.

**********

Erin O’Toole Is Treating Canadian Conservatives with Undisguised Contempt
Spencer Fernando April 18, 2021

When someone lies to you over and over and over again, so blatantly, without even pretending to tell the truth, and then expects you to go along with it, what does that person think of you?

Do they respect you?

No.

Do they think you are intelligent?

No.

Do they see you as an equal, as a peer?

No.

Instead, they are looking at you with contempt.

They see you as unworthy of the truth.

They see you as someone who deserves only lies.

And they see you as someone who is so weak that you’ll let them keep on lying to you.

Worst of all, when that person leads a political party, not only do they expect you to allow yourself to be lied to, but they then demand that you also volunteer, donate, and advocate for that party.

Contempt for Conservatives

Let me ask you this question:

What would have happened if Erin O’Toole said this during the CPC Leadership campaign?

“After years of campaigning against the carbon tax, and signing pledges not to bring in any consumer carbon tax, I will introduce a consumer carbon tax that takes your money and puts it into an account you can only use for government-approved ‘green purchases.’ And I won’t share the plan with most of my Caucus, and it will instead be leaked to CBC ahead of time. Then, to justify my plan, I’ll claim it’s a ‘levy, not a tax,’ using the exact same arguments both Justin Trudeau and Rachel Notley used when they introduced their carbon tax plans.”

You know what would have happened if O’Toole said this during the CPC race.

He would have finished a distant fourth, coming in behind Leslyn Lewis, Peter MacKay, and Derek Sloan.

He would have been laughed off the stage.

But at least it would have been honest.

At least he would have been telling voters the truth.

At least he would have shown enough respect to Canadian Conservatives to be upfront about what he planned to do, and let people decide whether they supported him based on who he actually was.

 But that’s not what O’Toole did.

More at link.


----------



## Loachman (19 Apr 2021)

Remius said:


> I lump climate change deniers in the same Middle Ages style of thinking.



Climate change is real. It has been occurring since well before SUVs were invented.

Blaming it on carbon dioxide, however, is foolish.

Carbon dioxide gets the blame because nobody has yet to figure out a way to tax sunlight.

This is not science. It is the new religion, against which few dare speak lest they be called heretic and be de-personed and cast out from their careers. It is a money-making and prestige-garnering scam for its high priests and priestesses, be they "scientists", politicians, celebrities, or journalists. Note that many, while causing as much fear as they can about rising sea levels, still keep buying expensive ocean-front properties, multiple large houses with huge "carbon footprints", and yachts while jetting to one massive save-the-planet conference in a luxurious resort after another. If they believed their own crap, they wouldn't be doing that, now, would they?

Have you not noted that not a single one of the warmistas' predictions of doom over the past several decades has come to pass? New York is not under thirty feet of water, nor have any islands been submerged, nor are those things likely to happen. They simply keep repeating the same crap every few years after each has been forgotten and suck in more gullible people who then beg to be taxed more to save them.

Alarmists have a 100% rate of failed predictions. One hundred percent.

Weather is incredibly complex. Despite all of our knowledge of weather and computer modelling, aviation forecasts are issued every six hours because they cannot be reasonably presumed to be accurate enough any further out.

Yet others claim to be able to predict ten, twenty, fifty, one hundred years out.

It is the biggest fraud in the history of manpeoplekind.


----------



## Lumber (19 Apr 2021)

Loachman said:


> It is the biggest fraud in the history of manpeoplekind.


Sigh. 

Well, this wasn't the reply that first came to mind, but I don't feel like getting muted, so:

Climate Change Evidence: How Do We Know? 

Climate change: evidence and causes | Royal Society

Evidence for climate change

Fact check: NASA did not ‘admit man-made climate change is a hoax’


----------



## YZT580 (20 Apr 2021)

There is an abundance of evidence proving climate change.  There is a dearth of evidence linking CO2 to those changes.  And even if there were, the price that is being paid far exceeds the potential benefits.  How about pollution: that is visual pollution from all those windmills. Did you read about the battery fire in a Tesla.  Had to let it burn itself out.  They poured thousands of gallons of water on it.  There is no way to extinguish a lithium fire unless one can totally smother the entire area.  What are you going to do with all the discarded batteries?  Almost as bad as nuclear fuel but certainly not as compact.  Take a trip to Kenya.  They are still manufacturing charcoal in roadside kilns.  They don't want to but us superior types attending the environmental conferences in our falcons and citations are financially discouraging them from developing oil, coal, or natural gas electricity services anywhere but in the major centres.  As a result, health issues are significant.  Take a drive along Lake Erie (used to be beautiful now the towers block the view.  Speaking of which, a certain baseball player was charged for killing a sea gull with one swing of his bat. When will the government charge the power companies for killing the hawks, geese, eagles, every single day.  Read the news and if it is cold, that is climate change, if it is hot, that is climate change.  If there are floods why that is climate change.  How about drought why, that is climate change too.   And that is very true.  It is climate change.  Its been changing for thousands of years and it will go on changing with or without us.  Only our arrogance combined with our stupidity could ever imagine that we have influenced the weather except in a very small localized way.  Air quality most certainly is something we can deal with but the complexity of climate: never.  As for our current thinking:  there is is no scientific proof whatsoever.  It is all based upon mathematical models that can't even re-produce historical events.   Did you know that they have discovered mineral-laden dust in the Amazon delta that originated in the Sahara?  Scientists (real ones) were astonished and took months to establish the wind patterns that could produce such a phenomena.  And that is just one small example of air flow.  So which are you?  Are you arrogant, stupid or searching for answers.  Anyone who claims that the science is settled is one of the first two.


----------



## SupersonicMax (20 Apr 2021)

When it comes to science, I trust NASA. There is scientific evidence that humans influenced climate. Read the link that Lumber provided:








						Climate Change Evidence: How Do We Know?
					

The rate of change since the mid-20th century is unprecedented over millennia.




					climate.nasa.gov
				




Would the Earth die because of us?  No. It would make itself whole again once we're gone.  But to say that we have no impact on climate on a large scale is like burying one's head into the sand. And this would lead us to our demise. And only then would the Earth fix itself.

I feel that the deniers use the "no proof" and "it's just normal cycles" arguments to avoid changing and preserving their own status quo rather than for the greater good.


----------



## Remius (20 Apr 2021)

SupersonicMax said:


> When it comes to science, I trust NASA. There is scientific evidence that humans influenced climate. Read the link that Lumber provided:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The deniers use the “no proof” argument exactly for that reason.  And they’ll use any confirmation bias they can find to support it.  NASA?  Lunar landing deniers are very similar.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (20 Apr 2021)

The thing is that in the west, before the Climate Change thing dejour came along, we were making big strides in cleaning up the environment and air pollution, that was without social restrictions. People might also be a bit more willing to adapt if they didn't see the obvious political agendas being played out. You can argue if Climate Change concerns came first and the agenda's second or vis versa. You want to save the climate, get rid of non-essential travel by plane, large luxury yachts, tax the crap out of carbon heavy goods from China and increase domestic production. When you see something like the shell game of "carbon credits" being sold and traded, it's hard not to think of it as a scam.


----------



## Brad Sallows (23 Apr 2021)

> There is scientific evidence that humans influenced climate.



That statement is uncontroversial.  For example, cutting forests influences climate.  Controversy arises because the claims of people sounding alarms exceed any reasonably likely forecasts, and the measures they propose as mitigation exceed any reasonable resources available.  People can see that, so they deny the alarmist view.  Then the alarmists call them "deniers".  I suppose there are people who choose to absolutely disbelieve that there is any kind of human influence, or any change at all, but most people branded as "deniers" are just skeptical of the outlandish and never-eventuating claims.  It's just playground name-calling.

Some people like to mind others' business, so there is a social amplifier of the alarmist view.

Adherents of some political philosophies are attracted to any reason to exert more positive control over the affairs of people, so there is also a political amplifier of the alarmist view.

The amplification of doubtful possibilities into absurdities simply further discredits whatever useful underlying message exists and distorts it beyond a reasonable understanding of what is happening and what might be done.  All of the people participating in the amplification of nonsense are fools and hindrances to useful action.

If the people who want to understand and mitigate climate (and weather) externalities are unable to accept the weakness of the alarmist case and categorize skeptics honestly, they are as guilty of ignorant extremism as the true deniers who insist there is no change of any account at all.


----------



## Loachman (23 Apr 2021)

I would give the warmistas a teensy bit of credibility if just one of their endless and recycled prophecies of doom had come to pass over the last four decades - which were preceded by several years of equally overhyped new-ice-age prophecies of doom.

The latter did not last long - they weren't smart enough to find anything taxable to blame it on.


----------



## YZT580 (23 Apr 2021)

We do influence local conditions but globally, I doubt it very much as I stated earlier and this can be validated by examining the temperature charts for various weather stations.  The majority of the temperature increases have been in urban areas where pavement and large concrete structures have replaced trees and farms.  Want proof?  Leave Toronto or any other large population centre at sunset or a little later, turn off your air conditioning and open the windows.  There will be a notable drop in temperature coincidental with the last row of houses where the fields a brush starts.  It is particularly noticeable if you follow secondary roads out of town which don't have the concrete mass that major highways do.

Now consider how green house gases work.  The one being blamed for everything is carbon which is less than 500 parts per million.  So what happens to temperature when green house gases increase.  First off, the sun is responsible for the heat and it is a radiant type of warming.   For a while the warmists tried to deny that but eventually they stopped but now they say that because of the upper layer of gas, temperature is compounded.  This has been proven false but it is true that temperature can be trapped.  When it is trapped and temperature goes up more water evaporates and rises as well.  Water vapour rises to the point where the atmospheric temperature can no longer support it and it is transposed from a gas to a liquid and forms a cloud layer.  When a cloud layer forms the suns rays are at least partially  blocked from striking the earth's surface and this reduces the heat causing a cooling effect.  Our earth has a built-in temperature regulating mechanism and it is composed of green house gases.

If you want to counter-balance our effect on nature, get rid of the concrete.  All of this is not to say that we shouldn't be trying to clean up our environment.  Absolutely, but focus on pollutants and not a relatively harmless gas.  Historically, from what I have read, increases in carbon dioxide levels have never changed the temperature.  The recorded warm periods occurred centuries after the CO2 rise; too long after to have been influenced at all by the carbon changes.


----------



## suffolkowner (23 Apr 2021)

I've been a "warmist" since the mid 80's, so I always find this topic of interest. In all that time I continue to hear or read alternative theories that get rehashed over and over despite having been refutted numerous times in the past 40 years.  But some people have been extremely confident in their positions..









						A Climate Bet Impossible to Lose
					

Ten years ago I was just doing what I often do: following various links and conversations online where people are denying man-made climate change. I ended up on the German website NoTricksZone where I got caught up in a discussion related to climate projections. I made an off-handed comment...



					skepticalscience.com
				




For the truly alarmist position on AGW see the following






						Climate Code Red
					

The climate emergency requires actions at emergency speed for a rapid transition to a post-carbon, safe-climate future.




					www.climatecodered.org
				








						Arctic News
					

Blog edited by Sam Carana, with news on climate change and warming in the Arctic due to snow and ice loss and methane releases from the seafloor.




					arctic-news.blogspot.com
				








						Nature Bats Last – Our days are numbered. Passionately pursue a life of excellence.
					






					guymcpherson.com
				




to be honest this issue makes me despair of the Conservatives ever challenging for the majority of seats, even with their new carbon policy


----------



## daftandbarmy (23 Apr 2021)

I think they have an undisclosed majority but are keeping it quiet


----------



## Altair (23 Apr 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> I think they have an undisclosed majority but are keeping it quiet
> 
> View attachment 64987


Official coalitions went out of style at the federal level after 2008.

Unofficial ones are much more convenient for all involved.


----------



## Loachman (23 Apr 2021)

suffolkowner said:


> I've been a "warmist" since the mid 80's, so I always find this topic of interest. In all that time I continue to hear or read alternative theories that get rehashed over and over despite having been refutted numerous times in the past 40 years.  But some people have been extremely confident in their positions..
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The Conservatives will lose votes rather than gain in the next election because of Erin O'Toole's policy announcement - which even took most of his MPs by surprise. Pierre Poilievre is probably regretting dropping out of the leadership race - I certainly am.

I recommend Tony Heller on Youtube, or tonyheller on Rumble. He's a geologist who has been pointing out the numerous flaws in the warmista position for a long time. That includes putting up newspaper clippings from as far back as the 1800s showing remarkably similar prophecies of doom.

Peak temperatures in the US occurred in the 1930s, with temperatures reaching 130F in the midwest. I remember studying the Dust Bowl and reading Grapes of Wrath in school years ago.


----------



## YZT580 (23 Apr 2021)

Loachman said:


> The Conservatives will lose votes rather than gain in the next election because of Erin O'Toole's policy announcement - which even took most of his MPs by surprise. Pierre Poilievre is probably regretting dropping out of the leadership race - I certainly am.
> 
> I recommend Tony Heller on Youtube, or tonyheller on Rumble. He's a geologist who has been pointing out the numerous flaws in the warmista position for a long time. That includes putting up newspaper clippings from as far back as the 1800s showing remarkably similar prophecies of doom.
> 
> Peak temperatures in the US occurred in the 1930s, with temperatures reaching 130F in the midwest. I remember studying the Dust Bowl and reading Grapes of Wrath in school years ago.


try not to confuse people with facts.


----------



## brihard (23 Apr 2021)

Altair said:


> I mean, people can talk about it being science or not science, but I think the more pertinent point is how every single party in the HOC now supports some form of a carbon tax.
> 
> The only party of note that doesn't is the PPC, and I don't see all the non carbon taxers flocking to them for some reason.
> 
> The discussion, politically, is over. Much like abortion.


At what point did PPC become a ‘party of note’?


----------



## CBH99 (23 Apr 2021)

Regardless of whether or not global warming is significantly influenced, or only minorly influenced, by human civilization - I think we can all agree that we, as a species, needs to treat our planet significantly better than how we do.  CO2 emissions and their affect on the global climate is only part of the picture... an abundance of plastic trash in our oceans & landfills (and everywhere else), deforestation, over fishing, other greenhouse gas emissions, etc etc all play a factor in our planet becoming a less hospitable, and hence, more toxic place for us to live.

It was recently discovered that the reason for the significant drop in male fertility and the shrinking area of the 'taint' is due to microplastics being in our water supply and food supply.  This has a direct impact on the human ability to reproduce.








What about the affects of chemicals and plastics in everything we eat, drink, apply to our bodies, and wear?  It has a significant impact on cancer rates.


I wouldn't have such a huge issue with the carbon tax if the money collected from it went directly to funding and finding ways to not only reduce our carbon emissions, but in safer alternatives to things we use every day that are hurting us in the long term. 

We also have to remember that humans, by our very nature, tend to jump on one bandwagon or the other.  We tend to say "yes I agree with this" or "no, I don't agree with it" -- and then inherently find reasons to justify our positions, even if it is subconciously.  We tend to forget that it is okay, and sometimes more wise, to look at an issue and remember that both sides have valid points - and the truth/solution is somewhere down the middle. 

0.02

Edit - Oh wow, I didn't think the thumbnail of the video would show here, just the link!!  Well, with a headline like that, should be an attention grabber 😅


----------



## Remius (24 Apr 2021)

The climate change deniers use the same old tired arguments that were created to sow doubt about climate change.  Big oil borrowed from big tobacco propaganda tactics.   The same type of argument they used to create doubt that cigarettes weren’t really dangerous and that they’re was “no evidence” despite what science and experts had determined.


----------



## Altair (24 Apr 2021)

brihard said:


> At what point did PPC become a ‘party of note’?


I say any party that can get 1 out of every hundred people to vote for them deserves to at least be mentioned. 

The greens used to poll at 1 percent.


----------



## brihard (24 Apr 2021)

Altair said:


> I say any party that can get 1 out of every hundred people to vote for them deserves to at least be mentioned.
> 
> The greens used to poll at 1 percent.


I draw a line at seats in parliament, but fair enough. The Greens have their own true constituency versus simply being an organized tantrum...


----------



## SeaKingTacco (24 Apr 2021)

Remius said:


> The climate change deniers use the same old tired arguments that were created to sow doubt about climate change.  Big oil borrowed from big tobacco propaganda tactics.   The same type of argument they used to create doubt that cigarettes weren’t really dangerous and that they’re was “no evidence” despite what science and experts had determined.


that sets up a strawman argument.

Petroleum literally powers modern civilization and makes it possible. It has lifted billions of people out of abject poverty. There are externalities associated  with it, but the Green lobby assertion that petroleum usage is completely harmful and can be done away with tomorrow misrepresents how useful a substance it is both as an energy source and feed stock for manufacturing literally everything.

Tobacco, on the other had, is highly addictive substance that has no use beyond consumption of it for its own sake. If it disppeared tomorrow, civilization would not collapse.

To continually compare petroleum with tobacco is intellectual laziness.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (24 Apr 2021)

Remius said:


> The climate change deniers use the same old tired arguments that were created to sow doubt about climate change.  Big oil borrowed from big tobacco propaganda tactics.   The same type of argument they used to create doubt that cigarettes weren’t really dangerous and that they’re was “no evidence” despite what science and experts had determined.


It's easy to run tests on human beings. It's really hard to model nature. I have seen elaborate (and expensive) modelling of a well known and studied river by a very experienced company fail to predict the actual results of putting a bridge pier in. Now expand that to global and to the solar system and the reality is we barely have a clue as to what, how and when things are playing a part. We know climate changes, we know Humans have an effect. However we don't know for certain how big our effect is beyond the other natural occurring events going on. We also disagree on how best to limit those effect. When many of the solutions conveniently result in limiting peoples choices and having minimal effect on the lifestyles of the rich and powerful, then there is likley to be suspicion as to why certain things are forced onto people.


----------



## Altair (24 Apr 2021)

SeaKingTacco said:


> that sets up a strawman argument.
> 
> Petroleum literally powers modern civilization and makes it possible. It has lifted billions of people out of abject poverty. There are externalities associated  with it, but the Green lobby assertion that petroleum usage is completely harmful and can be done away with tomorrow misrepresents how useful a substance it is both as an energy source and feed stock for manufacturing literally everything.
> 
> ...


Petroleum is very important, and should be developed and sold so long as there is demand for it, and there will be demand for it for a long time to come. As you said, feed stock for manufacturing isn't going away.

We should keep a eye on the future though, and start the process of moving away from oil being used in everything, as technology allows. Power generation and vehicles should start the transition to more green alternatives as the technology allows. That alone will cut down on emissions by a significant amount.

Hopefully the USA starts cracking down on bad global actors in terms of pollution because even if we do our part and cut emissions by a significant amount, our 2 percent isn't going to move the needle all that much. It really needs to be a collective effort. 

But hey, even if we do it for ourselves, cleaner air, waters, cities and environment locally is not a bad thing.


----------



## Remius (24 Apr 2021)

SeaKingTacco said:


> that sets up a strawman argument.
> 
> Petroleum literally powers modern civilization and makes it possible. It has lifted billions of people out of abject poverty. There are externalities associated  with it, but the Green lobby assertion that petroleum usage is completely harmful and can be done away with tomorrow misrepresents how useful a substance it is both as an energy source and feed stock for manufacturing literally everything.
> 
> ...


You missed the point.  It’s the tactics involved to create doubt about the science that are the same.  Big oil borrowed from the big tobacco playbook.   To continually deny it is intellectual laziness.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (24 Apr 2021)

Remius said:


> You missed the point.  It’s the tactics involved to create doubt about the science that are the same.  Big oil borrowed from the big tobacco playbook.   To continually deny it is intellectual laziness.


No.

Once again, it is the Green lobby’s intellectually and morally bankrupt insistance that petroleum is 100% evil and can be replaced by batteries and windpower tomorrow (I am being deliberately sarcastic) that is the problem.

Any tactic that the Petroleum industry uses to defend itself is declared illegitimate. Anybody who starts to ask questions on how, exactly, we intend on running a modern industrial civilization without the primary power source we have used for 250 years is labelled a denier. If we really, really were serious about moving off of oil in a large way, Canada would be investing large in new nuclear energy (like Thorium reactors). Since we are not, I can only conclude the decision makers in Ottawa know that much if this is for show.

I am not denying that Petroleum usage creates externalities. It also creates great benefit, which is often deliberately underplayed by the Green lobby. The Green lobby lost me 2 decades ago when they declared the science was settled. Science without questions is not science- it is dogma or religion.

So- if the question is honesty in science and tactics, are you telling me with a straight face that if a legitimate scientific institution was to, hypothetically, publish a paper tomorrow stating with good evidence that the rise in atmospherical levels of CO2 was not caused by humans and that really, it was nothing to worry about (or that they had discovered a really simple and inexpensive carbon capture  and removal method) would that be calmly debated, or would the scientists be deplatformed and their institute beset with mobs of protestors? Be honest.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (24 Apr 2021)

Altair said:


> Petroleum is very important, and should be developed and sold so long as there is demand for it, and there will be demand for it for a long time to come. As you said, feed stock for manufacturing isn't going away.
> 
> We should keep a eye on the future though, and start the process of moving away from oil being used in everything, as technology allows. Power generation and vehicles should start the transition to more green alternatives as the technology allows. That alone will cut down on emissions by a significant amount.
> 
> ...


You and I do not agree on very much, but I agree with this post, completely.


----------



## Remius (24 Apr 2021)

I have no issue with legitimate and independent scientific studies.  The issue is that an overwhelming amount point to man made effects on climate change.  Like anything there will be dissent or opposing views.  Most of those though are or were commissioned by the energy industry.   And deniers cling to to those studies.  Climate change deniers started with the hoax argument then evolved to yeah its real but it isn’t man made etc etc. 

like the anti-vaxers that cling to one study even though it was discredited, it evolved into “but” and trying to find the next thing that will confirm their own bias. 

Same thing with climate change deniers.

As far as the benefits being underplayed I am in total agreement.  Note: i have not once proposed we do away with fossil fuels and decimate the energy industry.  It’s a process that needs gradual change.   I believe in the human effect on climate and the environment.  I certainly don’t think it’s as dire as the climate alarmists say but I do believe that theirs are effects.  When I live in TO, I couldn’t see the sky.  When we did away with a chunk of the coal industry in Ontario that changed.  

But that doesn’t change the fact that deniers continually use the same arguments and tactics that were created decades ago to protect big industries and are questionable at best.    

I have no issues with people that argue it isn’t as bad as it might seem or that gradual change is required so as to not destroy economies and people’s lives.  But those that keep saying it’s all natural, nothing to see here have drunk the industry kool aid.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (24 Apr 2021)

Remius said:


> I have no issue with legitimate and independent scientific studies.  The issue is that an overwhelming amount point to man made effects on climate change.  Like anything there will be dissent or opposing views.  Most of those though are or were commissioned by the energy industry.   And deniers cling to to those studies.  Climate change deniers started with the hoax argument then evolved to yeah its real but it isn’t man made etc etc.
> 
> like the anti-vaxers that cling to one study even though it was discredited, it evolved into “but” and trying to find the next thing that will confirm their own bias.
> 
> Same thing with climate change deniers.


Again, you have set up a false dichotomy in your argument. Re-read how you have structured it. Your premise is that anyone even researching anything contrary to the climate change orthodoxy is already half way to bat shit crazy. Your premise is that Green lobby science is unassailable, because their motives are pure, therefore the science is pure. Anything even with a whiff of petroleum industry money is evil, because, obviously!

My point is that nobody’s science should be getting a free ride.


----------



## Remius (24 Apr 2021)

SeaKingTacco said:


> You and I do not agree on very much, but I agree with this post, completely.





Remius said:


> I have no issue with legitimate and independent scientific studies.  The issue is that an overwhelming amount point to man made effects on climate change.  Like anything there will be dissent or opposing views.  Most of those though are or were commissioned by the energy industry.   And deniers cling to to those studies.  Climate change deniers started with the hoax argument then evolved to yeah its real but it isn’t man made etc etc.
> 
> like the anti-vaxers that cling to one study even though it was discredited, it evolved into “but” and trying to find the next thing that will confirm their own bias.
> 
> Same thing with climate change deniers.





SeaKingTacco said:


> Again, you have set up a false dichotomy in your argument. Re-read how you have structured it. Your premise is that anyone even researching anything contrary to the climate change orthodoxy is already half way to bat shit crazy. Your premise is that Green lobby science is unassailable, because their motives are pure, therefore the science is pure. Anything even with a whiff of petroleum industry money is evil, because, obviously!
> 
> My point is that nobody’s science should be getting a free ride.


I didn’t say anything of the sort.


----------



## SupersonicMax (24 Apr 2021)

So, because we can’t precisely model the environment, climate change can’t be real?

SKT:  no reasonable person ever argued that we can do away with petroleum tomorrow but rather, that we must find ways to transition out of an oil-based economy to a green-based economy.

The parrallel with smoking is not about the impacts of both phenomena but rather, the stubbornness of their proponents and their means of rejecting change (generally for selfish reasons).


----------



## SeaKingTacco (24 Apr 2021)

Remius said:


> I didn’t say anything of the sort.


I quoted what you said and then you went back and added a much more conciliatory second para.

You did not answer my question. Be honest.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (24 Apr 2021)

SupersonicMax said:


> So, because we can’t precisely model the environment, climate change can’t be real?
> 
> SKT:  no reasonable person ever argued that we can do away with petroleum tomorrow but rather, that we must find ways to transition out of an oil-based economy to a green-based economy.
> 
> The parrallel with smoking is not about the impacts of both phenomena but rather, the stubbornness of their proponents and their means of rejecting change (generally for selfish reasons).


You do not live on the west coast of Canada, clearly. There is a significant portion of the voting public that believes exactly that.


----------



## SupersonicMax (24 Apr 2021)

SeaKingTacco said:


> You do not live on the west coast of Canada, clearly. There is a significant portion of the voting public that believes exactly that.


I did say “reasonable.”


----------



## Good2Golf (24 Apr 2021)

...waiting for the nuclear power and hydrogen fuel tipping points to occur...

At some point, energy density demand will force the issue and we’ll see SMRs and other nuclear technology resurge, where enduring high power density is required.  Hydrogen as a mobile energy source for transportation as well, but very much limited due to infrastructure for the time being.  Petro will likely transition to plastics/products majority only once transportation-related power technologies become feasible in the mainstream - probably late-2030s/early-2040s.  EVs are the edge of the iceberg for now, but only short-range point to point low density transport.  Petroleum isn’t going anywhere away for the next 15-20 years at least.


----------



## daftandbarmy (24 Apr 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> ...waiting for the nuclear power and hydrogen fuel tipping points to occur...
> 
> At some point, energy density demand will force the issue and we’ll see SMRs and other nuclear technology resurge, where enduring high power density is required.  Hydrogen as a mobile energy source for transportation as well, but very much limited due to infrastructure for the time being.  Petro will likely transition to plastics/products majority only once transportation-related power technologies become feasible in the mainstream - probably late-2030s/early-2040s.  EVs are the edge of the iceberg for now, but only short-range point to point low density transport.  Petroleum isn’t going anywhere away for the next 15-20 years at least.



Small Nuclear Reactors are the way ahead! 





__





						Small nuclear power reactors - World Nuclear Association
					

There is revival of interest in small and simpler units for generating electricity from nuclear power, and for process heat. This interest in small nuclear power reactors is driven both by a desire to reduce capital costs and to provide power away from large grid systems.




					www.world-nuclear.org


----------



## SeaKingTacco (24 Apr 2021)

SupersonicMax said:


> I did say “reasonable.”


Again, you clearly do not or have not lived on the west coast of Canada...


----------



## Good2Golf (24 Apr 2021)

“Presumptively Entitled” would be a better adjective than “reasonable” in SKT’s environs.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Apr 2021)

We can't move off of oil, even if everyone was driving electric cars. Oil is intrinsically woven into almost every aspect of our lives. All the different plastics we use. The clothes we wear. The carpets we walk on and the furniture where we sit. The way we build our houses and what we eat. Industrial chemicals and solvents. Most things we use contain something derived from oil. Oil isn't just gasoline and diesel.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (24 Apr 2021)

Fishbone Jones said:


> We can't move off of oil, even if everyone was driving electric cars. Oil is intrinsically woven into almost every aspect of our lives. All the different plastics we use. The clothes we wear. The carpets we walk on and the furniture where we sit. The way we build our houses and what we eat. Industrial chemicals and solvents. Most things we use contain something derived from oil. Oil isn't just gasoline and diesel.


Nobody likes to talk about the fact that modern agriculture industry use of fertilizer is essentially built on the back of natural gas.

Remove that and which two billion people are you prepared to watch starve to death?


----------



## daftandbarmy (24 Apr 2021)

Fishbone Jones said:


> We can't move off of oil, even if everyone was driving electric cars. Oil is intrinsically woven into almost every aspect of our lives. All the different plastics we use. The clothes we wear. The carpets we walk on and the furniture where we sit. The way we build our houses and what we eat. Industrial chemicals and solvents. Most things we use contain something derived from oil. Oil isn't just gasoline and diesel.



Meanwhile, in Woke-land:


----------



## Altair (24 Apr 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> Meanwhile, in Woke-land:


The problem is people thinking that these are mutually exclusive. 

There are green folk, heck, the green party,who want oil to be dead.

And there is another side that believes that nothing at all should be done in regards to emissions.

Meanwhile, ask the average reasonable person and they can realize that there will always be a future for petroleum and petroleum byproducts,  but there doesn't need to a an overabundance. 

If personal vehicles and power production don't need to burn fossil fuels, then don't, move to technology that doesn't require fossil fuels. 

There will always be a need for oil, and that's fine, the planet can deal with excess carbon. Just not at the levels we are currently subjecting it to.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (24 Apr 2021)

Altair said:


> The problem is people thinking that these are mutually exclusive.
> 
> There are green folk, heck, the green party,who want oil to be dead.
> 
> ...


Again, I can get onboard with that.


----------



## GR66 (24 Apr 2021)

I always thought that for the conservatives a smart approach to carbon reduction would be efficiency.  We spend a very significant percentage of our limited money (both corporations and individuals) on heating, cooling and transportation as well as electricity generation and transmission.  Focus on increasing efficiency in these areas and we'll have more money available to spend on other things (and our companies will be more competitive internationally) and as a bi-product we'll decrease our energy usage and therefore emissions.  Win all around.


----------



## Good2Golf (24 Apr 2021)

Altair said:


> The problem is people thinking that these are mutually exclusive.
> 
> There are green folk, heck, the green party,who want oil to be dead.
> 
> ...


Absolutely!

The problem is that some people believe that solar and wind power fed onto the grid is a sound basis for wholesale elimination of petroleum.


----------



## Altair (24 Apr 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> Absolutely!
> 
> The problem is that some people believe that solar and wind power fed onto the grid is a sound basis for wholesale elimination of petroleum.


There is too much noise happening on the extremes of both sides of the issue. 

People like to say that 65 percent of people voted for a party that supports a carbon tax last election. And its true, but 67 percent of people also voted for a party that supports trans mountain pipeline expansion. 

I think Canadians on a whole know that you can chew gum and walk at the same time, but the activists are sucking up a lot of the attention and making it seem like there are more of them than there actually are. 

The greens have 3 seats.


----------



## Brad Sallows (24 Apr 2021)

> The climate change deniers use the same old tired arguments that were created to sow doubt about climate change.



Stipulating that "deniers" are people who absolutely deny change (which means they must believe climate is a static system) or who absolutely deny any human involvement, just ignore them and move on.  Their dismissal does not extend to other critics.  Hammering away at the weakest - manifestly vacuous - arguments and arguers is no useful work at all.


----------



## ModlrMike (24 Apr 2021)

The problem is that anyone who disagrees with the orthodoxy is labeled a denier. You can't even examine parts of the problem as "the science is settled", notwithstanding that the more we examine a problem, the more the science changes.


----------



## Brad Sallows (24 Apr 2021)

The prerequisite for reducing fossil fuel usage is to increase electrification - not by an equivalent amount necessarily, since improving technology will deliver ways to move larger masses with fewer ergs and changing societies may reduce the distances masses have to be moved - but nevertheless by massive amounts. Anyone qualitatively arguing about this or that as replacements without considering the simplest arithmetic - how much energy we produce, and where it comes from, and how much we could reasonably expect to expand difference sources - is not making a useful argument. To be clear: saying we should move to bio, wind, solar, tidal, etc without looking at current and near-future projected numbers is pointless posturing.

Sure, another argument can be made that energy usage could be decreased massively, but that is a pipe dream, and more importantly, egregiously inhumane.  It likely condemns billions of people to misery and poverty and war over resources, and most people will reject the solution unless forced by tyrannical government.  And then there will be a revolution, the tyrants will be overthrown, and we'll be starting over burning wood and whale oil for heat and light and cooking.


----------



## YZT580 (24 Apr 2021)

If we eliminated burning fossil fuels then the price of plastics, fertilizer and other non-combustible oil extracts would go through the roof.  It is the distillation and sale of fuel oils that makes plastics affordable.  there just isn't enough 'plastic' in oil to make it viable otherwise.  To replace our current electricity source with nuclear would require the construction of literally thousands of reactors globally.  There are currently fewer than 600 operational globally.  Such a process would require the current third world to remain in poverty for dozens of years.  Building wind or solar is likewise a pipe dream and, except in limited places, a total waste of resources especially since they require a fossil-fuel backup to be brought on line at the same time, and should be stopped immediately.  Run the numbers.  According to Forbes the US would require 1.46 million turbines or the solar equivalent to come down off the use of fossil fuels.  That means installing almost 50,000 per year every year until 2050.  Obviously there will be other sources of energy besides wind but each windmill has to be totally replaced every approx. 20 years so your requiements are going to be closer to 75,000 than 50 and all to achieve what?  The cost is not worth even starting such a project.   If the green folks were serious about the risks of climate change and fuel burning they would be imposing target reductions on the globes' greatest carbon producers:  India and China.  They manifestly are not.  Instead they pick on countries such as Australia and Canada who collectively produce less than 3% of the total carbon output.  Although I cannot recall the source, I believe that the carbon sequestering by our forests at least equals, if not exceeds our carbon output.


----------



## Remius (25 Apr 2021)

SeaKingTacco said:


> I quoted what you said and then you went back and added a much more conciliatory second para.
> 
> You did not answer my question. Be honest.


I actually edited right after I posted.  You responded just before I posted.  I was honest.  I thought I did answer.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (25 Apr 2021)

Remius said:


> I actually edited right after I posted.  You responded just before I posted.  I was honest.  I thought I did answer.


Thanks for the response and I apologize. It had looked to me like you had, post facto, edited your post.


----------



## daftandbarmy (26 Apr 2021)

Public reaction to the Liberal 're-election budget'? 

Meh....


Canadians unmoved by new federal budget as Liberals continue strong support: poll​
A new poll suggests Canadians are mostly giving a collective shrug to the latest federal budget, which has also barely affected the Liberals’ chances of winning the next election.

The Ipsos poll conducted exclusively for Global News found 62 per cent of Canadians who responded didn’t have a positive or negative opinion of the budget. An equal number of those surveyed — 19 per cent — gave the budget a thumbs up or a thumbs down.

Those opinions are an improvement over Canadians’ response to the last federal budget in 2019, which Ipsos found at the time was supported by just 11 per cent of those polled, compared to one in four who said it didn’t deliver.









						Canadians unmoved by new federal budget as Liberals continue strong support: poll - National | Globalnews.ca
					

The Ipsos poll conducted exclusively for Global News found 62 per cent of Canadians who responded didn't have a positive or negative opinion of the budget.




					globalnews.ca


----------



## Brad Sallows (26 Apr 2021)

It's a party-out-of-big-ideas budget: mainly a lot of small stuff.  As an effective application of the principle that support for each niche of public funding tends to be narrow and intense, while opposition might be broad but is lethargic, it's just vote-buying.

The important message it delivered is that the government does not actually believe in a climate emergency.  It is not a budget designed to mobilize the country's resources to fight a crisis.


----------



## ModlrMike (31 May 2021)

Accidental my arse! Oh, and blame the staff.

via CBC:

Justice minister accidentally tweets that one of his campaign donors will become a judge.
David Lametti's office says the Twitter announcement was sent in error.

Officially, Justice Minister David Lametti appointed five new judges across the country this week.

On Twitter, however, Lametti announced three additional appointments — including that of Montreal lawyer Daniel Urbas to Quebec's Superior Court.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (31 May 2021)

A little background on Mr Urbas:



> *Daniel Urbas*
> 
> An experienced litigator, arbitrator and mediator with over 25+ years of dispute resolution experience, Daniel has earned a variety of repeat, annual peer recognitions including “*Leading Lawyer*” in “*Commercial Arbitration*” in the 2019 edition of the Lexpert ® / American Lawyer Guide to the Leading 500 Lawyers in Canada, “*Most Frequently Recommended*” in the 2019 edition of The Canadian Legal Lexpert® Directory for Commercial Arbitration, “*Thought Leader*” in 2019 edition of Who’s Who Legal – *Litigation* and *AV® Preeminent*™ by Martindale-Hubbell®.
> 
> ...



Link


----------



## Weinie (10 Jun 2021)

Colin Parkinson said:


> It's easy to run tests on human beings. It's really hard to model nature. I have seen elaborate (and expensive) modelling of a well known and studied river by a very experienced company fail to predict the actual results of putting a bridge pier in. Now expand that to global and to the solar system and the reality is we barely have a clue as to what, how and when things are playing a part. We know climate changes, we know Humans have an effect. However we don't know for certain how big our effect is beyond the other natural occurring events going on. We also disagree on how best to limit those effect. When many of the solutions conveniently result in limiting peoples choices and having minimal effect on the lifestyles of the rich and powerful, then there is likley to be suspicion as to why certain things are forced onto people.



A favorite Liberal bugbear

CO2 at Mauna Loa exceeds 420 ppm for the first time in human history

So, Mother Nature *bad* in this case, or just Mother Nature doing what she/it has always done. Recriminations to follow.


----------



## Good2Golf (11 Jun 2021)

The Governor of Hawaii needs to issue an apology.


----------



## CBH99 (12 Jun 2021)

ModlrMike said:


> Accidental my arse! Oh, and blame the staff.
> 
> via CBC:
> 
> ...


I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again.  But after this post I’ll try to refrain from saying it again anytime soon... 

TWITTER IS NOT THE APPROPRIATE PLATFORM FOR GOVERNMENT ANNOUNCEMENTS OF THIS SORT.  

If a Justice Minister has something to announce to the public (along with any other politician) - it should be done at the appropriate time (the time of the official announcements) - verbally at a press conference, or in writing as a press release.  

Things don’t get “accidentally released” via Twitter.  Someone has to ask a staff member to type it out on that platform.   It doesn’t type itself.  I highly doubt an office assistant just randomly decides to post things on Twitter - they need some instructions on what to say and when.  

Twitter is for public announcements such as “Thank You to the public!” Or government feel good PR. “Celebrating Black History Month!” Or “Happy International Women’s Day!”

It’s not the place to prematurely announce specific details, challenge Saudi Arabia on being dicks, etc


----------



## OldSolduer (12 Jun 2021)

CBH99 said:


> I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again.  But after this post I’ll try to refrain from saying it again anytime soon...
> 
> TWITTER IS NOT THE APPROPRIATE PLATFORM FOR GOVERNMENT ANNOUNCEMENTS OF THIS SORT.


There should be a regulation saying officials can't use Twitter etc to announce stuff. Its ridiculous that a complicated matter has to be summed up in 140 characters or whatever the amount is.


----------



## MJP (13 Jun 2021)

CBH99 said:


> I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again.  But after this post I’ll try to refrain from saying it again anytime soon...
> 
> TWITTER IS NOT THE APPROPRIATE PLATFORM FOR GOVERNMENT ANNOUNCEMENTS OF THIS SORT.
> 
> If a Justice Minister has something to announce to the public (along with any other politician) - it should be done at the appropriate time (the time of the official announcements) *- verbally at a press conference, or in writing as a press release. *


1980 called and wants its press release back....


----------



## mariomike (13 Jun 2021)

OldSolduer said:


> There should be a regulation saying officials can't use Twitter etc to announce stuff.


I subscribe to a newspaper to read official announcements.  But, some people, these days, may believe "stuff" on social media more than newspapers.  🤷‍♂️


----------



## brihard (13 Jun 2021)

CBH99 said:


> I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again.  But after this post I’ll try to refrain from saying it again anytime soon...
> 
> TWITTER IS NOT THE APPROPRIATE PLATFORM FOR GOVERNMENT ANNOUNCEMENTS OF THIS SORT.
> 
> ...


Are they announcing things solely on Twitter, or are there social media releases scheduled to go out at the same time as written media releases, and of course proper publishing in the Canada Gazette? Pretty much any time you see social media posts about such things, there’s a link to a more comprehensive press release. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with using social media to get the word out.

Obviously if a release is prepared and accidentally goes out early - by any means - that’s a bit of a problem. But only on the scale of ‘gaffe’. We aren’t talking about a big crisis here in how that happens.


----------



## CBH99 (13 Jun 2021)

brihard said:


> Are they announcing things solely on Twitter, or are there social media releases scheduled to go out at the same time as written media releases, and of course proper publishing in the Canada Gazette? Pretty much any time you see social media posts about such things, there’s a link to a more comprehensive press release. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with using social media to get the word out.
> 
> Obviously if a release is prepared and accidentally goes out early - by any means - that’s a bit of a problem. But only on the scale of ‘gaffe’. We aren’t talking about a big crisis here in how that happens.


I totally agree with you.  By no means suggesting a crisis, and gaffes happen.

I was moreso referring to using Twitter as a platform to make announcements of a certain nature.  If it’s just a tweet to give a heads up, and link a more in depth article - all good.  👍🏻


Personally, I believe social media has a useful place in government communications.  It really does, and provides the government with an amazing avenue to showcase what it’s doing in an easy to access way.  

But I’ve ‘personally’ found Twitter to be more of a burden than a tool when it comes to government communications.   (Personally just as in my own opinion is all)


I guess I was letting my initial thoughts of past incidents where Twitter was used in lieu of proper channels, which caused some challenges at the time.  This just had my reaction thinking “Ugh, not again...”


----------



## MilEME09 (16 Jun 2021)

Liberals breached parliamentary privilege over documents on fired scientists, House Speaker rules
					

Trudeau government refused to hand over documents despite attempt by opposition MPs to obtain details on why two federal scientists were fired from the National Microbiology Laboratory




					www.theglobeandmail.com
				




This has wide implications for the government as the speaker has effectively ruled national security is not a reason to hide information from law makers.


----------



## brihard (16 Jun 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> Liberals breached parliamentary privilege over documents on fired scientists, House Speaker rules
> 
> 
> Trudeau government refused to hand over documents despite attempt by opposition MPs to obtain details on why two federal scientists were fired from the National Microbiology Laboratory
> ...


That needs to be remedied. There absolutely has to be a way to sync oversight and the very valid national security imperatives. If NSICOP doesn’t cut the mustard, make the necessary reforms so that they do. There is no effing way that the bulk of national security intelligence information should be accessible to Parliament at large. I would support any government of any party in fighting this and eating a censure over it. I don’t expect the NDP to know better, but the CPC sure as hell do. They’re playing BS partisan games with national security. The concerns are absolutely valid, but an open airing of this is likely not an appropriate remedy.


----------



## Haggis (17 Jun 2021)

Brihard, I agree with you in general and I totally understand the national security aspects surrounding this file. However, this, coupled with the Liberal Government's outright refusal to release "evidence" they used to justify the May 1, 2020 OIC gun ban, despite an order to do so from an Associate Chief Justice, is symptomatic of their disdain for the rule of law when applied to them. 

I'm sure there are redacted documents that could be released in-camera to satisfy the Opposition who are bound by the same secrecy and disclosure laws as the government.  The Liberals simply saying "no" in both cases is hypocritical given their mantra of "openness and transparency" and contemptuous towards both institutions.


----------



## brihard (17 Jun 2021)

Haggis said:


> Brihard, I agree with you in general and I totally understand the national security aspects surrounding this file. However, this, coupled with the Liberal Government's outright refusal to release "evidence" they used to justify the May 1, 2020 OIC gun ban, despite an order to do so from an Associate Chief Justice, is symptomatic of their disdain for the rule of law when applied to them.
> 
> I'm sure there are redacted documents that could be released in-camera to satisfy the Opposition who are bound by the same secrecy and disclosure laws as the government.  The Liberals simply saying "no" in both cases is hypocritical given their mantra of "openness and transparency" and contemptuous towards both institutions.


But they were demanding _un_redacted documents. We’re talking, in all likelihood, some really sensitive stuff here. There are separate mechanisms for handling security intelligence, both inside Parliament and out. The opposition wants stuff out in the open that they can make political hay with. If their concerns were simply working the national security angle in a straightforward manner, utilize NSICOP, and simultaneously work to make it a proper parliamentary committee rather than an arms length separate agency.

For sure, security and intelligence still needs to be accountable to parliament. But let’s not be blind to the political games being played from _both_ sides on this.


----------



## Jarnhamar (17 Jun 2021)

I bet this ruffled some feathers. Good example of a politician choosing duty and integrity over loyalty. 

* Bill C-10 hits speed bump as Speaker voids dozens of 'secret' amendments* 

_ Speaker Anthony Rota declared dozens of amendments added at committee after debate time ran out null and void, and ordered the bill to be reprinted without them_








						Bill C-10 hits speed bump as Speaker voids dozens of 'secret' amendments
					

Speaker Anthony Rota declared dozens of amendments added at committee after debate time ran out null and void, and ordered the bill to be reprinted without them




					nationalpost.com


----------



## Haggis (17 Jun 2021)

brihard said:


> But they were demanding *unredacted documents*. We’re talking, in all likelihood, some really sensitive stuff here. There are separate mechanisms for handling security intelligence, both inside Parliament and out. The opposition wants stuff out in the open that they can make political hay with. If their concerns were simply working the national security angle in a straightforward manner, utilize NSICOP, and simultaneously work to make it a proper parliamentary committee rather than an arms length separate agency.
> 
> For sure, security and intelligence still needs to be accountable to parliament. But let’s not be blind to the political games being played from _both_ sides on this


Yes, they should know better.  This is likely driven by the Liberal's almost total redaction of the documents released in the "WE" scandal.


----------



## Good2Golf (17 Jun 2021)

Haggis said:


> Yes, they should know better.  This is likely driven by the Liberal's almost total redaction of the documents released in the "WE" scandal.


And recent redaction of PHAC documentation (not) explaining why two Chinese nationals, themselves with direct associations to China’ Peoples Liberation Army medical scientists, were removed from Canada’s Level-4 biological laboratory in Winnipeg…

Liberal Govermnent: “Open and transparent (except when we want to obfuscate and hide things from the public).”


----------



## brihard (17 Jun 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> And recent redaction of PHAC documentation (not) explaining why two Chinese nationals, themselves with direct associations to China’ Peoples Liberation Army medical scientists, were removed from Canada’s Level-4 biological laboratory in Winnipeg…
> 
> Liberal Govermnent: “Open and transparent (except when we want to obfuscate and hide things from the public).”


Alternatively, and I’m speculating - but it’s informed speculation - given the national security implications it could easily be a Security of Information Act thing, or could relate to ongoing national security investigations. A vast amount of stuff is never made public or openly tabled, for very good reason.


----------



## Good2Golf (17 Jun 2021)

brihard said:


> Alternatively, and I’m speculating - but it’s informed speculation - given the national security implications it could easily be a Security of Information Act thing, or could relate to ongoing national security investigations. A vast amount of stuff is never made public or openly tabled, for very good reason.


Agree.  That said, how they ever were vetted and an actual PLA Med O allowed into the facility makes me appreciate that this Government has an underlying inappropriately insecure attitude towards China (military, academic (cum military), business (cum military), etc…. Canadian citizens deserve better…much better, than this disrespect and disregard by Government.


----------



## Brad Sallows (17 Jun 2021)

"Our politically well-connected elites would like to take advantage of the fantastic investment opportunities in your country."

"Certainly.  Perhaps some of our people could embed in your institutions to learn and observe?"


----------



## TCM621 (17 Jun 2021)

brihard said:


> That needs to be remedied. There absolutely has to be a way to sync oversight and the very valid national security imperatives. If NSICOP doesn’t cut the mustard, make the necessary reforms so that they do. There is no effing way that the bulk of national security intelligence information should be accessible to Parliament at large. I would support any government of any party in fighting this and eating a censure over it. I don’t expect the NDP to know better, but the CPC sure as hell do. They’re playing BS partisan games with national security. The concerns are absolutely valid, but an open airing of this is likely not an appropriate remedy.


The Americans have a system where certain members have clearance to see classified information. When they are dealing with a national security issue, they will bring those members into to read the documents that can't be released. The members are then able to raise issues in the house generally that deal with those specific issues. I.e. they could raise issues with the process if it shows that the process was followed or it can raise issues with the government not following the process, if it wasn't.


----------



## brihard (17 Jun 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> Agree.  That said, how they ever were vetted and an actual PLA Med O allowed into the facility makes me appreciate that this Government has an underlying inappropriately insecure attitude towards China (military, academic (cum military), business (cum military), etc…. Canadian citizens deserve better…much better, than this disrespect and disregard by Government.


Absolutey. This should never have been able to happen. I have no beef with that.


----------



## MilEME09 (21 Jun 2021)

This just gets crazier, so the CPC and NDP voted to have the Sergeant at arms to search PHAC's offices for the documents they are refusing to release.









						Head of Canada's public health agency reprimanded for not providing unredacted documents requested by MPs
					

Iain Stewart was found in contempt of Parliament for withholding documents over the firing of two scientists from Canada's National Microbiology Laboratory




					www.google.com


----------



## Infanteer (21 Jun 2021)

brihard said:


> Alternatively, and I’m speculating - but it’s informed speculation - given the national security implications it could easily be a Security of Information Act thing, or could relate to ongoing national security investigations. A vast amount of stuff is never made public or openly tabled, for very good reason.


It's clear that if the documents were provided to NSICOP then there is a national security implication that is classified and likely compartmentalized.  You don't just hand documents like this out.  The President of PHAC is likely correct in saying he needs to obey the law.


----------



## brihard (22 Jun 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> This just gets crazier, so the CPC and NDP voted to have the Sergeant at arms to search PHAC's offices for the documents they are refusing to release.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Wow. This is idiotic. Pure theatrics. They think the Sergeant at Arms will be able or will be allowed to simply go search a secure zone and trundle off highly classified documents? No. And the departmental officials would be wrong to allow or facilitate it.




Infanteer said:


> It's clear that if the documents were provided to NSICOP then there is a national security implication that is classified and likely compartmentalized.  You don't just hand documents like this out.  The President of PHAC is likely correct in saying he needs to obey the law.



Yup, this. Section 14 of SOIA carries, if recollection serves, a 14 year maximum sentence.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (22 Jun 2021)

brihard said:


> Wow. This is idiotic. Pure theatrics. They think the Sergeant at Arms will be able or will be allowed to simply go search a secure zone and trundle off highly classified documents? No. And the departmental officials would be wrong to allow or facilitate it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Almost certainly there are National Security implications in these PHAC documents and they should not be generally released.

And the more the Liberals resist, the more it makes it look like there is fire behind the smoke story on the PLA messing around in our virology lab. Which the Liberals also need to own.

With that said, we would not be in this mess had the Liberals not run roughshod on Parliament these past five years and made everything even remotely embarassing to the LPC a “cabinet confidence”.


----------



## mariomike (22 Jun 2021)

Saw this in the "Remains found at Kamloops residential school..." thread,



Loachman said:


> Somebody did paint a statue of him somewhere black not too long ago.
> But perhaps they thought that it was the more recent Trudeau.



If that is what "the party" is going with, again, in the next federal election, good luck to them. This is how it went last time,

"If your riding has a majority of _*visible minorities*_, there's an 85-per-cent chance it elected a _*Liberal*_."









						Ten Demographic Clues to How Your Riding Might Vote Monday | The Tyee
					

Many visible minorities? Liberal. Wide open empty spaces? Conservative.




					thetyee.ca
				




The biggest divide in Canadian politics? Men vs. Women.​( Sorry for the bold. It's my computer. )

Philippe J. Fournier: If only men voted, the Liberal and Conservatives would be in a statistical tie. Only women: the Liberals win a crushing 226 seats.









						The biggest divide in Canadian politics? Men vs. Women. - Macleans.ca
					

Philippe J. Fournier: If only men voted, the Liberal and Conservatives would be in a statistical tie. Only women: the Liberals win a crushing 226 seats.




					www.macleans.ca
				




National Post
How did Canadians react to Trudeau's blackface photos? With a big meh, polls find​








						How did Canadians react to Trudeau's blackface photos? With a big meh, polls find
					

Forty-two per cent of those polled by Abacus Data said they weren’t really bothered by seeing the prime minister in brownface and blackface




					nationalpost.com


----------



## Jarnhamar (22 Jun 2021)

Committee adjourns for the summer without issuing final report on sexual misconduct in Canadian military​Link



> But there had been a breakdown in the committee’s work since late May, with Liberal MPs stalling meetings by talking out the clock while accusing the opposition of causing delays by introducing more motions.
> 
> That filibustering continued at Monday’s final committee meeting before the House rises for the summer on Wednesday, and ahead of an expected fall election that could impact the fate of a final report.



Nothing says support for victims of sexual abuse like filibustering.


----------



## Rifleman62 (23 Jun 2021)




----------



## Loachman (23 Jun 2021)

Not far off - but just a little short of "Uhs" and "Ahs".


----------



## MilEME09 (23 Jun 2021)

Liberals take House Speaker to court to block release of unredacted records about fired scientists
					

In a court filing, the government says disclosure of this information could jeopardize national security and Canada’s international relations




					www.theglobeandmail.com
				




Liberals ask federal court to rule on document disclosure. Now I'm no law expert but most of the dealings inside the house are exempt from legal rulings are they not? Meaning the federal Court can not rule on it, mind you this is only an application.


----------



## Loachman (24 Jun 2021)

With Bill C-36, Trudeau Government Launches Dangerous New Assault On Your Freedom Of Expression
					

The trend in all of this legislation is clear: More government control, less freedom. And C-36 takes that to a terrible new level. With Bill C-10 having passed in the House of Commons and going on to the Senate, the Liberals are wasting little time in launching yet another assault on your...




					spencerfernando.com


----------



## Jarnhamar (24 Jun 2021)

> Under the section_ “Fear of hate propaganda offence or hate crime,”_ C-36 makes it possible for the government to *bring someone before a judge if someone else is worried they could commit a crime.*




Minority Report vibes.


----------



## ModlrMike (24 Jun 2021)

That's not scary in the least. [/sarcasm]


----------



## Good2Golf (24 Jun 2021)

ModlrMike said:


> That's not scary in the least. [/sarcasm]


Certainly not something that PLA operatives operating within Canadian classified facilities would make use of to get pesky people asking questions about them off their backs… [/a lot of sarcasm]


----------



## MilEME09 (25 Jun 2021)

Bennett faces call to resign after linking JWR residential school tweet with pension eligibility - National | Globalnews.ca
					

'UBCIC is deeply disturbed and disgusted by the extreme callousness, spite, and ignorance you have shown through the racist message you sent to MP Jody Wilson-Raybould on Twitter.'




					globalnews.ca
				




Who needs an opposition when the liberals commit political suicide


----------



## Haggis (25 Jun 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> Bennett faces call to resign after linking JWR residential school tweet with pension eligibility - National | Globalnews.ca
> 
> 
> 'UBCIC is deeply disturbed and disgusted by the extreme callousness, spite, and ignorance you have shown through the racist message you sent to MP Jody Wilson-Raybould on Twitter.'
> ...


She's deeply sorry and has apologized.  Time to move on.


----------



## PuckChaser (25 Jun 2021)

Haggis said:


> She's deeply sorry and has apologized.  Time to move on.


Wilson-Raybold likely just experienced the comment differently, and Carolyn Bennet wouldn't have been so forward if she knew JWR was an important Member of Parliament.


----------



## Good2Golf (25 Jun 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> Bennett faces call to resign after linking JWR residential school tweet with pension eligibility - National | Globalnews.ca
> 
> 
> 'UBCIC is deeply disturbed and disgusted by the extreme callousness, spite, and ignorance you have shown through the racist message you sent to MP Jody Wilson-Raybould on Twitter.'
> ...


You’re assuming the Ruling Party would feel shame, and sense a need to apologize, or take censure action against Minister Bennett.

Its not like Minister Bennett tweeted that JWR could continue supporting her people to stay living in the ghettos as long as they want. [/s]


----------



## Good2Golf (25 Jun 2021)

Haggis said:


> She's deeply sorry and has apologized.  Time to move on.


Yeah, it’s not like there needs to be any trust between the GoC’s representative and the client peoples…


----------



## OldSolduer (25 Jun 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> Bennett faces call to resign after linking JWR residential school tweet with pension eligibility - National | Globalnews.ca
> 
> 
> 'UBCIC is deeply disturbed and disgusted by the extreme callousness, spite, and ignorance you have shown through the racist message you sent to MP Jody Wilson-Raybould on Twitter.'
> ...


This will have zero effect on the LPC


----------



## Haggis (25 Jun 2021)

The PM has accepted Minister Bennett's apology and calls upon all members of his government to focus on the work that needs to be done for indigenous peoples.

There is NO WAY the PM is going to throw a seven-time elected Liberal under the bus with an election on the horizon.


----------



## MilEME09 (25 Jun 2021)

Commons speaker to ask court to strike down government lawsuit challenging Parliament's right to know
					

Rota told MPs that he would fight 'tooth and nail' to protect the principal 'that the legal system does not have jurisdiction over the operations of the House'




					nationalpost.com
				




Speaker tells the government to pound sand


----------



## Loachman (26 Jun 2021)

PuckChaser said:


> Wilson-Raybold likely just experienced the comment differently, and Carolyn Bennet wouldn't have been so forward if she knew JWR was an important Member of Parliament.


Maybe Justin could thank her for her donation like he did with those Grassy Narrows people complaining to him about their water a couple of years ago.


----------



## Jarnhamar (26 Jun 2021)

Trudeau has become so absurd it's comical.

215 indigenous children's bodies are found: Trudeau
_“We are looking for how we can support Indigenous communities in their grief and in their request for answers,”_ 
_“We promised concrete action, and that’s how we’ll support survivors, families, and Indigenous peoples,”
“We need to do more to support a residential school survivors, and *help with the healing process*, and go at the intergenerational trauma that exists right across the country in Indigenous communities,”_


Less than 2 weeks later a psychopath targets and murderers a Muslim family. 

Trudeau immediately makes the usual vows of action. Also:
_*“Words matter.* They can be a seed that grows into an ugly, pervasive trend. And sometimes, they lead to real violence. The jokes that are not funny,* the casual racism*… the polarization we too often see in our public discourse and in our politics. *As leaders and as Canadians, we not only have to say: enough is enough, we must also take action,”*_

A Liberal MP makes a racist personal attack against an indigenous MP and the Prime Minister treats it with the seriousness of someone not saying bless you after witnessing a sneeze. She's sorry, she learned her lesson. Time to move on. What the fuck.


It's hard not to be disgusted by Canadians continuing to support this guy.


----------



## FJAG (26 Jun 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> Commons speaker to ask court to strike down government lawsuit challenging Parliament's right to know
> 
> 
> Rota told MPs that he would fight 'tooth and nail' to protect the principal 'that the legal system does not have jurisdiction over the operations of the House'
> ...


Outstanding!

🍻


----------



## Jarnhamar (26 Jun 2021)

This is good. And accurate.


Trudeau Says Anyone Not Related To Him Needs To Be Held Accountable For Residential Schools​Link


> *Ottawa *- As the number of unmarked graves on former residential schools has now reached over 1000, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has made it very clear he’s going to give the sternest talking to anyone involved that doesn’t share his last name.
> 
> “My friends, what the Catholic church did under my father's leadership and with his approval is horrifying and the Catholic church must apologize and take full responsibility,” the EDIT leader said in a press conference held on Friday.
> 
> “My government is willing to do any symbolic gesture that doesn’t involve actually solving any of the currently on-going problems still facing indigenous communities,” Trudeau stated while taking a sip of clean drinking water he poured from the tap of his 24 Sussex Drive home, “This Canada Day, I want each Canadian to spend five minutes thinking really hard about how sorry they are and I think that will help a lot.”


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 Jun 2021)

In response to the backlash, Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau withdrew the White Paper in 1970 and angrily stated: “We’ll keep them in the ghetto as long as they want.”





__





						The White Paper, 1969
					

The 1969 White Paper (formally known as the “Statement of the Government of Canada on Indian Policy, 1969”) was a Canadian government policy paper 	th...




					www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca


----------



## OldSolduer (27 Jun 2021)

Jarnhamar said:


> Trudeau has become so absurd it's comical.
> 
> 215 indigenous children's bodies are found: Trudeau
> _“We are looking for how we can support Indigenous communities in their grief and in their request for answers,”
> ...


But but he’s a Trudeau!!!! And he has nice hair!
(Actually he doesn’t have nice hair. Mine is far nicer)


----------



## mariomike (27 Jun 2021)

Jarnhamar said:


> Trudeau has become so absurd it's comical.
> 
> 215 indigenous children's bodies are found: Trudeau
> _“We are looking for how we can support Indigenous communities in their grief and in their request for answers,”
> ...


With so much comical absurdity, maybe the Conservatives will do better with First Nation voters next time.



			https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-on-reserve-voting-2019-1.5417763
		



> Conservatives saw an increase, but finished a distant third in on-reserve voting


----------



## The Bread Guy (27 Jun 2021)

Fishbone Jones said:


> In response to the backlash, Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau withdrew the White Paper in 1970 and angrily stated: “We’ll keep them in the ghetto as long as they want.”
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Not the last Liberal to back away from doing things differently on this file ...
*"*_*First Nations Governance Act"*_


mariomike said:


> With so much comical absurdity, maybe the Conservatives will do better with First Nation voters next time.


Not much on the Team Blue web page on Indigenous issues at this point, but they should be seeing/hearing what their traditional supporters seem to be digging into current management about (water quality on reserve, for one), so they have a chance to do better.


----------



## Jarnhamar (27 Jun 2021)

mariomike said:


> With so much comical absurdity, maybe the Conservatives will do better with First Nation voters next time.


Why on earth would they vote conservative? The conservatives aren't going to make them a bunch of promises about more money and more reconciliation the way the LPC does.

If the Prime Minister can laugh in the face of a FN woman who had to cobble together $2000 for a plate of food from a reserve where there isn't clean drinking water then he's untouchable.


----------



## MilEME09 (27 Jun 2021)

Jarnhamar said:


> Why on earth would they vote conservative? The conservatives aren't going to make them a bunch of promises about more money and more reconciliation the way the LPC does.
> 
> If the Prime Minister can laugh in the face of a FN woman who had to cobble together $2000 for a plate of food from a reserve where there isn't clean drinking water then he's untouchable.


The fact a sports team dying in a tragic accident can inspire investigations and new laws, and calls to action while hundreds of bodies being discovered that, let's be honest we knew were somewhere, has yielded nothing but words of we have to do better speaks volumes of systemic racism in politics towards aboriginal groups


----------



## mariomike (27 Jun 2021)

Jarnhamar said:


> Why on earth would they vote conservative?


I surely would not know. I am not a politician, or a member of the First Nations.

I thought there might be some positive insight on how the Conservatives could convince more First Nation people, as well as women and visible minorities, to vote for them in the next federal election.


----------



## The Bread Guy (27 Jun 2021)

Jarnhamar said:


> Why on earth would they vote conservative? The conservatives aren't going to make them a bunch of promises about more money and more reconciliation the way the LPC does.


... and so far, they aren't making a bunch of promises on boil water advisories, either.   A lot can change in Team Blue's platform, though, between now and an alleged fall election.

Also, while admittedly rare, never say never when it comes to at least seeing Indigenous candidates for Team Blue.


----------



## Haggis (27 Jun 2021)

Jarnhamar said:


> ... then he's untouchable.


Sadly I believe you're right.

The public has given him a bye on everything that has gone sideways on his watch.  He has governed as if he had a true majority, with the backing of the NDP and Bloc.  He holds Canada`s purse strings, he owns the mainstream media and the Senate.  He is moving to stifle dissent with Bills C-10 and C-35 and he has thumbed his nose at the House, the Speaker, and the Courts.

He runs the Party with an iron fist.  His Ministers can do no wrong, until they cross him.  He is still consistently and strongly leading in every major poll in Canada.  Yes, we are going to be stuck with him for at least as long as his father.


----------



## daftandbarmy (27 Jun 2021)

It's started... the pension line has been crossed. I wonder how many others will now back out?

Catherine McKenna won't be seeking re-election, plans to devote efforts to fighting climate change​


			https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mckenna-retiring-politics-carney-1.6082433


----------



## brihard (28 Jun 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> It's started... the pension line has been crossed. I wonder how many others will now back out?
> 
> Catherine McKenna won't be seeking re-election, plans to devote efforts to fighting climate change​
> 
> ...


As long as they hold the writ til after July...


----------



## Good2Golf (28 Jun 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> It's started... the pension line has been crossed. I wonder how many others will now back out?
> 
> Catherine McKenna won't be seeking re-election, plans to devote efforts to fighting climate change​
> 
> ...


Odds that Carolyn Bennett congratulates her for representing Canadians so well…sort of the complete opposite to how she treated an indigenous past member of the Liberal caucus kicked to the ground by the woke feminist PM…


----------



## blacktriangle (28 Jun 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> It's started... the pension line has been crossed. I wonder how many others will now back out?
> 
> Catherine McKenna won't be seeking re-election, plans to devote efforts to fighting climate change​
> 
> ...


Is there some type of "cooling off" period for MPs when they retire? Can they immediately be hired back as "experts", or serve as advisors to organizations seeking taxpayer $$$?


----------



## MilEME09 (28 Jun 2021)

reveng said:


> Is there some type of "cooling off" period for MPs when they retire? Can they immediately be hired back as "experts", or serve as advisors to organizations seeking taxpayer $$$?


i believe only if it is an organiztion that works with / for the GoC, and it is a couple of years if i recall correctly


----------



## Remius (28 Jun 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> i believe only if it is an organiztion that works with / for the GoC, and it is a couple of years if i recall correctly





reveng said:


> Is there some type of "cooling off" period for MPs when they retire? Can they immediately be hired back as "experts", or serve as advisors to organizations seeking taxpayer $$$?


I think there is a ban on taking up any type of lobbying position for a few years.  Otherwise I’m pretty sure they can do whatever they want.  As long as they aren’t doing lobbying work they are GTG.


----------



## Rifleman62 (28 Jun 2021)

reveng​


> Is there some type of "cooling off" period for MPs when they retire? Can they immediately be hired back as "experts", or serve as advisors to organizations seeking taxpayer $$$?


What the frick is she an expert in? Plus where's the missing Billions?









						Catherine McKenna’s Minister of Infrastructure fails another Audit, billions unaccounted for
					

News for all




					westphaliantimes.com
				



Catherine McKenna’s Minister of Infrastructure fails another Audit, billions unaccounted for. - Mar 2021​Estimated at half the $187.8 billion 12-year ‘Investing in Canada Plan’.


----------



## Good2Golf (28 Jun 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> i believe only if it is an organiztion that works with / for the GoC, and it is a couple of years if i recall correctly


That’s only if you are not a member of the “New Girls and Boys Club.”  

So long as you have two of the three qualifying criteria: woke; nice hair; nice socks, you’re in!


----------



## Jarnhamar (28 Jun 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> Catherine McKenna won't be seeking re-election, plans to devote efforts to fighting climate change​





Rifleman62 said:


> Catherine McKenna’s Minister of Infrastructure fails another Audit, billions unaccounted for. - Mar 2021​




"Retiring" lol
With timing like that she could be CAF.


----------



## Rifleman62 (28 Jun 2021)

I think she is such a dummy, ridiculed everywhere, she has become a liability, thus told not to run. Additionally, who ever takes over the portfolio can now say Catherine who when and if the missing Billions are ever investigated.


----------



## QV (28 Jun 2021)

Edit…


----------



## Good2Golf (28 Jun 2021)

*Godwin enters the chat:


----------



## Weinie (28 Jun 2021)

QV said:


> Good riddance.
> 
> "If you repeat it, if you say it louder, if that's your talking point, people will _totally_ believe it!" Catherine McKenna
> 
> ...


Good riddance to Canada's older, elected version of Greta Thunberg.


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Jun 2021)

reveng said:


> Is there some type of "cooling off" period for MPs when they retire? Can they immediately be hired back as "experts", or serve as advisors to organizations seeking taxpayer $$$?


Two years -- as one of those women shown the door by current management found out in 2019 (although she's quoted saying her work would be voluntary, as opposed to paid).


----------



## Good2Golf (28 Jun 2021)

The Bread Guy said:


> Two years -- as one of those women shown the door by current management found out in 2019 (although she's quoted saying her work would be voluntary, as opposed to paid).


Perhaps she could visit the Aga Khan and ask him to be an intermediary for her to still assist Canada’s First Nations independent of the GoC’s own…..erm….’effort.’


----------



## Remius (28 Jun 2021)

Rifleman62 said:


> I think she is such a dummy, ridiculed everywhere, she has become a liability, thus told not to run. Additionally, who ever takes over the portfolio can now say Catherine who when and if the missing Billions are ever investigated.


To be honest I think she really is not interested in politics anymore.  She does have a young kids and I can't think of another politician who has been subjected to so much misogynistic attitude and insults.   She had her office vandalised and has been labelled "Climate Barbie".  Classy.  And this thread shows that some here are just as bad.  It took less than a day to include a Hitler reference.   Lovely. 

We can disagree with her politics.  Basically her party politics btw.  Which is fine.  But is it a wonder she is stepping away?  

And I doubt she's being forced out.  She's a guaranteed Liberal seat.  She would have won easily.

She's losing out on a pension as well.  I give her kudos at least for not running and then quitting right after in order to secure a pension. Which lends credence to her wanting to leave as opposed to being forced out.


----------



## Good2Golf (28 Jun 2021)

You seem to be assuming that this election will be set before the 6-year mark…


----------



## Remius (28 Jun 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> You seem to be assuming that this election will be set before the 6-year mark…


I do.  If it does not happen this summer it will likely be in the fall.  The LPC are a lot of things but I have no doubt that they will engineer an election by then.  Anything else wouldn't make sense.


----------



## Good2Golf (28 Jun 2021)

Remius said:


> I do.  If it does not happen this summer it will likely be in the fall.  The LPC are a lot of things but I have no doubt that they will engineer an election by then.  Anything else wouldn't make sense.


Unless something pops up beyond the vaccination all done point…


----------



## Jarnhamar (28 Jun 2021)

Remius said:


> It took less than a day to include a Hitler reference.   Lovely.


In all fairness, it was an astute comparison of two quotes they each made which are very similar in context. 



Remius said:


> But is it a wonder she is stepping away?


$93B unaccounted for dollars?


----------



## mariomike (28 Jun 2021)

Remius said:


> And this thread shows that some here are just as bad.  It took less than a day to include a Hitler reference.


Good grief. I don't see it.


----------



## Remius (28 Jun 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> Unless something pops up beyond the vaccination all done point…





Good2Golf said:


> Unless something pops up beyond the vaccination all done point…


It makes sense when you consider a fall election, declared over the summer break, lets them avoid dealing with two uncomfortable situations (the MND and the Minister of Indigenous affairs).   They go into it declaring victory in the fight against COVID (by then we will likely be the most vaccinated country in the world) while facing an official opposition that has not done much to demonstrate it is a good government in waiting with a leader that isn't very recognizable.


----------



## Haggis (28 Jun 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> You seem to be assuming that this election will be set before the 6-year mark…


I think we are moving farther away from a Liberal triggered election call now that COVID is slipping into the rearview mirror.  The PM has his  coalition-lite majority, so why risk losing that at the polls? He also wants to get Bills C-10 and C-35 passed to strengthen his info ops campaign before going to the polls.  Once the writ drops, either by design or by a vote of no confidence, all government bills die.


----------



## Remius (28 Jun 2021)

Haggis said:


> I think we are moving farther away from a Liberal triggered election call now that COVID is slipping into the rearview mirror.  The PM has his  coalition-lite majority, so why risk losing that at the polls? He also wants to get Bills C-10 and C-35 passed to strengthen his info ops campaign before going to the polls.  Once the writ drops, either by design or by a vote of no confidence, all government bills die.


It wouln't be hard to make those election issues. 

I think the LPC is in for rougher waters if they wait.  As I mentioned, they go in on a high.  Avoid any uncomfortable issues that could pop up, wipe the slate clean.  I doubt they risk losing or see it that way.


----------



## OldSolduer (28 Jun 2021)

Weinie said:


> Good riddance to Canada's older, elected version of Greta Thunberg.


Now my co worker is wondering why I'm laughing out loud. You sir, are a genius. Well said.


----------



## Rifleman62 (28 Jun 2021)

Do you really think that silver spoon Trudeau gives a frick about Liberal peons (MP,s) getting a pension or not? They are for his use.


----------



## Weinie (28 Jun 2021)

Haggis said:


> I think we are moving farther away from a Liberal triggered election call now that COVID is slipping into the rearview mirror.  The PM has his  coalition-lite majority, so why risk losing that at the polls? He also wants to get Bills C-10 and C-35 passed to strengthen his info ops campaign before going to the polls.  Once the writ drops, either by design or by a vote of no confidence, all government bills die.


Writ being dropped means that no less than 36 days and no later than 50 days after, an election must be held. So, 2015 election was held on Oct 19. Let's count back to see when pensions mean anything.

Whir/buzz/click.

So anytime after 31 Aug gives incumbents elected in 2015 enough time to qualify for a pension. Since there were a significant amount of new MP's elected, I'm betting September that the writ gets dropped, barring anything catastrophic.


----------



## dapaterson (28 Jun 2021)

Remember also that cabinet ministers traveling to make announcements all summer long have their travel paid by the government; once a writ is dropped, those costs belong to the parties...


----------



## QV (28 Jun 2021)

Jarnhamar said:


> In all fairness, it was an astute comparison of two quotes they each made which are very similar in context.
> 
> 
> $93B unaccounted for dollars?


It's only $93,000,000,000. Not a problem.


----------



## Weinie (28 Jun 2021)

Rifleman62 said:


> Do you really think that silver spoon Trudeau gives a frick about Liberal peons (MP,s) getting a pension or not? They are for his use.


He cares about the riding constituencies, which are fiefdoms amongst themselves, and he has to have their support. The Liberal brand is not homogeneous in approach, other than the assumption of power. 

Look at what the Chretien/Martin internal schism did to the party 20 years ago


----------



## Remius (28 Jun 2021)

Rifleman62 said:


> Do you really think that silver spoon Trudeau gives a frick about Liberal peons (MP,s) getting a pension or not? They are for his use.


I don’t think he or the party brass does if it means an election win.  Which supports my point about a fall election.


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Jun 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> Perhaps she could visit the Aga Khan and ask him to be an intermediary for her to still assist Canada’s First Nations independent of the GoC’s own…..erm….’effort.’


So young to be so cynical, especially about someone who's an honorary Canadian


----------



## Loachman (28 Jun 2021)

Jarnhamar said:


> She's sorry, she learned her lesson. Time to move on. What the fuck.



What more can he possibly do?

That was his post-grope line as well.

He cannot hold anybody to a higher standard than he held himself.


----------



## Loachman (28 Jun 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> The fact a sports team dying in a tragic accident can inspire investigations and new laws, and calls to action while hundreds of bodies being discovered that, let's be honest we knew were somewhere, has yielded nothing but words of we have to do better speaks volumes of systemic racism in politics towards aboriginal groups



Maybe he could ban something.


----------



## Loachman (28 Jun 2021)

Remius said:


> She . . . has been labelled "Climate Barbie".



She earned that through sheer talent and effort on her part.

But, "Waaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh".



Remius said:


> Classy.



And funny.

And accurate.



Remius said:


> It took less than a day to include a Hitler reference.



Were the quotes inaccurate?

Actually, I thought that 'twas Goebbels that said it earlier.


----------



## mariomike (28 Jun 2021)

Loachman said:


> Were the quotes inaccurate?
> 
> Actually, I thought that 'twas Goebbels that said it earlier.


What quotes are you guys referring to?


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Jun 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> The fact a sports team dying in a tragic accident can inspire investigations and new laws, and calls to action while hundreds of bodies being discovered that, let's be honest we knew were somewhere, has yielded nothing but words of we have to do better speaks volumes of systemic racism in politics towards aboriginal groups


Like VAC, current management hasn't done enough to clean things up on its watch, but this goes back over previous teams, too.  

The Truth & Reconciliation Commission kicked off in 2008, Team Blue apologized in 2010, and the final TRC report was accepted by current management in 2015, with four summary reports issued between 2008 & 2015 (with at least one detailed report out ~2015 & a detailed TRC bit in 2015 as well) - not to mention the TRC asking for $ to find graves in 2009, but not getting any. 

Lotsa people, all colour party jerseys, knew lotsa stuff and didn't do enough.


----------



## OldSolduer (28 Jun 2021)

QV said:


> It's only $93,000,000,000. Not a problem.


Seriously? $93 B ???


----------



## Remius (28 Jun 2021)

Loachman said:


> She earned that through sheer talent and effort on her part.
> 
> But, "Waaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh".
> 
> ...


Sorry.  I disagree with that level of dirt politics. It’s unbecoming and I’m sure if you really look at it, the CPC and their supporters will keep losing if they resort to that kind of stuff.  It certainly turns me off.


----------



## suffolkowner (28 Jun 2021)

OldSolduer said:


> Seriously? $93 B ???


yeah, how do i get a piece of that?

I think the liberals will be able to use the disagreement with the Speaker/Parliament/corts to justify an election


----------



## Weinie (28 Jun 2021)

Remius said:


> Sorry.  I disagree with that level of dirt politics. It’s unbecoming and I’m sure if you really look at it, the CPC and their supporters will keep losing if they resort to that kind of stuff.  It certainly turns me off.


I suggest you should read the following. A recent example of how "issues" are perceived amongst political opponents. It might turn you off to all politicians of all stripes.

Liberals, Tories clash over criticism of Chinese government and accusations of racism

Muckraking and baseless (and founded) accusations has been the mainstay of Canadian politics for the last six decades. Best get used to it.


----------



## mariomike (28 Jun 2021)

Remius said:


> Sorry.  I disagree with that level of dirt politics. It’s unbecoming and I’m sure if you really look at it, the CPC and their supporters will keep losing if they resort to that kind of stuff.  It certainly turns me off.





> It may also turn women voters off even more than they already are.





> If only women voted, "The Liberals win a crushing 226 seats."











						The biggest divide in Canadian politics
					

Philippe J. Fournier: If only men voted, the Liberal and Conservatives would be in a statistical tie. Only women: the Liberals win a crushing 226 seats. Although it is not necessarily a new phenomenon in this country, polling numbers of late have revealed a stark divide in voting intentions...




					canadanewsmedia.ca


----------



## Remius (28 Jun 2021)

Weinie said:


> I suggest you should read the following. A recent example of how "issues" are perceived amongst political opponents. It might turn you off to all politicians of all stripes.
> 
> Liberals, Tories clash over criticism of Chinese government and accusations of racism
> 
> Muckraking and baseless (and founded) accusations has been the mainstay of Canadian politics for the last six decades. Best get used to it.


That does not mean we have to add to it or lower ourselves to that standard.  That term, climate Barbie may have been funny and accurate to some but it was a sexist attack on a woman in that position.  _Edit to remove what could be seen as a personal attack._  We should not find that acceptable.  

Even the leader of the CPC at that time found it unacceptable.  We should too. 









						Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer condemns ‘Barbie’ insult by his own MP
					

Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer has condemned the insult by one of his MPs that labeled Environment Minister Catherine McKenna a “climate Barbie,” calling the remark demeaning and inappropriate.




					www.thestar.com
				




I don’t agree with her on many things and didn’t particularly like her as a minister of anything.  But I don’t need to encourage that level of discussion either.


----------



## Weinie (28 Jun 2021)

Remius said:


> That does not mean we have to add to it or lower ourselves to that standard.  That term, climate Barbie may have been funny and accurate to some but it was a sexist attack on a woman in that position.  If we here find that sort of thing acceptable no wonder we have a larger problem in the CAF.
> 
> Even the leader of the CPC at that time found it unacceptable.  We should too.
> 
> ...


My point was that "Climate Barbie' compared to "intolerance" and "anti-Asian racism" does not weigh on the same scale. Your opinion may differ, but I think racism far surpasses Barbie. (or misogyny, for that matter) Agreed that it should never become the low standard of discourse. But, it has. 

Political discussion is hard. And I don't think that this site has to shy away from hard.


----------



## Good2Golf (28 Jun 2021)

Remius said:


> That does not mean we have to add to it or lower ourselves to that standard.  That term, climate Barbie may have been funny and accurate to some but it was a sexist attack on a woman in that position.  If we here find that sort of thing acceptable no wonder we have a larger problem in the CAF.



It’s just hard to keep track of the Liberals’ take in when things against women aren’t appropriate, and when it’s okay…accepting critique of a Climate Barbie - not okay…booting an indigenous woman because she wouldn’t back up the nefarious inside plan to give a Quebec-based company near PM’s riding preferential treatment to cover international bribery crimes - okay, booting a woman physician because she dared support the indigenous woman lawyer/Attorney General - okay…

What’s a voter to do?  Vote for words, not actions, of course.  It’s all okay if you can have a good night’s sleep while you embrace the diuble-standard…


----------



## Remius (28 Jun 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> It’s just hard to keep track of the Liberals’ take in when things against women aren’t appropriate, and when it’s okay…accepting critique of a Climate Barbie - not okay…booting an indigenous woman because she wouldn’t back up the nefarious inside plan to give a Quebec-based company near PM’s riding preferential treatment to cover international bribery crimes - okay, booting a woman physician because she dared support the indigenous woman lawyer/Attorney General - okay…
> 
> What’s a voter to do?  Vote for words, not actions, of course.  It’s all okay if you can have a good night’s sleep while you embrace the diuble-standard…


Has nothing to do with a double standard.  It’s a standard.  Apply it in all cases.   But was the indigenous woman kicked out because she was an indigenous woman?  Or because she didn’t want to do the boss’ bidding?  There is a difference.   Is it wrong?  Sure.  But so is using ad hominem attacks that are sexist.

none of your examples makes it right or justified.


----------



## Remius (28 Jun 2021)

At any rate.  Word is that Carney might run.  Will be a star candidate and possible finance Minister if he does.


----------



## suffolkowner (28 Jun 2021)

Weinie said:


> My point was that "Climate Barbie' compared to "intolerance" and "anti-Asian racism" does not weigh on the same scale. Your opinion may differ, but I think racism far surpasses Barbie. (or misogyny, for that matter) Agreed that it should never become the low standard of discourse. But, it has.
> 
> Political discussion is hard. And I don't think that this site has to shy away from hard.


how does prejudice against half the worlds population rank less than racial prejudice?


----------



## cavalryman (28 Jun 2021)

Remius said:


> At any rate.  Word is that Carney might run.  Will be a star candidate and possible finance Minister if he does.


And if he does, God help us all.


----------



## Remius (28 Jun 2021)

cavalryman said:


> And if he does, God help us all.


Lol. Given the economic climate we might be in for you may have a point.


----------



## Good2Golf (28 Jun 2021)

Remius said:


> Has nothing to do with a double standard.  It’s a standard.  Apply it in all cases.   But was the indigenous woman kicked out because she was an indigenous woman?  Or because she didn’t want to do the boss’ bidding?  There is a difference.   Is it wrong?  Sure.  But so is using ad hominem attacks that are sexist.
> 
> none of your examples makes it right or justified.


So you want me to accept fundamentally flawed leadership, espousing support for manipulative shaping of the law to support unethical conduct, because someone else called a woman a name?

Have a solid sleep there…


----------



## Remius (28 Jun 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> So you want me to accept fundamentally flawed leadership, espousing support for manipulative shaping of the law to support unethical conduct, because someone else called a woman a name?
> 
> Have a solid sleep there…


Where did I say any of that?  Or say to support one or the other?  WTH.

the conversation was about her being called a climate Barbie.  I said it was wrong, someone said it was funny and accurate.   I disagreed.   I’d like people to be better in there political discourse.  That was the point.

sorry if you are insulted by the CONTENT and felt the need to make it personal.


----------



## brihard (28 Jun 2021)

suffolkowner said:


> how does prejudice against half the worlds population rank less than racial prejudice?


It doesn’t. Misogyny is always gross, and we shouldn’t simply overlook it when partisan hackery makes it convenient to.


----------



## Good2Golf (28 Jun 2021)

I didn’t have any issue at all about your own equalizing overbearing false feminism with sexist ad hominem commentary…you decide what is bad and what is acceptable as you wish.  My issue was with your implied acceptance that I should have to make the different behaviours equivalent, to wit, your post below. 




Remius said:


> Has nothing to do with a double standard.  It’s a standard.  Apply it in all cases.   But was the indigenous woman kicked out because she was an indigenous woman?  Or because she didn’t want to do the boss’ bidding?  There is a difference.   Is it wrong?  Sure.  But so is using ad hominem attacks that are sexist.


I am not going to chamge my mind that a sexist comment aligned to a the environmentalistic virtue-signaling of McKenna comes close to Trudeau’s morally-bankrupt treatment of Wilson-Raybold and Philpott.

Feel as affronted as you wish. It’s clear neither of us will convince each other that we’re more correct than the other…heck, I didn’t call McKenna a climate Barbie, but I sure do take issue to the way that Trudeau disrespected and shamefully treated Wilson-Raybold and Philpott.

Allons-y!


----------



## Remius (28 Jun 2021)

PM sent.  I’m not adding anything more,


----------



## Weinie (28 Jun 2021)

suffolkowner said:


> how does prejudice against half the worlds population rank less than racial prejudice?


My bad for not explaining, It was labelled misogyny when she was called a "Climate Barbie." I saw it as politics, and equated it as such.


----------



## Jarnhamar (28 Jun 2021)

Was it Mckenna who was saying conservatives were uncanadian?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (29 Jun 2021)

I have a certain disdain for most politicians. Having said that, politicians are a different breed of public figure. Simply the way they do their job, dispute legislation, make  promises to FN as far back as Laurier and still haven't acted on them, curtail our Rights and Freedoms, etc. They invite names to themselves that the public and media, tag them with based on there performance. Agree or not, politicians put themselves in these predicaments. The media gives them names, the press does it, other politicians do it. Yet somehow when some flat faced civie does it, it's  misogynous, racist, bigoted or biased? McKenna was a frigging disaster the second she was elected. $93 billion, how do you just lose that much money without being completely incompetent, uncaring and an intellectual bozo. And where was the overwatch, ffs? I will also mention that even when the liberals poured on all the negative epithets about people saying Climate Barbie, it only increased her visibility and got more people saying it. It has passed into common usage and they cannot pull it back. Politicians are supposed to have Mesozoic Era thick skin anyway. At least she's  figured out that she's in the wrong game and is leaving politics. However, she will always be known as Climate Barbie.


----------



## daftandbarmy (29 Jun 2021)

Nothing like shovelling a quarter billion off the back of the truck, through a non-competed third party contractor who is a Liberal party supporter, and then the people your trying to help complain about it.

Where is their gratitude for the Liberal largess? Pfffft....


Black business owners raise concerns about government loan fund​

Toronto-based entrepreneur Cheryl Sutherland said she found the Black Entrepreneurship Loan Fund's online loan application process frustratingly short of information. (Dave Rae/CBC)

Some Black businesspeople say a new government program meant to bolster Black entrepreneurship is hard to access, offers unclear repayment terms and asks invasive questions about applicants' sexuality.

The Black Entrepreneurship Loan Fund was announced in September by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. Its application portal launched late last month.

The $291.3 million program offers loans of up to $250,000 to businesses that are majority Black-owned. Black entrepreneurs starting companies or operating existing small businesses can also apply for funding.

The government contract to administer the fund was awarded to the Federation of African Canadian Economics (FACE), a non-profit incorporated in late January. The newly formed organization is headquartered in Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's Montreal riding of Papineau and is an umbrella organization for five black community based groups.

Toronto-based entrepreneur Cheryl Sutherland said she was excited about the fund at first.

"I felt like it was a really great opportunity for Canada to step up and do some really great things," she said.

But that excitement quickly turned to frustration once Sutherland started the application process. She and several other Black business owners who spoke to CBC News say the program doesn't make clear key aspects of repayment.

"Being a banker in my previous life, I went through and I tried to gather as much information as I could and I couldn't find anything in regards to repayment terms," Sutherland said. "I couldn't find anything in regards to the loan rates."
Personal questions​Toronto-based clothing designer Julz Ossom, who also applied for funding, said he was shocked when the online application form asked him to state his sexual orientation.

"Whether you are gay, whether you are bi, heterosexual, I'm like, am I coming for money?" he said. "Because the established banks, RBC, TD, Scotia, don't ask you these questions."

Talent agency owner John Campbell said he was also alarmed by the question about sexual orientation. "We found many of the questions infringed upon the Canadian Human Rights Act, for example, sexual orientation and preference," Campbell wrote in an open letter to FACE he shared with CBC News.

"The purpose of the loan was to help the community; however, the process is negatively impacting mental health."





			https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/black-entrepreneurship-loan-fund-face-1.6083084


----------



## brihard (29 Jun 2021)

I would suspect the frequent, and often enough credible threats to her physical safety likely took a toll. Her prior role in Cabinet in particular, and more generally her prominence as a female member of a government that is powerfully disliked by a portion of the population, caused her to be subjected to much more of that than just about anyone else in government. That gets old after a while. This goes well beyond mean words and thickness of skin.


----------



## daftandbarmy (29 Jun 2021)

brihard said:


> I would suspect the frequent, and often enough credible threats to her physical safety likely took a toll. Her prior role in Cabinet in particular, and more generally her prominence as a female member of a government that is powerfully disliked by a portion of the population, caused her to be subjected to much more of that than just about anyone else in government. That gets old after a while. This goes well beyond mean words and thickness of skin.



Can you not hunt down the people who are 'uttering threats' and charge them?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (29 Jun 2021)

If a male politician was good looking and a climate change activist would all you folks be up in arms if he was called "climate change Ken"?

If not then YOU are the new problem.........


----------



## Rifleman62 (29 Jun 2021)

brihard said:


> I would suspect the frequent, and often enough credible threats to her physical safety likely took a toll. Her prior role in Cabinet in particular, and more generally her prominence as a female member of a government that is powerfully disliked by a portion of the population, caused her to be subjected to much more of that than just about anyone else in government. That gets old after a while. This goes well beyond mean words and thickness of skin.


Don't you remember the numerous PR photo shoots of her, supposedly in relation to her personally doing her part for the environment? Ridiculous.


----------



## daftandbarmy (29 Jun 2021)

Rifleman62 said:


> Don't you remember the numerous PR photo shoots of her, supposedly in relation to her personally doing her part for the environment? Ridiculous.



The way the electorate are these days, any Environment Minister in any government has no choice except to become some kind of bizarre cult leader.

I'm not making excuses for anyone in this particular government, but can understand a bit about the madness that must go on in that portfolio.


----------



## Remius (29 Jun 2021)

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> If a male politician was good looking and a climate change activist would all you folks be up in arms if he was called "climate change Ken"?
> 
> If not then YOU are the new problem.........


yep. I would call it out.  It’s no different than the dumb nice hair campaign I vented about when it was going on or people commenting on stephen harper’s sweaters.  It’s dumb.  People can do better.  No wonder people get so polarized.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (29 Jun 2021)

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> If a male politician was good looking and a climate change activist would all you folks be up in arms if he was called "climate change Ken"?
> 
> If not then YOU are the new problem.........


Call them whatever you want. You have the right to free expression...........until September give or take, when they push for their hate speech bill. “Now, this is going to be controversial. People think that C-10 was controversial. Wait till we table this legislation,” Guilbeault said at an appearance at the Banff World Media Festival.


----------



## Altair (29 Jun 2021)

Remius said:


> yep. I would call it out.  It’s no different than the dumb nice hair campaign I vented about when it was going on or people commenting on stephen harper’s sweaters.  It’s dumb.  People can do better.  No wonder people get so polarized.


If the CPC supporters want to double down on the personal attacks on politicians that alienates 50 percent of the voting population,  well, as Napoleon once said, never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.


----------



## Good2Golf (29 Jun 2021)

Altair said:


> If the CPC supporters want to double down on the personal attacks on politicians that alienates 50 percent of the voting population,  well, as Napoleon once said, never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.


Indeed, like how the CPC supporters branded Trudeau “Trump North”…


----------



## Remius (29 Jun 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> Indeed, like how the CPC supporters branded Trudeau “Trump North”…


That comparison is just as dumb if not dumber.  The biggest example I remember was when people compared Doug Ford to Trump.  

in both cases, the hair thing and the Trump comparison didn’t work and both Trudeau and Ford were elected with Majorities.    There might be a lesson there.


----------



## Brad Sallows (29 Jun 2021)

> personal attacks on politicians that alienates 50 percent of the voting population



It only matters if that 50 percent includes anyone who might vote CPC, just as the personal attacks against Harper only mattered if the people who cared were not already pro-Harper.

Canada has the same problem as the US.  There are people who might vote conservative, or even consider themselves conservative, who belong to a "spoiled child" sub-faction - if they can't always have the party running the way they want it to, they throw sand in the gears.  They are perfectly happy to pocket the votes of the unwashed peasants and wield power, but unwilling to support the unwashed peasants when the latter might have their chance to pull the levers for a little while.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (29 Jun 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> Nothing like shovelling a quarter billion off the back of the truck, through a non-competed third party contractor who is a Liberal party supporter, and then the people your trying to help complain about it.
> 
> Where is their gratitude for the Liberal largess? Pfffft....
> 
> ...


Ah shades of Adscam and the funding of the gun control coalition who's CEO was major liberal and they gained contracts to tell the government what they wanted to hear. I always suspected that Ryder Travel was also linked to the Liberals as how they could get away with the fees they charged is beyond me, unless they had "Friends"


----------



## The Bread Guy (29 Jun 2021)

Brad Sallows said:


> ... There are people who might vote conservative, or even consider themselves liberal and/or NDP and/or conservative , who belong to a "spoiled child" sub-faction - if they can't always have the party running the way they want it to, they throw sand in the gears.  They are perfectly happy to pocket the votes of the unwashed peasants and wield power, but unwilling to support the unwashed peasants when the latter might have their chance to pull the levers for a little while.


To be entirely fair to Team Blue & its supporters, you're onto something that's in more than one party's/ideology's DNA.


----------



## Loachman (29 Jun 2021)

Remius said:


> Sorry.  I disagree with that level of dirt politics. It’s unbecoming and I’m sure if you really look at it, the CPC and their supporters will keep losing if they resort to that kind of stuff.  It certainly turns me off.



Not that they are the only ones to do that, of course.

Sorry, but she's incompetent and arrogant and mocking is entirely appropriate.


----------



## OldSolduer (29 Jun 2021)

Gutter politics was introduced IMO by the father of the current PM. And its not going anywhere.


----------



## brihard (29 Jun 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> Can you not hunt down the people who are 'uttering threats' and charge them?


Sometimes, yes. Other times it can be surprisingly hard to prove who was ‘behind the keyboard’.


----------



## dapaterson (29 Jun 2021)

Gutter politics are as old as politics, whether deliberate mispronunciation of a name to mark someone as foreign, picking favourites to deliver programs with a wink and a nudge understanding that what's good for the Railway is good for the government of the day (wink wink)... Nothing new under the sun.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (29 Jun 2021)

OldSolduer said:


> Gutter politics was introduced IMO by the father of the current PM. And its not going anywhere.


It is a lot older than that. Think Pitt the Elder. Think the Roman Senate. It is as old as humans.


----------



## mariomike (29 Jun 2021)

Altair said:


> If the CPC supporters want to double down on the personal attacks on politicians that alienates 50 percent of the voting population,  well, as Napoleon once said, never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.


Have to wait and see what impact, if any, it will have on female voters.


----------



## OldSolduer (30 Jun 2021)

SeaKingTacco said:


> It is a lot older than that. Think Pitt the Elder. Think the Roman Senate. It is as old as humans.


Oh yes et tu Brute? The ultimate in gutter politics.


----------



## MilEME09 (30 Jun 2021)




----------



## Altair (30 Jun 2021)

mariomike said:


> Have to wait and see what impact, if any, it will have on female voters.


This and stuff like climate barbie will continue to ensure that female voters continue to vote for parties other that the CPC.

And the CPC knows this  which is why Andrew Scheer denounced it.

But the unfortunate thing about politics today is a lot of it happens in the open, in public, on the internet. So while people have the absolute free speech to say things like climate barbie, female voters have every right to be turned off by that kind of talk and park their vote elsewhere.


----------



## Jarnhamar (30 Jun 2021)

Altair said:


> This and stuff like climate barbie will continue to ensure that female voters continue to vote for parties other that the CPC.


Pretty shallow opinion of women's voting priorities.


----------



## Good2Golf (30 Jun 2021)

Jarnhamar said:


> Pretty shallow opinion of women's voting priorities.


Also assumes it wasn’t a False Flag attack.  I would not put anything past an organization that in practice, has demonstrably shown disdain for those, including highly educated, accomplished and in some cases racially diverse, women from being kicked to the curb, in the interest of the leader’s will.


----------



## mariomike (30 Jun 2021)

Jarnhamar said:


> Pretty shallow opinion of women's voting priorities.


Maybe someone savvy about politics ( and women ), can explain this?  









						The biggest divide in Canadian politics
					

Philippe J. Fournier: If only men voted, the Liberal and Conservatives would be in a statistical tie. Only women: the Liberals win a crushing 226 seats. Although it is not necessarily a new phenomenon in this country, polling numbers of late have revealed a stark divide in voting intentions...




					canadanewsmedia.ca


----------



## ModlrMike (30 Jun 2021)

Years of Liberal messaging that the Conservatives would set back women's rights. Notwithstanding that the Conservative governments of 2006-2015 did no such thing.


----------



## FSTO (30 Jun 2021)

mariomike said:


> Maybe someone savvy about politics ( and women ), can explain this?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


In spite of JT's obvious disdain for women he still gets the over 40 female vote. My daughter who is 29 absolutely hates JT (she's a dipper supporter) and amongst her girl friends they see through his bullshit.


----------



## mariomike (30 Jun 2021)

Thank you both for your insight. This is what caught my eye,



> If only men voted, the Liberal and Conservatives would be in a statistical tie. Only women: the Liberals win a crushing 226 seats.


----------



## Altair (30 Jun 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> Also assumes it wasn’t a False Flag attack.  I would not put anything past an organization that in practice, has demonstrably shown disdain for those, including highly educated, accomplished and in some cases racially diverse, women from being kicked to the curb, in the interest of the leader’s will.











						Canada MP sorry for Catherine McKenna 'climate Barbie' remark
					

Conservative Gerry Ritz apologised over a remark he aimed at environment minister Catherine McKenna.



					www.bbc.com
				




False flag attack using a conservative MP.

Those dastardly liberals.


----------



## Altair (30 Jun 2021)

Jarnhamar said:


> Pretty shallow opinion of women's voting priorities.


Let's put it this way.

Are you of the opinion that belittling attacks on female politicians by a certain parties supporters makes women more or less likely to support that party?

Because to me, either women look past that, or they activily dislike it.

There is no positive that can come from it in my honest opinion, which is why I can only look at it like a own goal by those who do it.

Which to me, circles back to Napoleon,  and never interrupt the enemy when they are making a mistake.

Have at it.


----------



## Altair (30 Jun 2021)

FSTO said:


> In spite of JT's obvious disdain for women he still gets the over 40 female vote. My daughter who is 29 absolutely hates JT (she's a dipper supporter) and amongst her girl friends they see through his bullshit.


The real interesting part here is a female voter who hates Justin Trudeau isn't voting CPC.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (30 Jun 2021)

Sometimes, I have to wonder.


----------



## brihard (30 Jun 2021)

Fishbone Jones said:


> Sometimes, I have to wonder.View attachment 65621


Like “white nationalism”?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (30 Jun 2021)

brihard said:


> Like “white nationalism”?


Nice troll.🤣


----------



## brihard (30 Jun 2021)

Fishbone Jones said:


> Nice troll.🤣


Calling it as I see it. I don’t see you having a leg to stand on with that particular meme given your on past explosions on certain subjects.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (30 Jun 2021)

brihard said:


> Calling it as I see it. I don’t see you having a leg to stand on with that particular meme given your on past explosions on certain subjects.


Meh. Just your opinion. Ignorable in this case.


----------



## Good2Golf (30 Jun 2021)

Altair said:


> Canada MP sorry for Catherine McKenna 'climate Barbie' remark
> 
> 
> Conservative Gerry Ritz apologised over a remark he aimed at environment minister Catherine McKenna.
> ...


Sure, good point…that totally offsets Trudeau’s hypocritical misogynistic mistreatment of Wilson-Raybold, Philpott and Caeser-Chavannes.


----------



## Jarnhamar (30 Jun 2021)

Altair said:


> Let's put it this way.
> 
> Are you of the opinion that belittling attacks on female politicians by a certain parties supporters makes women more or less likely to support that party?


Yes and no. Some voters are probably moved by things like cute hair and really fun *Socks.  *Others might look a little deeper and care about policies, vision, past behavior, and all that.



Altair said:


> Because to me, either women look past that, or they activily dislike it.



I don't know. Women apparently looked past sexual assault and a suggestion women just experience assault differently. Plus of course the way Trudeau apparently speaks to women in his party when the cameras aren't rolling.

Again maybe that was looked past and people are looking at policies etc? But people (in fairness a lot of then likely conservatives) are calling McKenna climate barbie and THAT is going to sway their vote? Sure.

ModlrMike nailed it. The LPC has successfully convinced the CPC will turn back womens rights. As well as banning abortions, banning being gay, and basically being hitler.

What about half of that 187 BILLION taxpayer dollars being unaccounted for? Shhh Shh Shh, conservatives will ban being gay.


----------



## brihard (30 Jun 2021)

Jarnhamar said:


> Yes and no. Some voters are probably moved by things like cute hair and really fun *Socks.  *Others might look a little deeper and care about policies, vision, past behavior, and all that.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


On women’s issues, I’d say it’s probably a bit more nuanced than that. Probably more along the lines of things like pay equity, and easy access to affordable childcare. If a family decides to have kids, there are some burdens borne either uniquely or disproportionately by the woman, and as we’ve seen through COVID, especially with childcare issues there’s a greatly disproportionate impact on women. It would be fair to be looking critically at the different parties and taking a guess as to where they’re likely to line up in terms of prioritizing such things. Lack of affordable childcare can take women out of the workforce for years and basically condemn them to falling and staying behind in terms of job and career growth.

I don’t think many women are particularly impressed by the blatant surface misogyny that we’ve seen on display... But I also think that for many it goes a bit deeper than that in terms of what it reveals about a party’s (versus an individual leader’s) values.

This is all just me thinking out loud.


----------



## Remius (30 Jun 2021)

The issue I have with any party making dumb statements or using racist and sexist comments is that it dilutes their position and it it is generally because they *have nothing of substance* to offer.

Offer something.  Anything.  I don’t care about Trudeau’s Hair,  or Climate Barbie.  All I see is dumb schoolyard behaviour,  some people here like that stuff because it makes them feel better.  Yay you.  I’d prefer to see some real substance because we aren’t getting any.


----------



## Remius (30 Jun 2021)

Fishbone Jones said:


> Meh. Just your opinion. Ignorable in this case.


 

edit* my post adds nothing to the conversation.  Apologies.


----------



## Jarnhamar (30 Jun 2021)

Trudeau, Freeland criticize decision to keep embattled navy chief on the job​


			https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/deputy-prime-minister-chrystia-freeland-distrubed-decision-head-of-navy-1.6086335
		




> Depty PM says the military's decision sends the wrong signal to women in the ranks





> "Many women and people I talk to are disappointed," Trudeau told reporters today. "This further demonstrates the work that the military and the military's leadership needs to do to regain the trust of Canadians, because there is such a deep need for real and substantive culture change and change in actions."





> "I was surprised and disturbed by the decision," Freeland told a press conference today. "My immediate thought was, 'How would I feel if I were a Canadian woman in the Armed Forces?'




I totally agree with the PM and DPM. I expected a hell of a lot more out of the A/CDS.

However I can't help but be reminded of one time in Meaford getting told to tell students their weekend leave was canceled, which we did- then the OC swooped in on Friday morning and gave everyone the weekend off.


----------



## FSTO (30 Jun 2021)

Jarnhamar said:


> Trudeau, Freeland criticize decision to keep embattled navy chief on the job​
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/deputy-prime-minister-chrystia-freeland-distrubed-decision-head-of-navy-1.6086335
> ...


If they don’t like the decisions of the A/CDS they could fire him. But that would also mean that Sajin would be fired as well. What a bunch of no talent ass clowns!


----------



## FSTO (30 Jun 2021)

Altair said:


> The real interesting part here is a female voter who hates Justin Trudeau isn't voting CPC.


She is a lefty. Will never vote for the Liberals.


----------



## FJAG (30 Jun 2021)

OldSolduer said:


> MAYBE ONE CAN CHANGE!
> 
> Any one ever think of that? ...


I'm sure they do. 

After all JT hasn't worn blackface for quite some time now.


----------



## ModlrMike (30 Jun 2021)

Stalin would be proud!


----------



## daftandbarmy (30 Jun 2021)

Jarnhamar said:


> Trudeau, Freeland criticize decision to keep embattled navy chief on the job​
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/deputy-prime-minister-chrystia-freeland-distrubed-decision-head-of-navy-1.6086335
> ...



If you are A/CDS and you see this in the paper (as you sit back with a glass of wine on your hand prior to a well earned day off for Canada Day) I wonder if you just chuck the glass and start pulling from the bottle while scrolling through your old resumes:

"They [PM & DPM] publicly questioned whether it was a good idea for the acting chief of the defence staff, Lt.-Gen. Wayne Eyre, to allow Baines to remain in his post after he took part in a golf game with former chief of the defence staff Jonathan Vance, who is under military police investigation following allegations of inappropriate behaviour."


----------



## Good2Golf (30 Jun 2021)

I’d say you keep commanding the CAF and deal with the difficult issues within the Forces. 

As the MND appears to be already on vacation, and the PM and D/PM are so unhappy, let them ramp their response from: “survey-informed tsk-tsk-tsking” to:


----------



## OldSolduer (1 Jul 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> I’d say you keep commanding the CAF and deal with the difficult issues within the Forces.
> 
> As the MND appears to be already on vacation, and the PM and D/PM are so unhappy, let them ramp their response from: “survey-informed tsk-tsk-tsking” to:
> View attachment 65631


Maybe a strongly worded letter??

Defund the Liberal Party please - or at least this iteration of it.


----------



## Jarnhamar (1 Jul 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> If you are A/CDS and you see this in the paper (as you sit back with a glass of wine on your hand prior to a well earned day off for Canada Day) I wonder if you just chuck the glass and start pulling from the bottle while scrolling through your old resumes:



He might also open a text from the PM saying thank you for your service. 


If you're the conspiricy type what better way to set the PM and DPM up to look like hero's than setting the stage to publicly lambaste a general who takes it easy on a good old boy for something sexual misconduct related?

It's pretty hard to orchestrate a better virtue signal than this.


----------



## Loachman (1 Jul 2021)

Altair said:


> Let's put it this way.



Let's put it *this* way . . .



Altair said:


> belittling attacks on female politicians by a certain parties supporters



It's not "female politicians". It's incompetent/arrogant politicians, regardless of sex.



Altair said:


> Because to me, either women look past that, or they activily dislike it.



Women are not a monolithic block who all think and vote the same way and for the same reasons.

But notice how few seem to mind when a self-proclaimed feminist tosses or drives three female MPs, one of whom is indigenous and another black, out of his party because they would not submit to his will.

Mocking somebody who, through her own words and actions, invited it is a bigger sin than throwing three out for standing up to corruption and abuse?

Words speak louder than actions?

And then there's the whole Creston grope thing. Few women seemed to care about a sexual assault on a young woman.

Perhaps the old saying that women are attracted to jerks is true, at least enough of the time.

I've actively campaigned for female candidates, in nomination contests and elections, by the way. They were all excellent candidates - intelligent, motivated, engaging, personable and knew their material perfectly - else I would not have done so. I did that through Reform Party, Canadian Alliance, and Conservative eras. They all had the absolute full support of their riding associations. X and Y chromosome combinations were not a factor. We picked the best person each time, and competition was usually strong.

The only exception was Belinda Stronach, who used her influence in Daddy's company to recruit members and gave the whole night shift the evening off so that they could vote for her in the nomination. Barely enough did so, though. The rest took a free "f you" evening off and she barely won. She was an absolute clueless disaster in every way. Most of the riding association abandoned her and campaigned for neighbouring candidates. Then she betrayed everybody by switching sides, and dumped Peter MacKay. Just a spoiled little rich girl playing games.


----------



## daftandbarmy (1 Jul 2021)

Jarnhamar said:


> He might also open a text from the PM saying *thank you for your service.*
> 
> 
> If you're the conspiricy type what better way to set the PM and DPM up to look like hero's than setting the stage to publicly lambaste a general who takes it easy on a good old boy for something sexual misconduct related?
> ...



Not going to happen, IMHO.

It's clear that General Wayne has blown it, and his remaining tenure can probably be measured in a hummingbird heartbeat.


----------



## Jarnhamar (1 Jul 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> Not going to happen, IMHO.
> 
> It's clear that General Wayne has blown it, and his remaining tenure can probably be measured in a hummingbird heartbeat.



If my conspiracy ideas are out to lunch then I'd agree 100% and think Trudeau and the DPM really did a bold and great job calling that decision out.

If the PMO loses faith in the A/CDS maybe they will be "forced" to move the VCDS to the CDS role, even though that's not what they did with the last VCDS when the spot opened up for some reason.


----------



## mariomike (1 Jul 2021)

Haggis said:


> He is still consistently and strongly leading in every major poll in Canada.  Yes, we are going to be stuck with him for at least as long as his father.


He is still in his 40's and already on his third president.

This was posted by another member last year,



> I rarely find anything of value in MacLean's (or from Scott Gilmore for that matter) but this one actually has some good points:
> To see his ten points, go here:


Ten things that would guarantee the new CPC leader is a winner - Macleans.ca

If the situation is as desperate as you indicate, those ten things, or at least some of them, may, or may not, be worthy of consideration. Even if written by a person married to a Liberal.


----------



## ModlrMike (1 Jul 2021)

OMFG, it was a fricken golf game with a former colleague, who while PNG with the government, hasn't been convicted of a crime. It's not like they had dinner with DJT. Short sighted maybe, but career ending... some people need to look in the mirror. I can think of at least 900M reasons why this is a farce.


----------



## MilEME09 (1 Jul 2021)

ModlrMike said:


> OMFG, it was a fricken golf game with a former colleague, who while PNG with the government, hasn't been convicted of a crime. It's not like they had dinner with DJT. Short sighted maybe, but career ending... some people need to look in the mirror. I can think of at least 900M reasons why this is a farce.


How about starting with after everything, a golf game ends one career, but the minister still has his job.


----------



## Haggis (1 Jul 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> How about starting with after everything, a golf game ends one career, but the minister still has his job.


Neither the A/CDS, former VCDS or CRCN are important to the Liberal's re-election chance.  The MND is.


----------



## Brad Sallows (1 Jul 2021)

"They [PM & DPM] publicly questioned whether it was a good idea for the acting chief of the defence staff, Lt.-Gen. Wayne Eyre, to allow Baines to remain in his post after he took part in a golf game with former chief of the defence staff Jonathan Vance, who is under military police investigation following allegations of inappropriate behaviour."

Used to be that when a senior person lost the confidence of someone further up the chain, he resigned.

So we've reached the point at which the PM and deputy just dribble shit out at will and abdicate on loyalty downward.  What does the Handbook of Harassment and Poisoned Work Environments have to say about praising publicly and criticizing privately?


----------



## FSTO (1 Jul 2021)

Brad Sallows said:


> "They [PM & DPM] publicly questioned whether it was a good idea for the acting chief of the defence staff, Lt.-Gen. Wayne Eyre, to allow Baines to remain in his post after he took part in a golf game with former chief of the defence staff Jonathan Vance, who is under military police investigation following allegations of inappropriate behaviour."
> 
> Used to be that when a senior person lost the confidence of someone further up the chain, he resigned.
> 
> So we've reached the point at which the PM and deputy just dribble shit out at will and abdicate on loyalty downward.  What does the Handbook of Harassment and Poisoned Work Environments have to say about praising publicly and criticizing privately?


The Dauphin is untouchable. In reality he has no clothes, but the TruAnon crowd are still blinded by his brilliance.


----------



## Halifax Tar (2 Jul 2021)

FSTO said:


> The Dauphin is untouchable. In reality he has no clothes, but the TruAnon crowd are still blinded by his brilliance.


And hes going to win the next election with what I predict to be a sweeping majority.


----------



## Remius (2 Jul 2021)

Halifax Tar said:


> And hes going to win the next election with what I predict to be a sweeping majority.


I’m not sure if will be a sweeping majority.  Campaigns matter.  But right now they are sitting with numbers that would give them a majority or at least a strong minority.  

I am sure they will time the election with the reopening from COVID.  I expect an octobre election.


----------



## Haggis (2 Jul 2021)

Remius said:


> I’m not sure if will be a sweeping majority.  Campaigns matter.  But right now they are sitting with numbers that would give them a majority or at least a strong minority.
> 
> I am sure they will time the election with the reopening from COVID.  I expect an octobre election.


Maybe sooner.  The PM got a haircut and shave and has returned to his clean cut, hip,  dreamy 2015 campaign look.


----------



## Altair (2 Jul 2021)

Halifax Tar said:


> And hes going to win the next election with what I predict to be a sweeping majority.


He might, but it's not due to any great surge of support for the LPC.

Most polls have the LPC in the mid to high 30s, enough to sneak in a majority, but not anything more than that.

The reason he might win a majority is because the CPC continues to drop in support.

It says a lot when Trudeau has the baggage he has, the missteps yet the opposition continues to bleed support.

I think the 2019 election was the worst possible result for the CPC. Winning the popular vote and cutting into the LPC seat count allowed it to put off a serious soul searching as to what it is. Now what they are putting forward in 2021 isn't resonating with Canadians, at least not yet, and the unified right against a fractured left, and they can only count on the support of 30 percent of Canadians.

The only good news for those who oppose the LPC is that with only mid to high 30s in support leave the LPC vulnerable to the NDP getting enough support to play spoiler.

But the only good from that is another few years of a LPC NDP BLOC unofficial coalition in a minority parliament with the LPC just shy of a majority.


----------



## Jarnhamar (2 Jul 2021)

Altair said:


> It says a lot when Trudeau has the baggage he has, the missteps yet the opposition continues to bleed support.



It might be a reflection of the CPC. 

It might also be a reflection of how much Canadians in 2021 care about ethics and behavior when they're not individually impacted.


----------



## FSTO (2 Jul 2021)

With the CPC so low in the polls, many on the left will be comfortable voting NDP which will cut into the LPC and deny them a majority.


----------



## Haggis (2 Jul 2021)

FSTO said:


> With the CPC so low in the polls, many on the left will be comfortable voting NDP which will cut into the LPC and deny them a majority.


At which point, Trudeau's ego will not allow him to form a coalition government, Singh will once again prop up the Liberals, Trudeau will pander to Québec, thus keeping the Bloc on his side and we are right back where we were at 8:00 AM today.


----------



## daftandbarmy (2 Jul 2021)

I find it interesting that the number of 'undecideds' about Trudeau has been dropping regularly:

*Approve/Disapprove of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau*​








						Trudeau Tracker - Angus Reid Institute
					






					angusreid.org


----------



## Remius (2 Jul 2021)

Jarnhamar said:


> It might be a reflection of the CPC.
> 
> It might also be a reflection of how much Canadians in 2021 care about ethics and behavior when they're not individually impacted.


I think it is a combination of factors.  But both those observations are accurate in my mind.  

Would also add that it is likely that a portion of the LPC supporters are actually Trudeau supporters.  What I mean by that is that they don’t care about policy, politics or government.  They are enamoured with a good looking celebrity leader who hobnobs with other celebrities.  If Trudeau wasn’t PM they probably wouldn’t even vote.

I mentioned this before when I was talking to someone about Trump.  A man that has groped women, fired his senior cabinet members for not doing what he wanted to have his way, attempt to manipulate the Justice system, have multiple ethics issues and conflicts of interest involving his family business and family members.  She agreed with all of that until I said I wasn’t talking about about Trump,  I was talking about Trudeau.  But she was quick to forgive Trudeau for those exact things.   It just shows you that it isn’t about the politics for many voters.  

But for some, like me, I am distressed at the lack of a real alternative.  Real vision and policy.  If the opposition can’t convince people to vote for them then they aren’t doing enough.  Because people will stay with the devil they know. Canadians like stability, even incompetent stability I think.  

Another thing, Canadians generally don’t like sexists, racists, bigots and anything with “phobe” at the end of it.  The CPC really needs to shake that image.  Some is underserved but some of it is self inflicted and they let the LPC shape that narrative.  I suspect they will get out maneuvered again.  But we’ll see.

for me the campaign will matter as it always does.  I’m not hopeful but I will be interested to see what will be on the table from all parties.


----------



## Good2Golf (3 Jul 2021)

Back to election-related fare…hat will Catherine McKenna’s legacy be?



Remius said:


> To be honest I think she really is not interested in politics anymore.  She does have a young kids and I can't think of another politician who has been subjected to so much misogynistic attitude and insults.   She had her office vandalised and has been labelled "Climate Barbie".  Classy.  And this thread shows that some here are just as bad.  It took less than a day to include a Hitler reference.   Lovely.
> 
> 
> We can disagree with her politics.  Basically her party politics btw.  Which is fine.  But is it a wonder she is stepping away?
> ...



Perhaps it’s the nascent shame that she personally championed the effective we aligning of Canada on the world energy scene, including denying Canada’s energy produces from adding their environmentally considered activities, while de factor reinforcing that strength of global poor energy behaviour (China, Russia, KSA, etc…)

McKenna’s Legacy: Foreign Oil Dictatorships Enriched At Our Expense


> Catherine’s Crusade against Canada’s energy sector was a stunningly naïve, divisive, and economically destructive agenda that must have foreign countries like Saudi Arabia, Russia, and more laughing at us.​With Catherine McKenna announcing her retirement from politics, it’s important to take some time to consider her legacy as a federal minister.
> 
> Of course, many will be saying nice things about her on a personal level, and there’s no reason to believe those things are untrue.
> 
> ...


There, no name calling.  Just an assessment as to what did Catherine McKenna really achieve (aside from not being able to account for $93B of taxpayer money…)


----------



## Jarnhamar (3 Jul 2021)

Remius said:


> Would also add that it is likely that a portion of the LPC supporters are actually Trudeau supporters.  What I mean by that is that they don’t care about policy, politics or government.
> They are enamoured with a good looking celebrity leader who hobnobs with other celebrities.  If Trudeau wasn’t PM they probably wouldn’t even vote.


Agreed.


Remius said:


> I mentioned this before when I was talking to someone about Trump.  A man that has groped women, fired his senior cabinet members for not doing what he wanted to have his way, attempt to manipulate the Justice system, have multiple ethics issues and conflicts of interest involving his family business and family members.  She agreed with all of that until I said I wasn’t talking about about Trump,  I was talking about Trudeau.  But she was quick to forgive Trudeau for those exact things.   It just shows you that it isn’t about the politics for many voters.


That's pretty funny. Probably sums up a lot of people's forgiving nature when it comes to Trudeau.


Remius said:


> Another thing, Canadians generally don’t like sexists, racists, bigots and anything with “phobe” at the end of it.


See above.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (3 Jul 2021)

I am sorry G2G, but that article (opinion, really, not facts) by Spencer Fernando is quite simply bull...

Here is the 25 years oil production trend in Canada: Canada Crude Oil Production | 1973-2021 Data | 2022-2023 Forecast | Historical | Chart  (clic on the 25yr at the top of the graph to see the trend).

We have never produced as much crude as we do right now and the trend is constantly towards higher production. The dipping 2020 is simply the worldwide dip that was caused by every nation shutting down due to Covid.

So Canada has not been missing on sales of its oil as a result of any policy currently in place. We are missing, potentially, on overseas sales as a result of the fact that current transportation systems for crude from Alberta are pretty well maxed out at this time. But I say potentially because there is no evidence that we could supply those oversea markets as well as the closer providers such as the Middle-East or Russia, or that these oversea markets would want to purchase Canadian crude from Alberta, which requires a different method of refining than the light crude coming, again, from the Middle-east or Russia.

Thus, to say that we put money in their pockets instead of Canadian ones is simply false. Moreover, the Canadian carbon tax is applied on ALL carbon generating oil, not just the one originating in Canada, and is charged at the pump, so Canadians are taxed the same wherever the oil comes from. 

I won't even go into the stupidity of saying that money Russia or the Saudi spend on schools and the military somehow are dollars Canada does not get to spend on its own schools or , god forbids, the Canadian military.


----------



## mariomike (3 Jul 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> Back to election-related fare…hat will Catherine McKenna’s legacy be?


I wouldn't know. I suppose it may depend somewhat if Canadian women voters share the same opinion as Spencer Fernando.



Good2Golf said:


> Also assumes it wasn’t a False Flag attack.


Of course.


Oldgateboatdriver said:


> I am sorry G2G, but that article (opinion, really, not facts) by Spencer Fernando is quite simply bull...


----------



## MilEME09 (3 Jul 2021)

Right now the biggest problem is the public seem to see that Trudeau as a man who can do no wrong. Polls still show him high up, so my million dollar question is, what will it take to bring the majority of the public against him?


----------



## mariomike (3 Jul 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> Polls still show him high up, so my million dollar question is, what will it take to bring the majority of the public against him?


I don't know about Canadian voters these days.

But, the Governor of Louisiana once said, "Only way I can lose re-election is if they catch me in bed with a dead girl, or a live boy."


----------



## Remius (3 Jul 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> Right now the biggest problem is the public seem to see that Trudeau as a man who can do no wrong. Polls still show him high up, so my million dollar question is, what will it take to bring the majority of the public against him?


Give people a good alternative to vote for.  And stop hoping that people will vote “against” him.  They won’t.  So offer people a real alternative.


----------



## MilEME09 (3 Jul 2021)

Remius said:


> Give people a good alternative to vote for.  And stop hoping that people will vote “against” him.  They won’t.  So offer people a real alternative.


I think I've given up on that, I swear Canadian politics is actual a corrupt monopoly needing an anti trust law suit


----------



## Altair (3 Jul 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> Right now the biggest problem is the public seem to see that Trudeau as a man who can do no wrong. Polls still show him high up, so my million dollar question is, what will it take to bring the majority of the public against him?


This may be a hot take, but 80 percent of Canadians live in urban areas.

That urban population is where the LPC are having their greatest success. The CPC were locked out of the biggest cities in Canada. The CPC didn't win a single riding with a population density of greater than 2500.

The top 66 ridings by population density in the last federal election were all lost by the CPC.









						338Canada | Projection per population density
					






					338canada.com
				




Looking at this list, you need to get to number 67, Edmonton Griesbach, before you get to a CPC riding, population density 2443 km².

So with a Canada increasingly urbanized, the CPC cannot simply give up 66 seats to the LPC, NDP and the BQ. 54 of those 66 went to the LPC.

So those ridings, increasingly multicultural,  increasingly progressive, those are the ridings the CPC needs to start winning. And I don't think the CPC can change the political priorities of those ridings, so they best start changing their policies to become more attractive to those ridings.

How they do that without losing their base in rural Canada I have no idea, and perhaps more troubling, I don't think they know either.

But the numbers don't lie. The urban population of Canada in 1971 was 76 percent. In 2021, it's 81 percent. That number is only going to get higher.

Edit: And looking more into the numbers, even amongst the ridings that the CPC won last election, looking at 338, you need to go down to number 76 on the list to find a "safe" CPC riding, Richmond Center, population density 2276 km².

Edmonton Griesbach, Calgary Center, Edmonton Center, Edmonton Mill Woods, are all within the margin of error of the LPC and NDP. So the top 75 seats could all possibly go to a non CPC party. 

So 19 percent of seats in Canada are currenly locking out the CPC with the potential of it being 22 percent. That's not good.


----------



## Good2Golf (3 Jul 2021)

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> I am sorry G2G, but that article (opinion, really, not facts) by Spencer Fernando is quite simply bull...
> 
> Here is the 25 years oil production trend in Canada: Canada Crude Oil Production | 1973-2021 Data | 2022-2023 Forecast | Historical | Chart  (clic on the 25yr at the top of the graph to see the trend).
> 
> ...


OGBD, I will absolutely give you the point on production.  Though it would be interesting to see the increase in production possible if there were intermediate refinement on site or shortly down stream so that the net proceeds would be notably higher and be able to be further reinvested nationally to support increase in sustainable/renewable resources.  The difference between WTI (Wester Texas Intermediate) or Brent and WCS (Western Canadian Select) is an average 15-20% ($10-12US/BBL) on WCS, and would most certainly sell higher at a reduced discount.  That would be an annual increase of $17B gross revenue which would go a long way (via taxes) to reinvest for greener energy production.  With Keystone XL down for the count, and minimal ability to get additional WCS crude to the Gulf refineries, we will likely see production stagnate.  Doesn’t seem that the government is doing much to resolve the sales challenges of Canadian crude.


----------



## daftandbarmy (3 Jul 2021)

Remius said:


> Give people a good alternative to vote for.  And stop hoping that people will vote “against” him.  They won’t.  So offer people a real alternative.



Like Chrystia 'Lipsticked Pitbull' Freeland? 

By promoting Chrystia Freeland, Justin Trudeau may have shored up his own support — or strengthened a potential rival​








						By promoting Chrystia Freeland, Justin Trudeau may have shored up his own support — or strengthened a potential rival
					

Freeland’s selection as Canada’s next finance minister was an unsurprising choice, political observers said Tuesday.




					www.thestar.com


----------



## Altair (3 Jul 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> OGBD, I will absolutely give you the point on production.  Though it would be interesting to see the increase in production possible if there were intermediate refinement in Siri or shortly down stream so that the net proceeds would be notably higher and be able to be further reinvested nationally to support increase in sustainable/renewable resources.  The difference between WTI (Wester Texas Intermediate) or Brent and WCS (Western Canadian Select) is an average 15-20% ($10-12US/BBL) on WCS, and would most certainly sell higher at a reduced discount.  That would be an annual increase of $17B gross revenue which would go a long way (via taxes) to reinvest for greener energy production.  With Keystone XL down for the count, and minimal ability to get additional WCS crude to the Gulf refineries, we will likely see production stagnate.  Doesn’t seem that the government is doing much to resolve the sales challenges of Canadian crude.


They bought a pipeline to get crude to the west coast. Politically, that's as much as they are able to do, other than ram a pipeline through Ontario, Quebec, and every Indigenous group in between. 

And politically, looking at the breakdown, I am not convinced it was a bad choice. The CPC, biggest booster of pipelines across the nation, won 50 of 230 seats east of Manitoba.


----------



## daftandbarmy (3 Jul 2021)

Altair said:


> They bought a pipeline to get crude to the west coast. Politically, that's as much as they are able to do, other than ram a pipeline through Ontario, Quebec, and every Indigenous group in between.
> 
> And politically, looking at the breakdown, I am not convinced it was a bad choice. The CPC, biggest booster of pipelines across the nation, won 50 of 230 seats east of Manitoba.



They bought a project to double the capacity in an existing pipeline. The hysteria doesn't match up to the reality, sadly


----------



## Altair (3 Jul 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> They bought a project to double the capacity in an existing pipeline. The hysteria doesn't match up to the reality, sadly


Well, it is a new pipeline, just twined with a existing pipeline.

Semantics.

They had almost nothing to gain from doing so and a lot to lose. AB and SK were never going to appreciate the LPC for doing so and they risked the wrath of Progressive voters in BC and environmentalists across the nation for doing it, but they did it anyways.

Yet all you hear from a certain party and their supporters is talk about how much the LPC has gone out of their way to destroy the oil industry.


----------



## daftandbarmy (3 Jul 2021)

Altair said:


> Well, it is a new pipeline, just twined with a existing pipeline.
> 
> Semantics.
> 
> ...



Because Trudeau is a 'man baby viture signaling idiot', of course.

I'm no lefty, but I'm pretty sure that a Paul Martin or Jean Chretien would have approached the whole situation completely differently, of course.


----------



## OldSolduer (3 Jul 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> Because Trudeau is a 'man baby viture signaling idiot', of course.


A little harsh don't you think? After all he does have nice hair.


----------



## Altair (3 Jul 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> Because Trudeau is a 'man baby viture signaling idiot', of course.
> 
> I'm no lefty, but I'm pretty sure that a Paul Martin or Jean Chretien would have approached the whole situation completely differently, of course.


Both of them had a sizeable base in Quebec and Ontario, and if the politics on the ground said that people didn't support a pipeline through those provinces, I don't think they go ahead with it either. 

Piss of lefties in Ontario and they have a history of going NDP. Piss of Quebecers and they can go NDP or Bloc. There were lessons learned from the 2011 election for the LPC I think. That lesson was the NDP can and will eat their lunch if they allow it, and the CPC voters do not see them as a viable second choice. Ever since 2011, you have seen the LPC chase down the NDP vote. The reasons for that I believe lie in 2011. One of the few things the LPC has done to throw a bone at AB and SK is buy the transmountain pipeline extension, and seeing as the reaction to that has left them open to attacks from the left, and little to no goodwill from the AB and SK, I doubt they make that mistake ever again.


----------



## Brad Sallows (4 Jul 2021)

An eastern oil crisis would unsettle some folks.


----------



## Good2Golf (4 Jul 2021)

Brad Sallows said:


> An eastern oil crisis would unsettle some folks.


The whining of the marginal incremental amount to pull some more Saudi oil into Irving refineries and ship slightly Westward would pale in comparison to the self-righteous hue and cry of the Enviro-friendly (expect for now only occasionally dumping raw sewage into the Pacific and shipping hyper-CO2-producing coal to China) West Coasters… 😞


----------



## dangerboy (6 Jul 2021)

Politicians are starting to make election promises.  They have been talking about this for a long time, while I would love to see an improvement to out rail I just can't see it being like Europe, where it is resonably affordable and fast.


----------



## YZT580 (6 Jul 2021)

Been promised before, lots of times.  Bombardier had a big push on for it around 1990 and Trudeau seniors people were pushing it along with VIA in the early 19 70s.  Seems to be a favourite of the liberals as Dalton McGinty had a thing for it too if I remember correctly.  They need to look at California and their fiasco before putting any money into it.


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Jul 2021)

YZT580 said:


> Been promised before, lots of times.  Bombardier had a big push on for it around 1990 and Trudeau seniors people were pushing it along with VIA in the early 19 70s.  Seems to be a favourite of the liberals as Dalton McGinty had a thing for it too if I remember correctly.  They need to look at California and their fiasco before putting any money into it.


... and this would also be more sustainable where all the population density is, not necessarily ALL of Canada - then again, that's where the votes are, too.


----------



## YZT580 (6 Jul 2021)

The Bread Guy said:


> ... and this would also be more sustainable where all the population density is, not necessarily ALL of Canada - then again, that's where the votes are, too.


If government gets involved it will cost 3X what it should regardless of where they start from, will involve Bombardier and Lavelin, try to implement some untested, carbon neutral and ultimately unworkable in the Canadian environment technology.


----------



## OldSolduer (6 Jul 2021)

YZT580 said:


> If government gets involved it will cost 3X what it should regardless of where they start from, will involve Bombardier and Lavelin, try to implement some untested, carbon neutral and ultimately unworkable in the Canadian environment technology.


You're a tad cynical don't you think?     Think of all the jobs that this will create! Think of all the bonuses Bombardier and SMC will be able to pay their struggling executives!!!!


----------



## Brad Sallows (6 Jul 2021)

Figure out the cost and divide by the projected ridership.  See how it looks then.


----------



## PuckChaser (6 Jul 2021)

YZT580 said:


> Been promised before, lots of times.  Bombardier had a big push on for it around 1990 and Trudeau seniors people were pushing it along with VIA in the early 19 70s.  Seems to be a favourite of the liberals as Dalton McGinty had a thing for it too if I remember correctly.  They need to look at California and their fiasco before putting any money into it.


Monorail. Monorail. Monorail!!!!!


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Jul 2021)

YZT580 said:


> If government gets involved it will cost 3X what it should regardless of where they start from, will involve Bombardier and Lavelin, try to implement some untested, carbon neutral and ultimately unworkable in the Canadian environment technology.


#GovernmentSolutionTemplate


----------



## Altair (6 Jul 2021)

OldSolduer said:


> You're a tad cynical don't you think?     Think of all the jobs that this will create! Think of all the bonuses Bombardier and SMC will be able to pay their struggling executives!!!!


Bombardier got out of the rail business.

Doesn't mean whom they sold it to won't get involved, Alstom


----------



## OldSolduer (6 Jul 2021)

Altair said:


> Bombardier got out of the rail business.
> 
> Doesn't mean whom they sold it to won't get involved, Alstom


I could care less what Bomardier does, they don’t deserve another cent of our money. SNC Lavalin can pound sand too.


----------



## Altair (7 Jul 2021)

OldSolduer said:


> I could care less what Bomardier does, they don’t deserve another cent of our money. SNC Lavalin can pound sand too.


Well, if they don't make trains anymore, I don't see how they are going to be involved in a new Quebec City to Toronto rail line.

Unless you think that they will use small private/business jets on a passenger rail line?


----------



## OldSolduer (7 Jul 2021)

Altair said:


> Well, if they don't make trains anymore, I don't see how they are going to be involved in a new Quebec City to Toronto rail line.
> 
> Unless you think that they will use small private/business jets on a passenger rail line?


You missed the point. Bombardier shouldn’t get another nickel of public money for any reason.


----------



## Altair (7 Jul 2021)

OldSolduer said:


> You missed the point. Bombardier shouldn’t get another nickel of public money for any reason.


Here I was thinking we were talking about a new rail line.


----------



## OldSolduer (7 Jul 2021)

Altair said:


> Here I was thinking we were talking about a new rail line.


Well maybe we were but I’m tired of seeing a failing company kept afloat by you and I.


----------



## Altair (7 Jul 2021)

OldSolduer said:


> Well maybe we were but I’m tired of seeing a failing company kept afloat by you and I.


Bombardier sold off every division except its business jet division, which has been fairly competent historically. 

So no more white elephants or overly ambitious projects that it cannot meet. 

So I think the days of propping up Bombardier are more or less over. 

And they naturally won't be involved in any new rail line.


----------



## FSTO (7 Jul 2021)

I love taking the train in the triangle. It’s much more relaxing than the airport craziness. High Frequency Rail is a vastly different beast than High Speed Rail.


----------



## daftandbarmy (7 Jul 2021)

OldSolduer said:


> Well maybe we were but I’m tired of seeing a failing company kept afloat by you and I.



You mean like the steel industry?


Algoma Steel in Sault Ste. Marie to get $420M in federal funding to transition to cleaner technology​
Algoma Steel Inc., in Sault Ste. Marie, Ont., is getting up to $420 million in federal funding to help it phase out coal-fired steel-making processes.

During a news conference on Monday, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced the funding for the manufacturer to retrofit its operations to cleaner technology.



			https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/sudbury/algoma-steel-420million-feds-clean-technology-1.6090465


----------



## MilEME09 (7 Jul 2021)

Sure sounds like pre election vote buying, I mean announcements


----------



## YZT580 (7 Jul 2021)

Algoma is a profitable company with profits last year exceeding expectations.  this is simply buying the environmental groups' votes by giving away our money.


----------



## OldSolduer (7 Jul 2021)

YZT580 said:


> Algoma is a profitable company with profits last year exceeding expectations.  this is simply buying the environmental groups' votes by giving away our money.


the same as Loblaws/Sobeys receiving $12 million for retrofitting freezers. Pure bullshit.


----------



## daftandbarmy (7 Jul 2021)

OldSolduer said:


> the same as Loblaws/Sobeys receiving $12 million for retrofitting freezers. Pure bullshit.



Or direct awarding the management of a new quarter-billion buck program to a bunch of LPC supporters in the PM's riding?

Yes WE can 

Black business owners raise concerns about government loan fund​
The Black Entrepreneurship Loan Fund was announced in September by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. Its application portal launched late last month.

The $291.3 million program offers loans of up to $250,000 to businesses that are majority Black-owned. Black entrepreneurs starting companies or operating existing small businesses can also apply for funding.

The government contract to administer the fund was awarded to the Federation of African Canadian Economics (FACE), a non-profit incorporated in late January. The newly formed organization is headquartered in Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's Montreal riding of Papineau and is an umbrella organization for five black community based groups.



			https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/black-entrepreneurship-loan-fund-face-1.6083084


----------



## Fishbone Jones (7 Jul 2021)

Corporate welfare makes companies lazy. If they know taxpayers will bail them out they stop caring. Quality and production suffers and the taxpayer seldom sees the loan repaid. The secret to good corporate competence is staying hungry. When the taxpayer is keeping them fat, there is no reason to innovate or try. If they can't  compete, they should die. If I have to support workers with my tax money, I'd rather it be the workers collecting UI than have some loser company pay their executive bonuses and debts before paying the workers with my taxes. One only need look at Bombardier through the years. Every grant we gave them, they got worse and the Desmarais' and their executives got richer before shitcanning the whole thing and walking away with our taxes. But that's  just my opinion.


----------



## Brad Sallows (8 Jul 2021)

Not quite lazy.  Some people set up a business to collect subsidies as profits, run it until the subsidies are terminated and then fold the business.  Bonus points for the entrepreneurs who sell their stakes just before the subsidies are withdrawn.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (8 Jul 2021)

We shall see if the Investment into Algoma actually happens. Lots of issues to resolve before that becomes a reality, but good optics for the government. For 420m they can knock off 11% of their carbon goals for 2030 and all of Ontarios climate goal for 2030, nothing else they could put that money into would return anywhere near the carbon reductions that getting rid of the blast furnaces at Algoma would. 

That being said, nationally it is a stupid decision. Electric Arc Furnaces cannot produce steel only recycle it. Currently Algoma is the only steel plant in North America who can make armour plate. We also will still need all the products that Algoma currently produces but Algoma will no longer be able to make them if this happens (low to mid grade steels at best). So we would be buying from India or China (India being the most likely thanks to them getting all the recipes that Algoma owns when Essar owned that company) who doesn't use anywhere near the environmental controls we do and then ship it across the globe, also producing more emissions than just making it in Canada. 

The false environmentalism tires me. They need to come up with a serious discussion on it, with the largest part being reduction of purchases from countries who supply environmentally unfriendly products. Closing down a factory in Canada doesn't help the environment when we continue to purchase from countries who have no or next to no pollution controls. All this really results in is a weaker more dependent Canada who if we piss off our suppliers can destroy our economy and way of life with the flick of a switch.


----------



## Altair (8 Jul 2021)

Brad Sallows said:


> Not quite lazy.  Some people set up a business to collect subsidies as profits, run it until the subsidies are terminated and then fold the business.  Bonus points for the entrepreneurs who sell their stakes just before the subsidies are withdrawn.


Sometimes, it's better to be small organized and nimble than large and cumbersome.

Blackberry,  formally known as research in motion is a far better technology company with its focus on security than it was a cell phone maker.

Bombardier is far better and more profitable as a company focused on small business and personal jet aircraft than it was a train maker, medium sized business jets, and everything else it had its hands in.

Downsizing isn't always a bad thing.

Funny enough though.









						Alstom Flags Cash Burn From Lingering Bombardier ‘Skeletons’
					

Alstom SA Chief Executive Officer Henri Poupart-Lafarge expects costly and painful months ahead as the rail-equipment maker works to turn around the flagging operations of the Canadian rival it acquired.




					www.bloomberg.com
				








> Alstom SA Chief Executive Officer Henri Poupart-Lafarge expects costly and painful months ahead as the rail-equipment maker works to turn around the flagging operations of the Canadian rival it acquired.
> 
> Alstom is detailing on Tuesday a path for improving profitability for the combined group after the Bombardier deal was sealed in January. The French company is forecasting a cash drain in the first half of this year and a return to pre-acquisition margin levels only in the 2024-2025 fiscal year, according to a statement.


----------



## Lance Wiebe (8 Jul 2021)

Well, all signs seem to be pointing toward our PM asking the new GG to dissolve parliament so he can call an election.
I really hope the GG declines, but I suppose that's too much to wish for.
I've long given up on trying to decide which party/candidate is the best one to vote for, now I'm trying to figure out which party is the least worst.
I do know one thing, if our PM does get his wished for election, for no other reason than he's polling well, then I'll definitely not be voting for my liberal (until a short while ago, green) candidate.


----------



## MilEME09 (8 Jul 2021)

Lance Wiebe said:


> Well, all signs seem to be pointing toward our PM asking the new GG to dissolve parliament so he can call an election.
> I really hope the GG declines, but I suppose that's too much to wish for.
> I've long given up on trying to decide which party/candidate is the best one to vote for, now I'm trying to figure out which party is the least worst.
> I do know one thing, if our PM does get his wished for election, for no other reason than he's polling well, then I'll definitely not be voting for my liberal (until a short while ago, green) candidate.


I would laugh if the new GG turned around and first asked the CPC if they felt they had the confidence of the house to govern, bam new government and no election


----------



## Remius (8 Jul 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> I would laugh if the new GG turned around and first asked the CPC if they felt they had the confidence of the house to govern, bam new government and no election


Realistically, the CPC would have to get the the NDP and Bloc onside,  won’t happen.  A CPC gvt would fall fast and would not wear that well at all going into a general election.


----------



## YZT580 (8 Jul 2021)

Remius said:


> Realistically, the CPC would have to get the the NDP and Bloc onside,  won’t happen.  A CPC gvt would fall fast and would not wear that well at all going into a general election.


how is the ndp fund raising going.  that might influence their decision


----------



## brihard (8 Jul 2021)

Lance Wiebe said:


> Well, all signs seem to be pointing toward our PM asking the new GG to dissolve parliament so he can call an election.
> I really hope the GG declines, but I suppose that's too much to wish for.
> I've long given up on trying to decide which party/candidate is the best one to vote for, now I'm trying to figure out which party is the least worst.
> I do know one thing, if our PM does get his wished for election, for no other reason than he's polling well, then I'll definitely not be voting for my liberal (until a short while ago, green) candidate.


As others have said, GG can seek to determine if another party can form a government, but it would be unprecedented and inappropriate for the GG to simply decline a request for an election. We would have an immediate constitutional crisis on our hands. If the government wishes to call an election, then they basically get to. Nature of the system. The onus is on the opposition to try to suck less than they currently do, and actually make a contest of it.


----------



## Remius (8 Jul 2021)

YZT580 said:


> how is the ndp fund raising going.  that might influence their decision


Won’t matter when it comes to the CPC.  What is the CPC willing to cave into?  What would they be willing to give the bloc and NDP that won’t piss off their base?  The politics are too far to the right and left to be be aligned in any real or lasting way.  And how many donors would drop the NDP if they aligned with the CPC?


----------



## daftandbarmy (8 Jul 2021)

Remius said:


> Won’t matter when it comes to the CPC.  What is the CPC willing to cave into?  What would they be willing to give the bloc and NDP that won’t piss off their base?  The politics are too far to the right and left to be be aligned in any real or lasting way.  And how many donors would drop the NDP if they aligned with the CPC?



But the polls are showing the Liberals with a possible majority fo they call an election now.

You know, before the Post-COVID 19 shit show starts rolling and they have to wear it:

What are the chances of each party winning​46% - Probability of the Liberals winning a majority
46% - Probability of the Liberals winning the most seats but not a majority
8% -Probability of the Conservatives winning the most seats





			https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/elections/poll-tracker/canada/


----------



## YZT580 (9 Jul 2021)

Don't align just keep away from waving right wing red flags that Singh just can't agree to.  The NDP aren't going to be any more enamored with those polling figures than the conservatives so they might just buy it if they can keep it unofficial.  I know I would 'cause the polls indicate that they will lose even more seats.


----------



## suffolkowner (9 Jul 2021)

The PHAC/Government vs the Speaker/House would seem to offer the PM and the GG more than enough reason for an election. And more than enough of a reason to have a GG in place that was not also a Supreme court justice. At this point it is just a matter of timing. Get their pensions, vaccinate some more, bleed a bit more of the summer away, call election, be rewarded with majority. Of course the GG could refuse but rarely have our GG's pushed back publically and officially against a PM


----------



## MilEME09 (9 Jul 2021)

suffolkowner said:


> The PHAC/Government vs the Speaker/House would seem to offer the PM and the GG more than enough reason for an election. And more than enough of a reason to have a GG in place that was not also a Supreme court justice. At this point it is just a matter of timing. Get their pensions, vaccinate some more, bleed a bit more of the summer away, call election, be rewarded with majority. Of course the GG could refuse but rarely have our GG's pushed back publically and officially against a PM


Then again we seem to see a fair number of first nations politicians not playing ball with JT and the liberals, the new GG could take a more serious stance on official duties.


----------



## Altair (9 Jul 2021)

People seem to not have confidence in O'Toole running a great campaign and winning.

Regardless, I don't really see a Byng-King crisis 2.0 with a new GG.



			https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/King%25E2%2580%2593Byng_affair&ved=2ahUKEwig9M29i9XxAhVlnuAKHfuvAg0QFjAHegQICBAF&usg=AOvVaw3I7cWhMxpuKRiERNSmFQmU


----------



## Halifax Tar (9 Jul 2021)

Altair said:


> People seem to not have confidence in O'Toole running a great campaign and winning.



I don't see it.  O'Toole is a dud, like his predecessor. 

I predict a pretty easy Liberal majority.


----------



## OldSolduer (9 Jul 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> Then again we seem to see a fair number of first nations politicians not playing ball with JT and the liberals, the new GG could take a more serious stance on official duties.


It won't happen til JTs fair haired idiots qualify for a pension. 

Which brings me to this - many of us paid into a pension for 20+ years. 

Members of Parliament need six years to qualify for a very generous pension. Am I the only one who sees something wrong with this?


----------



## Haggis (9 Jul 2021)

OldSolduer said:


> Members of Parliament need six years to qualify for a very generous pension. Am I the only one who sees something wrong with this?


Many others do as well, but they don't care because they know that they can't change it.



Halifax Tar said:


> I predict a pretty easy Liberal majority.


A Liberal majority in the next election is pretty much a given at this point.  The Liberal election promises will ensure that the post-COVID-19 shit show is pushed far to the right.


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 Jul 2021)

Another interesting tea leaf to read:  Jody Wilson-Raybould not running ....


> Independent MP Jody Wilson-Raybould will not seek re-election in the next federal campaign, saying in a letter to her constituents on Thursday that Parliament has become “toxic and ineffective” during her time in politics.
> 
> “I have not made this decision in order to spend more time with my family or to focus on other challenges and pursuits,” the former Liberal cabinet minister who represents Vancouver Granville wrote in her letter posted to Twitter.
> 
> ...


More in a letter to constituents she shared via Twitter (attached).


----------



## Good2Golf (9 Jul 2021)

A loss for the wider effort to increase parliament’s and Government’s accountability, but her work with those peoples and communities closer to JWR will continue to be served by her dedication. 

Interesting to see Trudeau’s Twitter Apparatchik jump on JWR and slam her for running away…It’s almost as though Oscar Wilde had a time machine to jump forward to observe Trudeau & Co. then jump back and write _The Picture of Dorian Gray_.


----------



## suffolkowner (9 Jul 2021)

The Conservatives have been through this before until Harpers breakthrough and even then it would be hard to claim he was the most charismatic of people. The Liberals too with Ignatieff and Dion. Providing the voters with what they want is a bit of a crapshoot at the best of times


----------



## Altair (9 Jul 2021)

suffolkowner said:


> The Conservatives have been through this before until Harpers breakthrough and even then it would be hard to claim he was the most charismatic of people. The Liberals too with Ignatieff and Dion. Providing the voters with what they want is a bit of a crapshoot at the best of times


More like what the party wants and what the voters want isn't always the same thing.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (9 Jul 2021)

Using polling data to forecast election results is a step above meteorology and Tarot card reading.

In a lot of cases, they target specific demographics and its a a relatively small pool respondents.


----------



## Good2Golf (9 Jul 2021)

Altair said:


> More like what the party wants and what the voters want isn't always the same thing.


The CPC can bloodily well live with the impact of their party constitution, voting methodology and not voting for Peter MacKay…


----------



## suffolkowner (9 Jul 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> The CPC can bloodily well live with the impact of their party constitution, voting methodology and not voting for Peter MacKay…


Hard to say if MacKay would do better, it might have sent a better message, but I thought O'Toole would have performed better as well


----------



## Good2Golf (9 Jul 2021)

O’Toole is what happens when an asteroid crashes through the roof of the arena and wipes out the first line and the coach turns to his side and sees the second string sitting there with a hollow semi-smile on their face, hoping to get out into the game…


----------



## OldSolduer (9 Jul 2021)

I think the issue with O'Toole or even if McKay had been elected as leader of the CPC they are bound to the whim of the party brass. Just my two cents - with GST added.


----------



## Altair (9 Jul 2021)

rmc_wannabe said:


> Using polling data to forecast election results is a step above meteorology and Tarot card reading.
> 
> In a lot of cases, they target specific demographics and its a a relatively small pool respondents.











						The record so far | 338Canada
					






					338canada.com
				




Actually, sites like 338 and poll tracker are really accurate these days.



> The 338Canada / Qc125 model has thus far covered seven general elections in Canada: Ontario 2018*, *Quebec 2018, Alberta 2019, Canada 2019, New Brunswick 2020, British Columbia 2020, Saskatchewan 2020. In total, 871 electoral districts were projected by the model and has correctly identified the winner in 783 districts - a success rate of 90%






> As mentioned above, the correct winner was identified in 90% of all districts of these five general elections. Among the 88 remaining districts, 58 of the winners (6.5%) obtained a share of the vote that was within the projection's *margin of error (moe)*. Only 30 districts (3.5%) were complete misses.


----------



## MilEME09 (9 Jul 2021)

Wayne K. Spear: Thirty years in the making, Jody Wilson-Raybould has the last word with Justin Trudeau
					

She’s provided useful insight into a party that has sold itself as progressive, inclusive and feminist, while driving away female talent and retaining…




					nationalpost.com
				




I doubt this will effect their reelection chances


----------



## Jarnhamar (9 Jul 2021)

Trudeau could groupe JWR and his supporters would blame her for being where his hand was.

He's nailing a majority for sure.


----------



## Altair (9 Jul 2021)

Jarnhamar said:


> Trudeau could groupe JWR and his supporters would blame her for being where his hand was.
> 
> He's nailing a majority for sure.


I stated before that the CPC cannot win in urban centers with more than 2500 population density. 

That locks them out off 66 ridings.

They are also neck in neck with other parties in 76 of the top urban ridings in Canada, up to the top 76 until you get to safe CPC seat.

That has far less to do with just the leader and far more to do with the parties and their policies.

People are placing too much emphasis on Trudeau.


----------



## YZT580 (9 Jul 2021)

Altair said:


> I stated before that the CPC cannot win in urban centers with more than 2500 population density.
> 
> That locks them out off 66 ridings.
> 
> ...


Fully agree.  They also don't take into account the influence of journalism of all types.  Trudeau has been front and centre and lulling folks into thinking that everything will work out just fine: just trust him.  I believe that he could say nothing except good morning and it would convince many voters that all was ok.  People equate his appearance with good news while every time O'Toole shows up on the news he is bitching or complaining about something.  They never have him in a positive light and as Kennedy proved against Nixon, appearance is everything.


----------



## MilEME09 (9 Jul 2021)

Altair said:


> I stated before that the CPC cannot win in urban centers with more than 2500 population density.
> 
> That locks them out off 66 ridings.
> 
> ...


Problem with the CPC is much of the policy seems to be driven by the rural west, which isn't attractive to the majority of Canadians especially in urban centers like Toronto and Montreal. The CPC needs to shift its policies more center if it is to swing moderate and blue liberals to its flag.


----------



## Good2Golf (10 Jul 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> Problem with the CPC is much of the policy seems to be driven by the rural west, which isn't attractive to the majority of Canadians especially in urban centers like Toronto and Montreal. The CPC needs to shift its policies more center if it is to swing moderate and blue liberals to its flag.


That ship sailed when Harper screwed MacKay over on their deal.  Once the PCs were fully subsumed by the Reform/Canadian Alliance, any sense of _noblesse oblige_ was lost, and the majority of red Tories moved on to other things and the CPC now represents a smaller group, primarily rural.  The loss of the PC ties to more urban centres has all but tied the CPC’s fate to the image of angry white men screaming at modernity. O’Toole does that well.  I think we’re in for at least two more Liberal majorities, and when JT becomes bored, he may choose to hand off to Chrystia Freeland in 2025…


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 Jul 2021)

Altair said:


> People are placing too much emphasis on Trudeau.



Naw you're not giving him enough credit. He's got people enamored. 

That's why I say Canadians deserve a liberal majority.  They really ought to see their champion with his gloves off.


----------



## Halifax Tar (10 Jul 2021)

I know I'm a broken record but Rona Ambrose would and could beat JT.  

And I think she could drag the party, kicking and screening, back towards the center and capture those red tory / blue lib votes


----------



## MilEME09 (10 Jul 2021)

Halifax Tar said:


> I know I'm a broken record but Rona Ambrose would and could beat JT.
> 
> And I think she could drag the party, kicking and screening, back towards the center and capture those red tory / blue lib votes


michelle rempel I think would also be a decent choice but I agree, the constant older white male leadership of the CPC isn't doing them any favors. I wouldn't be surprised if we eventually saw a blue divorce and see the moderates leave the party.


----------



## daftandbarmy (10 Jul 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> michelle rempel I think would also be a decent choice but I agree, the constant older white male leadership of the CPC *and the influence of the cray cray religious right* isn't doing them any favors. I wouldn't be surprised if we eventually saw a blue divorce and see the moderates leave the party.



There, FTFY


----------



## The Bread Guy (10 Jul 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> ... I wouldn't be surprised if we eventually saw a blue divorce and see the moderates leave the party.


I'd guess it's the harder-right-end-of-the-spectrum members who may be more likely to pack up and make their own Team Blue 2.0


----------



## MilEME09 (10 Jul 2021)

The Bread Guy said:


> I'd guess it's the harder-right-end-of-the-spectrum members who may be more likely to pack up and make their own Team Blue 2.0


You mean the people's party? Or did we already forget about them? Would do the CPC a favor if more flocked to that party


----------



## Altair (10 Jul 2021)

Jarnhamar said:


> Naw you're not giving him enough credit. He's got people enamored.
> 
> That's why I say Canadians deserve a liberal majority.  They really ought to see their champion with his gloves off.


So you are of the belief that in 66 ridings that have a population density of 2500/km² going to the Bloc, the NDP, the Liberals, and none to the CPC is that Trudeau is the leader?

Of the 66 ridings that have a pop density of 2500/km², 54 went LPC. I think 11 went NDP, and 1 went bloc. And the common denominator here is that Trudeau has people enamored?

No, sorry, that makes no sense.

The common denominator here is the CPC cannot win in the most urban areas of Canada. And Canada is getting increasingly urban. This is a structural problem for the CPC. Case in point, the most urban areas of Alberta are starting to become competitive for the NDP and the LPC.









						338Canada | Projection per population density
					






					338canada.com
				




Edmonton Griesbach-NDP within 2 points

Calgary Center-LPC ahead in the polls by 3 points

Edmonton Mill Woods- LPC ahead in the polls by 5 points

Edmonton Center- LPC ahead by 6 points

What do all of these have in common? All are approaching the 2500/km² threshold

Edmonton Griesbach-2,443 / km²

Calgary Center-2,422 / km²

Edmonton Center-2,422 / km²

Edmonton Mill Woods- 2,306 / km²

The more urban an area is, the less likely the CPC is able to win there, even in Alberta. That has less to do with Trudeau (the bloc and the NDP are also winning where the CPC cannot) and more to do with urban areas being more progressive politically, and the CPC not having a platform that appeals to urban Canada.

Much better theory than Hurr durr, Trudeau has nice hair people enamored.


----------



## Altair (10 Jul 2021)

Halifax Tar said:


> I know I'm a broken record but Rona Ambrose would and could beat JT.


I think she could beat Trudeau. 


Halifax Tar said:


> And I think she could drag the party, kicking and screening, back towards the center and capture those red tory / blue lib votes


I don't think she wants to do that. It would win her the election, but I don't think anyone wants the task of dragging the CPC to the center. O'Toole has tried and all he got for his effort is a rejection of climate change being real at the party convention.


----------



## MilEME09 (10 Jul 2021)

Altair said:


> So you are of the belief that in 66 ridings that have a population density of 2500/km² going to the Bloc, the NDP, the Liberals, and none to the CPC is that Trudeau is the leader?
> 
> Of the 66 ridings that have a pop density of 2500/km², 54 went LPC. I think 11 went NDP, and 1 went bloc. And the common denominator here is that Trudeau has people enamored?
> 
> ...


It shows in provincial politics too, the rise of the NDP in Alberta was due to urban ridings, the Alberta party also has gained seats and attraction. The conservatives are increasing becoming disconnected from main stream Canadians,  this will only get worse as time goes on unless a major shake up happens for the cpc.


----------



## Altair (10 Jul 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> It shows in provincial politics too, the rise of the NDP in Alberta was due to urban ridings, the Alberta party also has gained seats and attraction. The conservatives are increasing becoming disconnected from main stream Canadians,  this will only get worse as time goes on unless a major shake up happens for the cpc.


The CPC is trying to catch the 2011 lightning in a bottle that happened when the LPC had a historically weak leader, the NDP had a extraordinary breakthrough, and the suburbs went CPC because they were scared of the NDP.

But Canada in 2021 is not Canada in 2011, and the suburbs are increasingly just extensions of Urban metropolitan areas, and the politics in the suburbs are shifting accordingly. The Liberals do not have a weak leader, despite what people may think of Trudeau, and the NDP are not breaking through in Quebec again, anytime soon, as the NDP could not hold on to their Quebec nationalist bloc and with Singh, fully capitulated that faction back to the BQ. The BQ, having had the NDP almost kill them, will never allow themselves to be outflanked on the Quebec Nationalism front ever again. The LPC, who had the NDP outflank them on the left, will never allow for that to happen again, and almost always chases down the NDP vote now, dragging the LPC more and more to the left. 

The CPC is the only one running the 2011 playbook now, hoping for a strong NDP, winning the suburbs, the west, and rural Canada and hoping that is enough to win. And I just don't see it working in 2021, or the years going forward. 

The LPC adjusted after 2011

The BQ adjusted after 2011.

The NDP adjusted after 2015

The CPC need to adjust.


----------



## dapaterson (10 Jul 2021)

Almost as if being a one note "Conservative" party doesn't land with Canadians.  Almost as if they want... to move forward in some way.  To show Progress...


----------



## brihard (10 Jul 2021)

Jarnhamar said:


> Naw you're not giving him enough credit. He's got people enamored.
> 
> That's why I say Canadians deserve a liberal majority.  They really ought to see their champion with his gloves off.


Don’t forget, they had one from 2015-19.



The Bread Guy said:


> I'd guess it's the harder-right-end-of-the-spectrum members who may be more likely to pack up and make their own Team Blue 2.0


That tantrum happened already. It failed miserably and their leader was relegated from Member of Parliament to irrelevant antivaxer hangaround on Twitter.


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 Jul 2021)

Altair said:


> So you are of the belief that in 66 ridings that have a population density of 2500/km² going to the Bloc, the NDP, the Liberals, and none to the CPC is that Trudeau is the leader?


Absolutely.


Altair said:


> Much better theory than Hurr durr, Trudeau has nice hair people enamored.


I don't think so. 



brihard said:


> Don’t forget, they had one from 2015-19.


True but now they really have an appreciation for just how much they can get away with.


----------



## blacktriangle (10 Jul 2021)

Ultimately, if Canadians want to elect a Liberal government, they should. That's the whole point of our democracy, isn't it? It would just be nice if that Liberal government could bring Canadians a little more transparency, with a little less corruption and double standards. And not destroy our economy or turn us into Venezuela while they're at it.

It doesn't seem like most Canadians want a Conservative government. Fair enough. I just wish Canadians could find a way to ask for a better Liberal one. That, to me, is the real problem.


----------



## Altair (10 Jul 2021)

Jarnhamar said:


> Absolutely.


Why would people vote bloc and NDP because of Trudeau?


Jarnhamar said:


> I don't think so.


You can hate on Trudeau all you want, but they only won 54 of the 66 ridings with 2500/km² population density. You cannot explain the other 12. Going down another 10 ridings, the CPC are in 4 close races, those 4 being in the two Alberta Urban areas, so 76 ridings, the break down is 8 LPC, 1 NDP, and 1 CPC, according to the polls. So 76 of the most urban ridings in Canada, 62 LPC, 12 NDP, 1 Bloc, and then at 76 you get your first safe CPC seat, Richmond Center. 

There is more going on here than Trudeau, this is the CPC failing at being competative in urban Canada and having 8 out 10 Canadians living in a urban municipalities.


----------



## Altair (10 Jul 2021)

blacktriangle said:


> Ultimately, if Canadians want to elect a Liberal government, they should. That's the whole point of our democracy, isn't it? It would just be nice if that Liberal government could bring Canadians a little more transparency, with a little less corruption and double standards. And not destroy our economy or turn us into Venezuela while they're at it.
> 
> It doesn't seem like most Canadians want a Conservative government. Fair enough. I just wish Canadians could find a way to ask for a better Liberal one. That, to me, is the real problem.


The real problem is the Conservatives not providing a viable alternative. 

Lets face facts, the LPC doesn't need to be particularly competent, particularly innovative, transparent, or anything else we associate with good government if they know that they get reelected regardless because the CPC just doesn't have a path to victory. Its human nature, you see it in sports, you see it in monopolies. Once someone is so far ahead of the game with little competition they just start to coast and bad habits set in.

The only thing keeping the LPC on their toes these days is the NDP finding programs that are popular to the public and not scary enough to turn them off. And the LPC seem to just use the NDP as a think tank and steal said ideas.

That's it. The CPC need to figure out how to become competitive again, and not just hand 20 percent of the ridings in Canada away to everyone but them. Until then the LPC can just coast along.


----------



## suffolkowner (10 Jul 2021)

The Conservatives really need to find a way to appeal to a greater selection of the population for the health of our democracy in my opinion. It even get worse if more NDP support bleeds to the Liberals. 
I don't really understand the Liberal/Conservative:Urban/Rural divide as I've been rural all my life but then I don't describe myself as a Liberal or Conservative supporter


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 Jul 2021)

blacktriangle said:


> It doesn't seem like most Canadians want a Conservative government.


If you're looking at votes per party the conservatives beat out the liberals but a couple hundred thousand votes.

Bigger picture it's a 3+1 vs 1.


----------



## Altair (10 Jul 2021)

suffolkowner said:


> The Conservatives really need to find a way to appeal to a greater selection of the population for the health of our democracy in my opinion. It even get worse if more NDP support bleeds to the Liberals.
> I don't really understand the Liberal/Conservative:Urban/Rural divide as I've been rural all my life but then I don't describe myself as a Liberal or Conservative supporter


Some issues play out differently depending on where you live.

Gun control for example. Gun control plays well in urban areas spooked by drive bys, gang hits, street crime. It plays poorly in rural places where people use guns for hunting and personal protection. The CPC has a bulk of its MPs from Rural ridings, and in the interest of representing their constituents they blast any effort of gun control, maybe not understanding that this plays poorly in the cities.

Environment is another. In the big cities, where there is broad based support for climate policies, because those economies are not as tied to natural resources or agriculture are rural Canada, things like a carbon tax play well. In rural Canada where carbon emissions  may simply be a cost of doing business, it plays poorly. So you have the CPC blasting the carbon tax, and putting forward flimsy climate plans in their place, and this plays poorly in Urban Canada.

Pipelines, CPC wants pipelines built everywhere in Canada. This helps oil producing rural Canada. Urban Canada does not care for that, they don't want it. Yet you have the CPC out there banging the drum for pipelines.

On almost every wedge issue, the CPC comes out in support of rural Canada, but Rural Canada is largely 2 out of 10 Canadians, Urban Canada is 8 out of 10.

So no matter which way you slice it, there are not enough rural Canadians for the CPC to win, and even split 2 ways between the NDP and LPC, the LPC has enough to win.

Then add in demographics and the situation gets even more dire for the CPC. Only 22 percent of Canadian women would consider voting for the CPC, compared to 40 percent for the LPC and 25 percent for the NDP. I do not know the reasons for this, but I think the angry white male thing the CPC has going on doesn't exactly play well with women.

But I am damned if I know what the CPC needs to do to correct this. Do they advocate for more gun control? Do they come out with a aggressive form of their own carbon tax? Do they disown pipelines? If they do this, at what point does the right wing of the CPC break off? At what point do they become a weird slightly more conservative version of the Liberals?

I don't know the answer, but what I do know is that the current approach isn't working. We shall see what the election brings, and if it is a LPC majority or near majority for 4 years, if the LPC gathers enough baggage to bring about a need for change. Even then, the CPC needs a better strategy than just waiting aboot until the LPC are unpopular enough that their supporters stay home or go NDP/Green in enough numbers to allow them the win the vote split.


----------



## Good2Golf (10 Jul 2021)

Altair said:


> The real problem is the Conservatives not providing a viable alternative.
> 
> Lets face facts, the LPC doesn't need to be particularly competent, particularly innovative, transparent, or anything else we associate with good government if they know that they get reelected regardless because the CPC just doesn't have a path to victory.


Incompetency or failure of the CPC to understand anything other than it’s own bickering tribes in no way absolves the LPC from providing Canadians with the best government they can.  Just because the PM can deflect multiple ethical violations like he is coated in Teflon, or the government get away with a shadowed, non-transparent governance, doesn’t mean they should…or at least they shouldn’t have the gall to claim they are the most ethically principled and transparent government in ages.

$0.02



Altair said:


> That's it. The CPC need to figure out how to become competitive again, and not just hand 20 percent of the ridings in Canada away to everyone but them. Until then the LPC can just coast along.



Coasting may be their pragmatic choice, but Canadians deserve better!


----------



## suffolkowner (10 Jul 2021)

Draw a line a long the French river in Ontario and carry it through Quebec and that plus the Maritimes can be one Canada and the rest can be new Canada


----------



## Altair (10 Jul 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> Incompetency or failure of the CPC to understand anything other than it’s own bickering tribes in no way absolves the LPC from providing Canadians with the best government they can.  Just because the PM can deflect multiple ethical violations like he is coated in Teflon, or the government get away with a shadowed, non-transparent governance, doesn’t mean they should…or at least they shouldn’t have the gall to claim they are the most ethically principled and transparent government in ages.
> 
> $0.02


You're right of course. 


Good2Golf said:


> Coasting may be their pragmatic choice, but Canadians deserve better!


Agreed.


----------



## Altair (10 Jul 2021)

suffolkowner said:


> Draw a line a long the French river in Ontario and carry it through Quebec and that plus the Maritimes can be one Canada and the rest can be new Canada


I always laugh at this, because BC doesn't seem to like being lumped in with Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. 

The biggest opponent to pipelines going to the pacific seems to be British Columbia, no?


----------



## suffolkowner (10 Jul 2021)

Altair said:


> I always laugh at this, because BC doesn't seem to like being lumped in with Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba.
> 
> The biggest opponent to pipelines going to the pacific seems to be British Columbia, no?


To certain extent yes but again it depends on what part I think. The BC I know doesn't have a problem with pipelines. Give Vancouver to the states and will see if it changes anything. The problem isn't necessarily of 80% of the population making the rules for all its the 80% of the country in 20% of the area making the rules for the other 80% of the area when the don't care to understand or suffer the consequences.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (10 Jul 2021)

Altair said:


> I always laugh at this, because BC doesn't seem to like being lumped in with Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba.
> 
> The biggest opponent to pipelines going to the pacific seems to be British Columbia, no?


Just the Lower Mainland, resource projects is what keeps BC alive and jobs for the smaller communities and First Nations.









						Celebrating a milestone: Completion of the Murray River Horizontal Directional Drill sets TC Energy record
					

Approximately 670 kilometres in length, the Coastal GasLink pipeline will safely deliver natural gas from the Dawson Creek area to the LNG Canada facility near Kitimat, B.C.



					www.coastalgaslink.com


----------



## Altair (10 Jul 2021)

suffolkowner said:


> To certain extent yes but again it depends on what part I think. The BC I know doesn't have a problem with pipelines. Give Vancouver to the states and will see if it changes anything. The problem isn't necessarily of 80% of the population making the rules for all its the 80% of the country in 20% of the area making the rules for the other 80% of the area when the don't care to understand or suffer the consequences.





Colin Parkinson said:


> Just the Lower Mainland, resource projects is what keeps BC alive and jobs for the smaller communities and First Nations.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hmmm.



			https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/elections/british-columbia/2020/results/
		



NDP 57 seats, 899,365 votes

Liberals (Conservatives really, and even they are so so on pipelines) 28 seats, 636,726 votes

Greens 2 seats, 284,312 votes.

So the anti pipeline parties have 59 seats out of 87 seats, and 1,183,677 out of 1,820,403 voters.

So....no.


----------



## Brad Sallows (10 Jul 2021)

> The biggest opponent to pipelines going to the pacific seems to be British Columbia, no?



Not exactly.  Coastal British Columbians like just enough pipeline capacity to meet their own needs.


----------



## suffolkowner (10 Jul 2021)

But 17CON-11LIB-11NDP-2GRN-1 in the last in the last federal election with a super bad conservative leader and still 34%. BC politics is probably the last place one would make bets on


----------



## Good2Golf (10 Jul 2021)

Brad Sallows said:


> Not exactly.  Coastal British Columbians like just enough pipeline capacity to meet their own needs.


Yet they don’t mind complaining about high gas prices when they don’t get the flow rate right….


----------



## Altair (10 Jul 2021)

suffolkowner said:


> But 17CON-11LIB-11NDP-2GRN-1 in the last in the last federal election with a super bad conservative leader and still 34%. BC politics is probably the last place one would make bets on


17 to 25. That's a bet I would make. 

34 to 66. That's a bet I would make. 

This whole lets make a new Canada out west thing, or Alberta separating, its all suffering from one sad fact. BC is more left leaning than right, and the 66/34 split, that 25/17 split, that 59/28 split is always going to make sure that BC west coast is more akin to the Quebec City to Windsor corridor than the Edmonton/Calgary to Thunder Bay expanse. 

Make a new Canada out of Alberta Saskatchewan and Manitoba? Fine. BC isn't going along with it, still landlocked, still have no pipelines to tidewater, and now you have hostile neighbors on both sides of you, and a USA that depending on which party is in power, isn't going to be allowing things such as pipelines. And if you thought getting pipelines was hard from within confederation, good luck from outside.

Good job west, you done screwed yourself. 

That's why I laugh whenever I hear that brought up. Quebec at least has access to the Atlantic.


----------



## suffolkowner (10 Jul 2021)

Its not the west though its just as much a urban/rural divide which you yourself has defined. I know lots of people in Ontario that would give the 401 corridor up. BC is 70% Cons by area and 95% is Skeena-Buckley flipped. So you can add 70% of Ontario and 70% of BC to the new Canada. If the prairies were a separate country the pipeline equation would change to as now the ROC would be denying a country access. The US gets away with it with Canada because there is no pushback but theres no way that would fly between a Prairie/New Canada vs Old Canada dispute


----------



## Altair (10 Jul 2021)

suffolkowner said:


> Its not the west though its just as much a urban/rural divide which you yourself has defined. I know lots of people in Ontario that would give the 401 corridor up. BC is 70% Cons by area and 95% is Skeena-Buckley flipped. So you can add 70% of Ontario and 70% of BC to the new Canada. If the prairies were a separate country the pipeline equation would change to as now the ROC would be denying a country access. The US gets away with it with Canada because there is no pushback but theres no way that would fly between a Prairie/New Canada vs Old Canada dispute


Except that's now how things work, is it?

Rural Quebec would have gone for separation in 95 and Urban Quebec wouldn't have, but provincial decisions are done on a whole.

So on a whole, Ontario is staying put, as is BC. And that is just the problem the CPC has. Rural Canada doesn't have the population to compete with Urban Canada, and Canada continues to get more urban every year that goes by. For all the landmass that the CPC can win, its people that decide elections.

So circling back to the Urban Rural divide, the CPC needs to start winning in the top 70 urban ridings in Canada. I just don't see how they can be competitive without making inroads there. And god forbid another redrawing of the electoral map happens, because all its going to do really is add more ridings in urban areas. The math isn't going to be getting better in the years ahead, it's going to be getting worse.

Edit: I just checked, the ridings are redone every 10 years after the census, so we are due for another one shortly.

According to elections Canada, the next redistribution process will begin with receipt of the 2021 decennial census return


----------



## suffolkowner (10 Jul 2021)

Altair said:


> Except that's now how things work, is it?


They don't work that way until they do. 

Do I think any separation is going to happen? No I don't, not Quebec, not Alberta, not anything else.

But I'm not big on some idiot from any city not just Toronto complaining about my cows mooing. Or telling me how many dogs I can own, or what firearm I can own or how to keep it and then complaining when their $4000 Shitzu gets eaten by a coyote. So I like pipelines but also like carbon taxes and am pretty Pro-Choice and believe in decriminalization of drugs and that murderers and rapists and pedophiles should never see the light of day again. So it does piss me off that the Conservatives do not look like they will get their act together and we will be stuck with Liberal governments for the foreseeable future. I don't believe we have seen anything yet from Trudeau and company with another mandate the progressive wokeness will reach even greater depths of absurdity


----------



## Weinie (10 Jul 2021)

Altair said:


> Except that's now how things work, is it?
> 
> *Rural Quebec would have gone for separation in 95 and Urban Quebec wouldn't have, but provincial decisions are done on a whole.*
> 
> ...


One of the questions asked during the run-up to the 95 referendum (and after)  was "Why was Canada divisible, but Quebec borders were considered sacrosanct/inviolable? Why does the 905 region, which is vastly different in political thinking, be the main determinant in election after election.? I get it that one person, one vote, and that urban regions have more people, in a first past the post system. I think we all acknowledge that the urban/rural divide is real, which means that rural will likely always lose to urban. Why should that not have been the principle applied in a Quebec separation scenario?

Perhaps the PM, after looking at the polls in 2017, decided to walk away from proportional representation, and realize that he had a good thing going.


----------



## Good2Golf (10 Jul 2021)

suffolkowner said:


> Its not the west though its just as much a urban/rural divide which you yourself has defined. I know lots of people in Ontario that would give the 401 corridor up. BC is 70% Cons by area and 95% is Skeena-Buckley flipped. So you can add 70% of Ontario and 70% of BC to the new Canada. If the prairies were a separate country the pipeline equation would change to as now the ROC would be denying a country access. The US gets away with it with Canada because there is no pushback but theres no way that would fly between a Prairie/New Canada vs Old Canada dispute


The US “gets away with it” because Canada is not a land-locked state.

In your “Prarie/New Canada” scenario, natural gas and oil pipelines do not have default acceptance under the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), Part X, Article 124, Para 2 refers:


> 2. Land-locked States and transit States may, *by agreement between them*, include as means of transport pipelines and gas lines and means of transport other than those included in paragraph 1.



So ‘New Canada’ would have to agree to allow Prairies transit use of pipelines…by default, a land-locked state has only default access to road, water routes, rail and porters and pack animals, explicitly…


> 1.(d) "means of transport" means:
> 
> (i) railway rolling stock, sea, lake and river craft and road vehicles;
> 
> (ii) where local conditions so require, porters and pack animals.​


There is no internationally endorsed manner for a land-locked state to unilaterally force a transit nation to build or allow the construction of a pipeline external to the land-locked state’s own territory.


----------



## brihard (10 Jul 2021)

Altair said:


> 17 to 25. That's a bet I would make.
> 
> 34 to 66. That's a bet I would make.
> 
> ...


And this is before the indigenous get a say. You would see vast swaths of the prairies covered by treaties that would have no interest in leaving Canada. That would tie the whole thing up in litigation for decades.


----------



## suffolkowner (10 Jul 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> The US “gets away with it” because Canada is not a land-locked state.
> 
> In your “Prarie/New Canada” scenario, natural gas and oil pipelines do not have default acceptance under the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), Part X, Article 124, Para 2 refers:
> 
> ...


Thanks GTG I thought there was maybe something more there.

Of course my New Canada would include the North Coast of BC. But like I said I don't expect anything to actually happen but the two communities are only going to grow further and further apart and this is bound to create greater strains


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 Jul 2021)

We should give every First Nation in Canada a seat in Parliament.


----------



## Weinie (10 Jul 2021)

Jarnhamar said:


> We should give every First Nation in Canada a seat in Parliament.


There are, I believe, 634 First Nations in Canada. Doing so would swell the Parliament to 972 seats. FN's represent a little over five percent of Canada's population, yet if they voted as a bloc, they would control the other 95% of the population.


----------



## Altair (10 Jul 2021)

suffolkowner said:


> Thanks GTG I thought there was maybe something more there.
> 
> Of course my New Canada would include the North Coast of BC. But like I said I don't expect anything to actually happen but the two communities are only going to grow further and further apart and this is bound to create greater strains


My new Canada includes the North coast of BC is like Quebec  separatists saying they would continue to use the Canadian dollar and have a say in Canadian monetary policy.

A pipe dream that makes the idea more feasible,  but no less of a pipe dream.


----------



## Good2Golf (10 Jul 2021)

suffolkowner said:


> Thanks GTG I thought there was maybe something more there.
> 
> Of course my New Canada would include the North Coast of BC. But like I said I don't expect anything to actually happen but the two communities are only going to grow further and further apart and this is bound to create greater strains


Don’t get me wrong SO, my roots are from the prairies and most of my cousins work oil&gas.  However, until the Tories (not that they’re really Tories anymore) sort themselves out to think more than an inch past the party membership’s noses, we’re going to keep getting more of what we’ve had for the last 5-1/2 years… 😔


----------



## suffolkowner (10 Jul 2021)

Altair said:


> My new Canada includes the North coast of BC is like Quebec  separatists saying they would continue to use the Canadian dollar and have a say in Canadian monetary policy.
> 
> A pipe dream that makes the idea more feasible,  but no less of a pipe dream.


I never said it wasn't a pipe dream, actually I never said it was a pipe dream. It's more of a pipe nightmare.

There's nothing to stop an Quebec from using the Canadian dollar



Good2Golf said:


> Don’t get me wrong SO, my roots are from the prairies and most of my cousins work oil&gas.  However, until the Tories (not that they’re really Tories anymore) sort themselves out to think more than an inch past the party membership’s noses, we’re going to keep getting more of what we’ve had for the last 5-1/2 years… 😔



Yeah and I haven't heard any real ideas on improving that situation just everyone doubling down as they surround themselves with their echo chambers


----------



## brihard (10 Jul 2021)

suffolkowner said:


> I never said it wasn't a pipe dream, actually I never said it was a pipe dream. It's more of a pipe nightmare.
> 
> There's nothing to stop an Quebec from using the Canadian dollar
> 
> ...


Surprisingly apropos given that it literally stems from dreaming about pipes.


----------



## Altair (10 Jul 2021)

suffolkowner said:


> I never said it wasn't a pipe dream, actually I never said it was a pipe dream. It's more of a pipe nightmare.


It would be a nightmare for almost all of North America.


suffolkowner said:


> There's nothing to stop an Quebec from using the Canadian dollar


No, they could just buy and use it, same as any other currency.

But a manufacturing economy tied to a oil and gas one would lead to the Quebec economy going through a wild ride.


----------



## Brad Sallows (11 Jul 2021)

Fucking people over works both ways.  CN and CP rail both pass through the prairies.  BC doesn't get all its oil from Alaska.


----------



## Altair (11 Jul 2021)

Brad Sallows said:


> Fucking people over works both ways.  CN and CP rail both pass through the prairies.  BC doesn't get all its oil from Alaska.


In a race to the bottom, the prairies get the shaft way harder.

Besides, Canada has access to US rail lines.

And NAFTA.

Long term Canada has short term pain, then adjusts. Independent prairies is stuck permanently behind the 8 ball.

In terms of separatist movements, the prairies has one of the worst justification and geography.

Are they a historical oppressed minority group that has a local majority? No.

Were they independent in the past? No.

Are they far removed from their mother country? No.

Do they have access to the sea? No.

Are they presently being oppressed by the majority group in their nation? Well, Trudeau shitcanned a pipeline heading east and put in a carbon tax.

I mean...sorry, I'm too busy laughing.


----------



## The Bread Guy (11 Jul 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> You mean the people's party? Or did we already forget about them? Would do the CPC a favor if more flocked to that party


Them, and maybe some others that might even find Max & Co. not hardcore enough.  

As for any favours that might do to the party, I think splitting the conservative vote would only let Team Red more easily zoom up the middle.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (11 Jul 2021)

Altair said:


> Hmmm.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


We still have two major pipelines under construction, along with myriad of smaller segments that never make the news. So far only 1 pipeline that was viable has been shot down, regardless what the parties say. Reality bites when they get in and realize that Vancouver can not carry the Province on it's own.


----------



## FSTO (11 Jul 2021)

Altair said:


> In a race to the bottom, the prairies get the shaft way harder.
> 
> Besides, Canada has access to US rail lines.
> 
> ...


Unable to see Hudson Bay through your tears?


----------



## Brad Sallows (11 Jul 2021)

The determination to believe that the commodities exported from the prairies can simply be swept aside or find space on US tracks is merely amusing.  The people without jobs moving goods - and there will be many - will be vocal, as will the consumers.  I'd guess that less than a week after gasoline storage tanks in BC run dry, a west coast accommodation is reached.


----------



## brihard (11 Jul 2021)

I think this discussion took a turn towards the stupid when it shifted from the issue of pipelines that don’t presently exist to rail lines that do.

If, let’s just indulge the fantasy, AB, SK and MB decided to vote for sovereignty, it’s entirely reasonable to point out that they will not have Atlantic or Pacific Ocean access in terms that they can dictate. They still would not have the pipelines they want. It’s equally reasonable to expect that freight rail would continue pretty much as per- but that a ‘remainder of Canada’ may not be amenable to increasing oil by rail shipments. Now, they would of course have a long US border, but as we’ve seen, that can be fickle too.

While a major effort could be made to expand infrastructure to Churchill and grow the port to handle mass oil, there would be tremendous challenges with this.

And we continue to pretend the indigenous aren’t there and don’t have a say.


----------



## MilEME09 (11 Jul 2021)

brihard said:


> While a major effort could be made to expand infrastructure to Churchill and grow the port to handle mass oil, there would be tremendous challenges with this.
> 
> And we continue to pretend the indigenous aren’t there and don’t have a say.


True but if we get it right, especially factoring in climate change, a LNG or oil terminal in or around Churchill would be an economic boom to the local economy. The jobs created for FN could help lift many bands into higher income thresholds. However it would need to be done right via consultation


----------



## brihard (11 Jul 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> True but if we get it right, especially factoring in climate change, a LNG or oil terminal in or around Churchill would be an economic boom to the local economy. The jobs created for FN could help lift many bands into higher income thresholds. However it would need to be done right via consultation


I don’t just mean regarding the port, I mean the entire venture of a sovereign prairie Canada. Given that the treaties are with the crown, not with the provinces, I remain convinced that sovereigntists want to simply ignore the question of the indigenous because it becomes damnably complicated and awkward as soon as someone puts that on the table.

I will maintain my conviction that a separation of some or all of the prairies is a fantasy, and will never be a reality.


----------



## PuckChaser (11 Jul 2021)

brihard said:


> I will maintain my conviction that a separation of some or all of the prairies is a fantasy, and will never be a reality.


Just like Quebec Nationalism, but we indulge that fantasy on a daily basis.


----------



## Kirkhill (11 Jul 2021)

Weinie said:


> One of the questions asked during the run-up to the 95 referendum (and after)  was "Why was Canada divisible, but Quebec borders were considered sacrosanct/inviolable? Why does the 905 region, which is vastly different in political thinking, be the main determinant in election after election.? I get it that one person, one vote, and that urban regions have more people, in a first past the post system. I think we all acknowledge that the urban/rural divide is real, which means that rural will likely always lose to urban. Why should that not have been the principle applied in a Quebec separation scenario?
> 
> Perhaps the PM, after looking at the polls in 2017, decided to walk away from proportional representation, and realize that he had a good thing going.




I think if you take a look Indigenous lands, when recognized have traditional boundaries that follow terrain features: rivers, valleys, ridgelines, swamp boundaries....   Settler lands are defined by administrative boundaries, straight lines and right angles plunked down in the middle of no place by somebody with a map.   Those boundaries have yet to be debated in the same courts as the Eurasian and Indigenous boundaries.

That debate has yet to happen.  Nothing is indivisible and forever is a long time.


----------



## brihard (11 Jul 2021)

PuckChaser said:


> Just like Quebec Nationalism, but we indulge that fantasy on a daily basis.



I differentiate ‘nationalism’ from ‘sovereignty’. The latter is the fantasy arising out of the former.


----------



## RangerRay (11 Jul 2021)

About politics in British Columbia…

Polling has consistently shown that British Columbians support pipelines. The reason the NDP fought against (and lost) Trans Mountain was because they were propped up by the Greens at the time. The Greens made opposition to Trans Mountain a condition for support. Before that, they favoured Trans Mountain over other proposals.

Also, it is a fallacy that BC is some kind of left-wing utopia (not withstanding large vocal pockets that make it seem otherwise). Having said that, it is not “conservative” either. Since the 1940’s, BC has been led by free-enterprise coalitions of Liberals and Conservatives (including during Socred and BC Liberals).  Even WAC Bennett was not more socially conservative than the mainstream at the time.  While the coalition embraces restraint, deregulation and privatization, they avoid social issues like the plague. They often forget that free-enterprise capitalism does not equal crony capitalism.

The NDP win when the coalition collapses. Horgan’s first victory was because people tired of the corrupt stench of the Campbell/Clark years. His second victory was due to moderate pragmatic governance (not withstanding illogical opposition to Trans Mountain) and the BC Liberals failing to renew themselves. They chose a Gordon Campbell clone with less charisma when they could have chosen the dynamic and popular former mayor of Surrey.

Until recently, it was a 60/40 Lib-Con/NDP split. Will the BC Liberals find a new leader that can reunite their coalition?  Dunno.

British Columbians’ attitude towards the rest of Canada would that of bemused disinterest. They have no desire to separate but view the going’s on in the rest of the country no different as those to the south of us.


----------



## MilEME09 (11 Jul 2021)

brihard said:


> I differentiate ‘nationalism’ from ‘sovereignty’. The latter is the fantasy arising out of the former.


Part of the issue is we keep catering to Quebec on issues like language, resources issues, etc..  

Constitution puts out that cross border infrastructure like pipelines is federal, but yet if Quebec says no suddenly we have to listen, but if BC says no, keeps going.

We let them get away with hypocrisy every day, it's time to Crack the whip, we all have brought up the Feds over reaching on the provinces but usually not the opposite.

If it was upto me department of fisheries and oceans would be fining Montreal every day and any other municipality that's dumping raw sewage in our water ways, a 1st world country shouldn't be beyond proper waste water treatment


----------



## Good2Golf (12 Jul 2021)

RangerRay said:


> …British Columbians’ attitude towards the rest of Canada would that of bemused disinterest. They have no desire to separate but view the going’s on in the rest of the country no different as those to the south of us.


Until they feel it’s time to complain about high gas prices and how they’re being gouged by their neighbouring provinces… 😭


----------



## Halifax Tar (12 Jul 2021)

RangerRay said:


> British Columbians’ attitude towards the rest of Canada would that of bemused disinterest. They have no desire to separate but view the going’s on in the rest of the country no different as those to the south of us.



I would argue that's pretty similar to just about every region of this country.


----------



## Brad Sallows (12 Jul 2021)

Western separation is highly unlikely, more so than QC separation.

A separating entity would decide its own laws and could erase the board and start over if it wanted to, presumably trying to avoid repeating Canadian mistakes.  Canada, for itself, would have to decide what to do about its citizens and their claims under Canadian laws and programs.


----------



## Good2Golf (12 Jul 2021)

Brad Sallows said:


> Western separation is highly unlikely, more so than QC separation.
> 
> A separating entity would decide its own laws and could erase the board and start over if it wanted to, presumably trying to avoid repeating Canadian mistakes.  Canada, for itself, would have to decide what to do about its citizens and their claims under Canadian laws and programs.


…as well as decide if it wanted to allow the separating state to have any input into canadian fiscal policy, should the separating state desire to continue using Canadian currency vice establishing its own central currency.  The re’s no guarantee (nor should there be) that a separate state would have any say in Canada’s monetary policies. Said state could very well be along for the ride, as it were.  It could, of course, choose to align itself with another nation’s central currency: USD, RMB, GBP, etc…


----------



## ModlrMike (12 Jul 2021)

It's not just western alienation though. It's a concentration on all urban ridings, at the expense of rural. MPs that bring in the bucks and the votes are focused on. By way of example, in the current cabinet, on 3 of the 37 members are from what could be described as rural ridings. However if you look at riding sizes, AB has the largest populations (avg 119623) verses ON (avg 111145) as an example, then the narrative looses steam, and it becomes more about winning, and staying in power, than it does about governing. It is a truth in our system that the Liberals need QC in order to win, where the Conservatives do not.


----------



## OldSolduer (12 Jul 2021)

Brad Sallows said:


> Western separation is highly unlikely
> 
> A separating entity would decide its own laws and could erase the board and start over if it wanted to, presumably trying to avoid repeating Canadian mistakes.  Canada, for itself, would have to decide what to do about its citizens and their claims under Canadian laws and programs.


First point I absolutely agree.

Second point - IF Western Canada actually separated how long do you think it would be before the USA decided Western Canada ( I presume we are speaking of Alberta and Saskatchewan) should be annexed to the USA as the 51st state?


----------



## Brad Sallows (12 Jul 2021)

Probably never.  Democrats and Republicans might view SK as a state which toggles between D and R senators and elects some D congress members, but would probably view AB as a state which would reliably provide a R senator and mainly R congress members.  Republicans might pursue that deal; Democrats not.


----------



## Jarnhamar (12 Jul 2021)

Liberals block bid to force campaign strategist to testify about MPs' budgets​


			Liberals block bid to force campaign strategist to testify about MPs' budgets
		




> Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's Liberals successfully blocked an opposition bid Monday to force one of the party's chief campaign strategists to testify about IT contracts paid for out of the taxpayer-funded budgets of Liberal MPs.
> 
> After dragging out a two-hour ethics committee meeting for more than five hours, Liberal MP Brenda Shanahan abruptly moved to adjourn the meeting, which was called to discuss summoning testimony from Tom Pitfield, a longtime friend of Trudeau who ran the Liberals' digital operations during the 2015 and 2019 elections.
> 
> "Today, the Trudeau Liberals *blocked* an *investigation* into *Liberal MPs* *using taxpayer dollars* to subsidize their political operations," said Conservative ethics critic Michael Barrett, who had tabled a motion to call Pitfield to testify.




"More transparent government"

​


----------



## Altair (12 Jul 2021)

Jarnhamar said:


> Liberals block bid to force campaign strategist to testify about MPs' budgets​
> 
> 
> Liberals block bid to force campaign strategist to testify about MPs' budgets
> ...


I didn't know the Liberals had the ability to block investigations on their own in a minority.


----------



## Jarnhamar (13 Jul 2021)

They experience being a minority government differently.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (13 Jul 2021)

If the west including BC separated, they could easily go it alone. The indigenous issue would be a sticky one with Reserves remaining as Federal land, however most of the Provinces have a lot more experience in FN consultations than Ottawa ever did. I would see the FN getting better resource deals , while retaining federal monies at the same time. All Status Indians would in essence by automatic dual citizens. The problem for indigenous groups if Quebec separates is they know they be screwed over by Quebec nationalists and likely will not go along with it. 
One plus side for Ottawa is the Federal fleets all moves east. Meaning Canada no longer needs 15 CSC.  Negotiations would have to happen around other Federal lands. Western Canada would stand up a defense force and likely a armed Coast Guard combining CCG/naval and fisheries roles. They would be asking the US to provide defense of North America. Possibly allowing US fighters and ASW patrol aircraft to operate out of Comox.
Trade would continue as is, but there would be a subtle realignment with US markets that would grow after time.


----------



## brihard (13 Jul 2021)

Colin Parkinson said:


> If the west including BC separated, they could easily go it alone. The indigenous issue would be a sticky one with Reserves remaining as Federal land, however most of the Provinces have a lot more experience in FN consultations than Ottawa ever did. I would see the FN getting better resource deals , while retaining federal monies at the same time. All Status Indians would in essence by automatic dual citizens. The problem for indigenous groups if Quebec separates is they know they be screwed over by Quebec nationalists and likely will not go along with it.
> One plus side for Ottawa is the Federal fleets all moves east. Meaning Canada no longer needs 15 CSC.  Negotiations would have to happen around other Federal lands. Western Canada would stand up a defense force and likely a armed Coast Guard combining CCG/naval and fisheries roles. They would be asking the US to provide defense of North America. Possibly allowing US fighters and ASW patrol aircraft to operate out of Comox.
> Trade would continue as is, but there would be a subtle realignment with US markets that would grow after time.


That’s certainly an interesting set of assumptions. The “joined at the wallet” approach WRT the indigenous sounds almost Québécois in its casual expectation of both having and eating its cake. And when a particular First Nation, sitting on a bunch of oil, looks at the new Prairie Canada with which it has no Supreme Court and legislatively recognized treaties, and says “no thanks, we’re good” and elects to remain part of Canada- what then?


----------



## daftandbarmy (13 Jul 2021)

Colin Parkinson said:


> If the west including BC separated, they could easily go it alone. The indigenous issue would be a sticky one with Reserves remaining as Federal land, however most of the Provinces have a lot more experience in FN consultations than Ottawa ever did. I would see the FN getting better resource deals , while retaining federal monies at the same time. All Status Indians would in essence by automatic dual citizens. The problem for indigenous groups if Quebec separates is they know they be screwed over by Quebec nationalists and likely will not go along with it.
> One plus side for Ottawa is the Federal fleets all moves east. Meaning Canada no longer needs 15 CSC.  Negotiations would have to happen around other Federal lands. Western Canada would stand up a defense force and likely a armed Coast Guard combining CCG/naval and fisheries roles. They would be asking the US to provide defense of North America. Possibly allowing US fighters and ASW patrol aircraft to operate out of Comox.
> Trade would continue as is, but there would be a subtle realignment with US markets that would grow after time.



And then you ditch the NEP, and other leech like amd largely one-way benefits programs with Ottawa, and create the 'Cascadia Economic Zone' with near limitless natural resources connected seamlessly to one of the biggest manufacturing, hi tech and consumer markets on earth.


----------



## The Bread Guy (13 Jul 2021)

Altair said:


> I didn't know the Liberals had the ability to block investigations on their own in a minority.


It's partly in how the committees are stacked, and partly how they play the "fine print" rules.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (13 Jul 2021)

brihard said:


> That’s certainly an interesting set of assumptions. The “joined at the wallet” approach WRT the indigenous sounds almost Québécois in its casual expectation of both having and eating its cake. And when a particular First Nation, sitting on a bunch of oil, looks at the new Prairie Canada with which it has no Supreme Court and legislatively recognized treaties, and says “no thanks, we’re good” and elects to remain part of Canada- what then?


I will be blunt, Ottawa does a crappy job of consulting in the West, the Provinces already administer the lands which includes the traditional territories, while the Treaties and rights were with Canada, the Provinces that separate will inherit those responsibilities and the FN would actually get more of an opportunity to negotiate resource rights over those areas. Reserves would still remain a Canadian Federal responsibility. The FN would bargain hard, but be in a advantageous position and may well see a lot of benefits from the split. Basically getting to milk both nations.


----------



## Altair (13 Jul 2021)

Colin Parkinson said:


> If the west including BC separated, they could easily go it alone.


They could. But with BC not going anywhere, if the west separated they would be incredibly screwed.

I do not envy western separatists. Quebec has everything they really need within the confines of Quebecs borders.

Western separatists need 4 provinces to all dislike Canada enough to come together, and leave pretty much at the same time. And if they don't get 1, BC, to join then they are right back where they started. And BC is full of them lefty NDP and Green voters who seem to have no love for Alberta's oil projects.

It's a good way to vent frustration I guess, but in terms of being plausible it still fails, and fails so very hard.

Quebec at least had a shot at the height of their movement.


----------



## Altair (13 Jul 2021)

The Bread Guy said:


> It's partly in how the committees are stacked, and partly how they play the "fine print" rules.


If by stacked you mean another party supported their effort to shut it down, then sure.


----------



## Remius (13 Jul 2021)

Altair said:


> They could. But with BC not going anywhere, if the west separated they would be incredibly screwed.
> 
> I do not envy western separatists. Quebec has everything they really need within the confines of Quebecs borders.
> 
> ...


Agreed.  Most Wexit fantasy writers have to always include BC to make their ideas work.  Won’t happen.


----------



## Altair (13 Jul 2021)

Jarnhamar said:


> They experience being a minority government differently.


It's almost as if they had the support of another party to assist them in shutting it down.


----------



## Brad Sallows (13 Jul 2021)

Kind of a pointless discussion because there are too many assumptions.  A newly independent nation doesn't have to perpetuate any obligations of whatever it is separating from.  Try to imagine something more like what transpired in the US - a wholly new constitution and structure of government and assertions of the relationships between peoples and governments, with retention of the laws and practices and traditions which were deemed worthy.  Yes, if Canada is divisible, so is QC or AB or BC.  That quickly becomes unmanageable, so there would be new negotiations, but I would expect something less like apartheid and more like contemporary local government, applicable to any community which wishes it, to emerge.

An independent west might want armed forces in order to retain membership in international pacts (eg. a small air defence force for NORAD, a coast guard and SAR just because, no other army or navy unless some Pacific-oriented partnership requires it).  After that...nothing.  Maybe a right to keep and bear arms.


----------



## Brad Sallows (13 Jul 2021)

Whoever is a charter member of a group of seceding regions gets a voice in setting up the new country.  Those who join later, join on the terms set by those who went first.  It's not obvious that, in the wake of one or more provinces seceding, Canada doesn't eventually break up some more.  BC might prefer to be a charter member of a new western country rather than accept the risk of having to join someone else's party later.


----------



## Remius (13 Jul 2021)

Brad Sallows said:


> Kind of a pointless discussion because there are too many assumptions.  A newly independent nation doesn't have to perpetuate any obligations of whatever it is separating from.


Nor does it get to be automatically included in any economic, military or diplomatic alliance/agreement that whatever they are separating from is part of.

Wexit is a joke.  It won’t happen.  Not the way Wexiters think it will at any rate.


----------



## Brad Sallows (13 Jul 2021)

A small country not adjacent to a troublemaker doesn't particularly need military or diplomatic entanglement, and the arguments for unilaterally being a free trader are very strong.  A new small nation emerging from part of Canada would find itself in the envious position of ditching a lot of baggage and not needing a number of programs and institutions that Canada thinks it needs.

Separation rarely happens the way people think it will, but Canada doesn't have any essential unity - not of culture, not of time-in.  I expect Canada to start breaking up before any part of the US does.


----------



## Altair (13 Jul 2021)

Remius said:


> Nor does it get to be automatically included in any economic, military or diplomatic alliance/agreement that whatever they are separating from is part of.
> 
> Wexit is a joke.  It won’t happen.  Not the way Wexiters think it will at any rate.


Yes, it's actually not easy to get into the WHO, WTO, all those organizations run out of the UN.

You need 66 percent support.

And a lot of nations don't like supporting separatist movements due to having some of their own.

Others have alliances to think of, others more economic reasons. OPEC nations would love to have a barrier to Canadian oil getting to markets. 

Europe is no fan of the oil sands.

USA might be more receptive, but Canada has a veto in the new NAFTA. Can't see Mexico being super keen on this.

Just a mess.


----------



## Altair (13 Jul 2021)

Brad Sallows said:


> A small country not adjacent to a troublemaker doesn't particularly need military or diplomatic entanglement, and the arguments for unilaterally being a free trader are very strong.  A new small nation emerging from part of Canada would find itself in the envious position of ditching a lot of baggage and not needing a number of programs and institutions that Canada thinks it needs.
> 
> Separation rarely happens the way people think it will, but Canada doesn't have any essential unity - not of culture, not of time-in.  I expect Canada to start breaking up before any part of the US does.











						25% of Albertans support becoming an independent nation: Poll | News
					

A recent poll showed that support may be growing for an independent western nation, made more appealing if Saskatchewan and British Columbia join in.




					dailyhive.com
				






> It appears that Alberta and Saskatchewan are more on board with a separation than British Columbia – the idea of an independent country that would encompass the three western-most provinces is appealing to 29% of both Albertans and Saskatchewanians, but to only 12% of British Columbians.



Wexit is a sad joke.

I get that people like to dream big dreams, but come on. 12 percent in BC support the most favorable conditions for a independent west?

We are talking about generations of trying to get enough support for any project. Generations. People knock Quebec separatists, but they put in the time, energy, effort to get their movement to its heyday, years of trying to convince the public, a generation of some of the best and brightest in Quebec making intellectual arguments and trying to sell Quebecers on the idea.

Wexit has Jay Hill.


----------



## Brad Sallows (13 Jul 2021)

Western separation doesn't have the same drivers.  QC separatism has always been about becoming more special within Canada (hence sovereignty-association, not separatism).  Western separation, if it ever happens, would be pure political discontent.  The political conditions are nowhere near where they need to be, but the warning signs are there.

At least three conditions have to be met:
1. A not-solely-metropolitan region in which more than a bare majority of people prefer a style/tone/ideology of government different than the Canadian concensus.
2. An effective lock-out of their preference from federal government.
3. Enough time for the pot to boil over.

For those who prefer LPC government, neither (1) nor (2) applies.  (The LPC is effectively the Canadian concensus.)

For those who prefer NDP government, (2) mostly applies, but (1) does not.

For those who prefer CPC government, (1) exists but (2) does not apply.

We can still pretend that conservatives can win government of Canada for roughly 40% of the time (or even merely 30%), provided conservatives win a majority again, soon.  But if what we have now (LPC or LPC/NDP majority) persists, then people who want the CPC in power at least part of the time will lose attachment to Canada.  Then it will only be a matter of time before some decide to detach themselves in order to run their affairs more to their own liking.

The solution is simple enough: even more decentralization, but that is anathema to the NDP and nearly so to the LPC.  So the scorpion must eventually sting the frog.


----------



## mariomike (13 Jul 2021)

I'm not a constitutional scholar. But, from what I have read on here, even divorcing a province is not easy, let alone a country.









						Western Alienation - Split from General Election 2019
					

“ Instead, it continued into British Columbia's Interior and northeast, parts of the province where support for Conservative candidates ranged from 45.1 per cent in Kootenay-Columbia in the south to a full 69.9 per cent in Prince George-Peace River-Northern Rockies in the north.”  This is real...




					www.milnet.ca
				



9 pages.









						City-state provinces in Canada? Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver
					

Except, of course, that if you happen to believe in something akin to at least rough equality of representation then doesn't it make sense that the GTA, with a population (2011 census) of over 6 million, ought to "drive" Ontario that has a population of (same census) 12.8 million? Or is it that...




					army.ca
				



9 pages.


----------



## QV (13 Jul 2021)

Brad Sallows said:


> Western separation doesn't have the same drivers.  QC separatism has always been about becoming more special within Canada (hence sovereignty-association, not separatism).  Western separation, if it ever happens, would be pure political discontent.  The political conditions are nowhere near where they need to be, but the warning signs are there.
> 
> At least three conditions have to be met:
> 1. A not-solely-metropolitan region in which more than a bare majority of people prefer a style/tone/ideology of government different than the Canadian concensus.
> ...


 I can totally see Canada breaking up as we know it in my lifetime, perhaps its initiated in the next 10-20 years even.


----------



## Brad Sallows (13 Jul 2021)

> I'm not a constitutional scholar. But, from what I have read on here, even divorcing a province is not easy, let alone a country.



It's not necessarily a constitutional issue unless the people separating want it to be.  They can declare themselves out, define their own constitution (which renders obsolete whatever constitution they previously respected), and continue.  The nation of which they were part can either choose to kill over the break, or merely indulge in punitive trade practices, or try to make the best of the new situation.


----------



## Altair (13 Jul 2021)

Brad Sallows said:


> Western separation doesn't have the same drivers.  QC separatism has always been about becoming more special within Canada (hence sovereignty-association, not separatism).  Western separation, if it ever happens, would be pure political discontent.  The political conditions are nowhere near where they need to be, but the warning signs are there.
> 
> At least three conditions have to be met:
> 1. A not-solely-metropolitan region in which more than a bare majority of people prefer a style/tone/ideology of government different than the Canadian concensus.
> ...


The logistical issues are insane. 

Quebec needs to have 1 party take power, have a referendum. The west needs 2 at the minimum (AB/BC) in power at the same time, have referendums around the same time, win those referendums, and then come together and build a new entity around the same time. If we think of the west as the 4 provinces, you need 4 provincial separatist parties in power around the same time, win referendums, then come together and build something new.

Then, and I think this is the cherry on the cake, you need to make a new system that allows AB to run roughshod over BC in terms of pipelines and resource development, meaning a even more strong federal government in the new country. 

The logistical issues behind this project are on a whole new scale compared to what Quebec had to deal with, and the logistical issues behind Quebec separatism were one of the key things that sunk the project.


----------



## Altair (13 Jul 2021)

QV said:


> I can totally see Canada breaking up as we know it in my lifetime, perhaps its initiated in the next 10-20 years even.


So long as Canada keeps Quebec placated Canada is fine. 

And considering every federal party has gone above and beyond to do so, I foresee the détente to last for many decades to come.

As for the west, the CPC will win eventually, and magically the talk of western separation will go away again.


----------



## Brad Sallows (13 Jul 2021)

The most complex scenarios are also the most unlikely, and not worth dwelling on except to marinade in false reassurances.  The most likely scenario is the single most dissatisfied province deciding to run itself.  Since a negotiated exit is so complex, the easiest path - clean break, new constitution, drop all of Canada's obligations into Canada's lap, all immediately unnecessary baggage and entitlements cast aside, etc - is the most likely one taken.

The most likely scenario is also the most dangerous.  A single separated province, consolidating federal and provincial governments into one, not needing to pay for many of the things a larger country wants in order to have seats at the international big boys' tables, is more likely to also be able to pay its own way.  It is possible for two things to be true at the same time: lower GDP due to the frictions and losses of separation, but lower government expenses as a share of its GDP, thus lower tax burdens.  Its fiscal position becomes envious; it is attractive to high-productivity immigrants; it prospers.  If it doesn't need deficit financing, it won't care what the bond rating agencies say.  If it doesn't care about what the bond rating agencies say, there is no reason to negotiate holding some share of Canada's fiscal obligations.  Thus begins a game of musical chairs to see which fragment of Canada is left holding all of Canada's obligations.

If a basket-case province secedes, it will likely remain a basket-case.  If a prosperous province secedes, it will likely succeed.


----------



## Altair (13 Jul 2021)

Brad Sallows said:


> The most complex scenarios are also the most unlikely, and not worth dwelling on except to marinade in false reassurances.  The most likely scenario is the single most dissatisfied province deciding to run itself.  Since a negotiated exit is so complex, the easiest path - clean break, new constitution, drop all of Canada's obligations into Canada's lap, all immediately unnecessary baggage and entitlements cast aside, etc - is the most likely one taken.
> 
> The most likely scenario is also the most dangerous.  A single separated province, consolidating federal and provincial governments into one, not needing to pay for many of the things a larger country wants in order to have seats at the international big boys' tables, is more likely to also be able to pay its own way.  It is possible for two things to be true at the same time: lower GDP due to the frictions and losses of separation, but lower government expenses as a share of its GDP, thus lower tax burdens.  Its fiscal position becomes envious; it is attractive to high-productivity immigrants; it prospers.  If it doesn't need deficit financing, it won't care what the bond rating agencies say.  If it doesn't care about what the bond rating agencies say, there is no reason to negotiate holding some share of Canada's fiscal obligations.  Thus begins a game of musical chairs to see which fragment of Canada is left holding all of Canada's obligations.
> 
> If a basket-case province secedes, it will likely remain a basket-case.  If a prosperous province secedes, it will likely succeed.


I don't know Brad.

A single province, Alberta, with no WTO trade rules, tariffs everywhere, no NAFTA 2.0, and the kicker, even less in terms of pipelines. 

Alberta is already struggling with oil by rail, and with no more pipelines in its future, and having to do oil by truck, oil by rail, tariffs, no trade deals, needing to start many institutions from scratch....

Massive increase in expenses, likely a drop in revenue, landlocked and I don't think that prosperity lasts long term.


----------



## QV (13 Jul 2021)

There are plenty of landlocked countries in the world doing fine.  One question, how would BC fair being cut off by land from the RoC?


----------



## Altair (13 Jul 2021)

regardless, I think Albertans on a whole are proud Canadians and confederation lasts for quite some time. 

Liberals likely win a few seats in Alberta in and thus Alberta gets a cabinet minister or two, transmountain gets built, and things move forward. 

All this Wexit talk is a interesting conversation, but I'll actually pay attention to it if they start winning seats either provincially or federally, till then, they are down their with the Rhinoceros party in terms of me actually giving a damn about them.


----------



## Altair (13 Jul 2021)

QV said:


> There are plenty of landlocked countries in the world doing fine.  One question, how would BC fair being cut off by land from the RoC?


*Africa | 16 Landlocked Countries*

Zambia
Mali
Niger
Ethiopia
South Sudan
Central African Republic
Chad
Burkina Faso
Uganda
Rwanda
Zimbabwe
Botswana
Burundi
Malawi
Eswatini
Lesotho

None of these are what I would call successes.

*Europe | 16 Landlocked Countries*

Austria
Serbia
Hungary
Slovakia
Switzerland
Belarus
North Macedonia
Czech Republic
Kosovo
Luxembourg
Moldova
Liechtenstein
Transnistria
Andorra
San Marino
Vatican City

These are more successful, mostly due to being part of or on very friendly terms with the EU.

*Asia | 15 Landlocked Countries*

Afghanistan
Azerbaijan
Kazakhstan
Uzbekistan
Laos
Armenia
Kyrgyzstan
Tajikistan
Turkmenistan
Artsakh 
Mongolia
Bhutan
Nepal
South Ossetia 
West Bank 

None of these I would call really successful. Maybe Armenia?

*South America | 2 Landlocked Countries*

Bolivia
Paraguay

Paraguay? Maybe?


----------



## Good2Golf (13 Jul 2021)

.


QV said:


> There are plenty of landlocked countries in the world doing fine.  One question, how would BC fair being cut off by land from the RoC?


…charging AB pass-through rates for oil sands crude…they should do pretty well…and they have a lot of NG to use/export, let alone all the lumber (and pass-through of US coal to China)…


----------



## Colin Parkinson (13 Jul 2021)

Altair said:


> regardless, I think Albertans on a whole are proud Canadians and confederation lasts for quite some time.
> 
> Liberals likely win a few seats in Alberta in and thus Alberta gets a cabinet minister or two, transmountain gets built, and things move forward.
> 
> All this Wexit talk is a interesting conversation, but I'll actually pay attention to it if they start winning seats either provincially or federally, till then, they are down their with the Rhinoceros party in terms of me actually giving a damn about them.


BC whether the Lower Mainlanders believe it or not is dependent on resource jobs, there are almost no new projects on the books, pretty much all you see happening is projects approved under the prior environmental legislation, eventually when the downturn hits any opinions of Central Canada and Liberals is going to tank.


----------



## Altair (13 Jul 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> .
> 
> …charging AB pass-through rates for oil sands crude…they should do pretty well…and they have a lot of NG to use/export, let alone all the lumber (and pass-through of US coal to China)…


I'm still of the opinion that BC is able to adjust to these challenges far easier than a landlocked AB.

Ports are really useful. So are trade deals.


----------



## QV (13 Jul 2021)

Altair said:


> *Africa | 16 Landlocked Countries*
> 
> Zambia
> Mali
> ...


Compare 1st world to 1st world for a better assessment.


----------



## QV (13 Jul 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> .
> 
> …charging AB pass-through rates for oil sands crude…they should do pretty well…and they have a lot of NG to use/export, let alone all the lumber (and pass-through of US coal to China)…


So that goes both ways. I wonder, would BC and AB both do better if AB separated?


----------



## Altair (13 Jul 2021)

Colin Parkinson said:


> BC whether the Lower Mainlanders believe it or not is dependent on resource jobs, there are almost no new projects on the books, pretty much all you see happening is projects approved under the prior environmental legislation, eventually when the downturn hits any opinions of Central Canada and Liberals is going to tank.


Sure. If this happens, and the Wexit parties start gaining momentum because of it, maybe its worth talking about. 

We don't talk about Quebec separatists because of some hypothetical separatists parties, holding hypothetical ridings and sending hypothetical members to Ottawa and Quebec city. we do because there are actually separatist parties, holding actual seats in Parliament and the National Assembly, who have on two occasions brought forward plebiscites on leaving Canada. 

Wexit has a lot of work to do to get any street cred.


----------



## Altair (13 Jul 2021)

QV said:


> Compare 1st world to 1st world for a better assessment.


Not really.

Compare apples to apples, oranges to oranges.

In terms of African countries, are the landlocked nations better  than the ones with access to coastlines?

No.

In terms of Asian countries, are the landlocked nations better  than the ones with access to coastlines?

No.

In terms of South American countries, are the landlocked nations better  than the ones with access to coastlines?

No.

In terms of European countries, are the landlocked nations better  than the ones with access to coastlines?

Largely the same, minus those who are not in the EU, or have close ties to the EU, then no.


----------



## Remius (13 Jul 2021)

QV said:


> Compare 1st world to 1st world for a better assessment.


What you should look are countries that separated that were landlocked.  I think Kosovo might and South Sudan are two examples.  Most countries that have seceded were not landlocked.


----------



## Good2Golf (13 Jul 2021)

QV said:


> So that goes both ways. I wonder, would BC and AB both do better if AB separated?


Both ways? 🤔

BC will be into the next wave of energy, leveraging hydroelectricity to hydrolyze natural gas and CO2 into sustainable e-fuels well before Alberta can figure out a ‘friendly way’ to twist BC’s arm enough to be in a better position that it is now.


----------



## QV (13 Jul 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> Both ways? 🤔
> 
> BC will be into the next wave of energy, leveraging hydroelectricity to hydrolyze natural has and CO2 into sustainable e-fuels well before Alberta can figure out a ‘friendly way’ to twist BC’s arm enough to be in a better position that it is now.


So nothing else goes to and from the RoC to BC where they would have to negotiate transit through AB for?


----------



## Altair (13 Jul 2021)

Remius said:


> What you should look are countries that separated that were landlocked.  I think Kosovo might and South Sudan are two examples.  Most countries that have seceded were not landlocked.


Because being langlocked as a new nation leaves you at the mercy of your neighbours and those you just left. 

Its a precarious situation. How do you make a trade deal? Your goods are at the mercy of your neighbours, so are the imports of the country you negotiated with.


----------



## QV (13 Jul 2021)

Altair said:


> Not really.
> 
> Compare apples to apples, oranges to oranges.
> 
> ...


Your framing the question to suit the answer.  "Are landlocked third world nations in Africa better than those with access to coastlines?" 

Your last point about Euro nations is more relevant to the situation we are discussing.


----------



## Altair (13 Jul 2021)

QV said:


> So nothing else goes to and from the RoC to BC where they would have to negotiate transit through AB for?


In terms of leverage, AB has precious little. What goes from the ROC to BC and vice versa that cannot be sourced from the USA?

What goes from the RoC to BC and vice versa that cannot be aquired via sea routes?


----------



## Altair (13 Jul 2021)

QV said:


> Your framing the question to suit the answer.  "Are landlocked third world nations in Africa better than those with access to coastlines?"
> 
> Your last point about Euro nations is more relevant to the situation we are discussing.


Are landlocked third world countries better than third world countries with access to coastline? Answer, no.

I don't see AB separating bringing about the north american political version of the EU.


----------



## Altair (13 Jul 2021)

I do find it interesting that every discussion about AB separating goes along the same lines.

AB separating will bring BC with it.

No it wont.

Thats fine, AB doesn't need BC, we will be fine on our own.

No you wont.

AB can cause BC a lot of pain.

Sure, but Canada will cause AB a lot more pain than AB will bring on BC.

That's fine!

Why does AB want to separate again?

So we can be independent and get our resources to market without Ottawa getting in the way!

Hmmm....


----------



## QV (13 Jul 2021)

I wouldn't discount WEXIT in what ever form it takes (AB alone, or AB/SK...etc). The West has been the economic driver of this nation for a long time and it seems to many that policies of the East are unfair and hell bent on suppressing the Western economy. When it gets to a point where it's more costly to stay than go (equalization/fundamental changes to rights/freedoms), it could move pretty fast.  

It's about much more than just resources to market, but the US would likely love a closer trading relationship with resource rich territories such as AB and/or SK. There was a time when the West "wanted in", but I think years of snubbing and the present political environment have shifted that attitude. 

The Wildrose party is gaining momentum and the Maverick and PPC are on the map as far as polling goes, so I wouldn't write this off entirely, the next elections will say a lot.  As Brad S states there are warning signs.


----------



## Brad Sallows (13 Jul 2021)

Oil industry was about 7% of AB's economy from figures I last checked.  Not negligible, but not a deal-breaker.

Any conceivable separation scenario is still many years away.  Would-be separatists could best spend their time by debating what a new nation should look like: Federalist Papers, Mk II.


----------



## Brad Sallows (13 Jul 2021)

> AB can cause BC a lot of pain.
> Sure, but Canada will cause AB a lot more pain than AB will bring on BC.
> That's fine!



Because it is fine.  Inflicting damage on people doesn't drive them to surrender; it drives them to resist.  All AB or SK has to do is maintain cordial relationships with bordering US states and they'd muddle through.  Coastal British Columbians would hate AB more; interior BC'ers, I'm much less sure about.  Those in Peace River country already feel closer to Albertans than West Coasters.

Imagining a complete cutoff of oil deliveries from AB to BC is worth working through to estimate just who would feel more pressure from tit-for-tat.


----------



## Altair (13 Jul 2021)

QV said:


> I wouldn't discount WEXIT in what ever form it takes (AB alone, or AB/SK...etc). The West has been the economic driver of this nation for a long time



GDP of Canadian Provinces.(2019)

Ontario-900 billion

Quebec-450 billion

Alberta- 352 billion

Alberta punches above its weight, but make no mistake, its a little over a 1/3 of Ontarios GDP.


QV said:


> and it seems to many that policies of the East are unfair and hell bent on suppressing the Western economy. When it gets to a point where it's more costly to stay than go (equalization/fundamental changes to rights/freedoms), it could move pretty fast.


Considering that AB is in for a lot of pain if its locked out of many markets, that calculus really isn't in favor of leaving. No matter how "bad" AB thinks it has it, it wont be any better by leaving.


QV said:


> It's about much more than just resources to market, but the US would likely love a closer trading relationship with resource rich territories such as AB and/or SK. There was a time when the West "wanted in", but I think years of snubbing and the present political environment have shifted that attitude.


The same USA that just killed the Keystone pipeline, and likely doesn't want to piss off Canada? That USA? Sure.


QV said:


> The Wildrose party is gaining momentum and the Maverick and PPC are on the map as far as polling goes, so I wouldn't write this off entirely, the next elections will say a lot.  As Brad S states there are warning signs.


Win a few seats and I'll take notice. 

Win a general election and I'll listen. 

The peoples party shows up in polling right now, but I don't think anyone is paying any heed to Maxime Bernier.


----------



## Altair (13 Jul 2021)

Brad Sallows said:


> Because it is fine.  Inflicting damage on people doesn't drive them to surrender; it drives them to resist.


I thought the reason for leaving was that Canada is holding the Alberta economy back?

So sacrificing the Alberta economy in a tit for tat battle wouldn't....also hold the Alberta economy back?

I don't see separating leading to more pipelines or exports of Alberta oil, so what would be the point again?


Brad Sallows said:


> All AB or SK has to do is maintain cordial relationships with bordering US states and they'd muddle through.



Right, because

A) The USA isn't self sufficient in energy production

B) They didn't just toss Keystone XL in the trash?

If having cordial relationships with bordering US states was enough, then why leave? Canada has that right now. Oh right, the US federal government can kill pipelines like Keystone.


Brad Sallows said:


> Coastal British Columbians would hate AB more; interior BC'ers, I'm much less sure about.  Those in Peace River country already feel closer to Albertans than West Coasters.


BC as a whole still isn't going anywhere, no matter what the interior says.


Brad Sallows said:


> Imagining a complete cutoff of oil deliveries from AB to BC is worth working through to estimate just who would feel more pressure from tit-for-tat.


Because other oil producing nations wouldn't just supply BC by sea?

Ports are very useful.

AB: We wont sell you any oil!

BC: I'll import it from elsewhere then.

AB: ....not fair!

Like I said, interesting intellectual discussion for sure, but once it comes time to talk details, things always seem to fall apart.


----------



## Brad Sallows (13 Jul 2021)

> I thought the reason for leaving was that Canada is holding the Alberta economy back?



For some people, it is.  I don't care about it.  The only scenario I'm interested in is political alienation, which requires a lot more dissatisfaction.  But unlike QC separatists trying to sell the benefits of a separate QC, the political alienation scenario sells itself - it's the federal government that does all the work.  All would-be separatists have to do is stoke the impressions of injustice and have a plan in waiting.


----------



## Brad Sallows (13 Jul 2021)

> Because other oil producing nations wouldn't just supply BC by sea?



Sure, eventually.  I used to live in Burnaby; I have a good idea of what the capacity for off-loading tankers is - assuming they all fit through at Lion's Gate bridge and are permitted to enter those waters.  Meanwhile, I'm just laughing.  As you say, "details".


----------



## Altair (13 Jul 2021)

Brad Sallows said:


> For some people, it is.  I don't care about it.  The only scenario I'm interested in is political alienation, which requires a lot more dissatisfaction.  But unlike QC separatists trying to sell the benefits of a separate QC, the political alienation scenario sells itself - it's the federal government that does all the work.  All would-be separatists have to do is stoke the impressions of injustice and have a plan in waiting.


So if the LPC wins 3 seats in AB as they are currently on track to do, then problem solved?


----------



## Altair (13 Jul 2021)

Brad Sallows said:


> Sure, eventually.  I used to live in Burnaby; I have a good idea of what the capacity for off-loading tankers is - assuming they all fit through at Lion's Gate bridge and are permitted to enter those waters.  Meanwhile, I'm just laughing.  As you say, "details".


Short term pain, long term meh?


----------



## Good2Golf (13 Jul 2021)

QV said:


> So nothing else goes to and from the RoC to BC where they would have to negotiate transit through AB for?


Ironically most BC lumber goes south to the US and west to Asia, most lumber in Upper and Lower Canada comes from Quebec, so for the most part, aside from some cherries and peaches from the Okanagon, BC exports ($70B) and imports ($80B) more to the US, China and RoW, than it does to the RoC (export interprovincial $40B, imports interprovincial $55B…$15B from AB, which itself trades $17B to BC), so that kind of dilutes Alberta’s ability to be a dick to BC, or any of the other provinces. AB is trade neutral IN Canada ($69B export/$69B import), and AB, SK, NL and NU are significant net exporters internationally. AB exports $100B internationally - $31B more than with the other provinces, so getting its goods beyond Canada would be critical to its well-being. BC just need push $70B west and south, and it’s back home in time for tea and medals.  Would RoC grind to a halt if Alberta pouted and held its breath?  Well, Ontario alone…imports $24B of AB’s $69B to the RoC. Ontario itself imports $80B from the RoC…AB is only 1/5 of ON’s internal trade in, and about only a half of what ON and QC trade just between themselves, ($44B), let alone the RoC.  Internationally, ON exports $265B and imports $323B…so ON alone imports 1345% more from outside Canada than it imports from AB - not sure economists would describe that as AB having ON’s back over a barrel…

Anyway, feel free to research or use some official
stats from BC (using StatsCan data)
• Interprovincial and International trade (p 16-17)
• Annual BC Origin Exports (International)

Funny thing is when one crunches the numbers, one is hard pressed to see the case where the RoC would even have to consider bowing to Alberta and take things as Alberta willed them to…the pipe dream of ABEXIT (towing along SK and perhaps even MB) needs a strong prescription to its rose-coloured glasses.

$0.02
G2G


----------



## QV (13 Jul 2021)

I guess we’ll see what happens, hopefully Canada remains whole but I doubt it. The Liberals or at least a loose left coalition will be in power for a long time and their divisive behaviour will erode national unity further and further.


----------



## Altair (13 Jul 2021)

QV said:


> I guess we’ll see what happens, hopefully Canada remains whole but I doubt it. The Liberals or at least a loose left coalition will be in power for a long time and their divisive behaviour will erode national unity further and further.


I continue to doubt even Alberta continues to be as right as it is. 

I know its early days before the next Alberta election, but the NDP are currently leading in AB.

Not separatists, the NDP.


----------



## Brad Sallows (13 Jul 2021)

If the LPC wins this fall, and wins again in 3-4 years, and the CPC wins after that, it'll still reflect the customary proportion of time-in-government that has been a feature of the past 50 years.

1963-1979, LPC (16)
1979-1980, CPC (1)
1980-1984, LPC (4)
1984-1993, CPC (9)
1993-2006, LPC (13)
2006-2015, CPC (9)
2015-????, LPC (6+)

Roughly, 39 years LPC (~2/3), 19 CPC (~1/3).

I see no trending risk of irreconcilable political exclusion outrage yet.  The complication is that the gap between political and social attitudes (and the intensity of expression generated) in 2021 is much greater than in 1971, a small minority of the left that likes to punish those who oppose it is creating hard feelings all out of proportion to its size, and the political centre-left and left in Canada are pretty smug right now and are unlikely to "fix a hard problem while it is still easy".  A year of powerlessness in 2021 is more aggravating than a year in 1971.  If that assertion seems unfounded, consider the behaviour of the political left that begins approximately 12 hours after election night.



> Short term pain, long term meh?



No.  If the existing marine terminals can't handle the required volume, it would take years to overcome the legal obstacles and complete construction.  The political fight would undoubtedly be settled long before then.  Not sure how tit-for-tat starts, though, so I don't see the worth of discussing it.  If AB were to separate and simply indicate that it wants to manage and mind its own business and continue exporting commodities, what stones do we imagine anyone would be throwing?


----------



## Altair (13 Jul 2021)

Brad Sallows said:


> If the LPC wins this fall, and wins again in 3-4 years, and the CPC wins after that, it'll still reflect the customary proportion of time-in-government that has been a feature of the past 50 years.
> 
> 1963-1979, LPC (16)
> 1979-1980, CPC (1)
> ...



Did the LPC not win seats in AB during these times? 


Brad Sallows said:


> I see no trending risk of irreconcilable political exclusion outrage yet.  The complication is that the gap between political and social attitudes (and the intensity of expression generated) in 2021 is much greater than in 1971, a small minority of the left that likes to punish those who oppose it is creating hard feelings all out of proportion to its size, and the political centre-left and left in Canada are pretty smug right now and are unlikely to "fix a hard problem while it is still easy".  A year of powerlessness in 2021 is more aggravating than a year in 1971.  If that assertion seems unfounded, consider the behaviour of the political left that begins approximately 12 hours after election night.


Again, like transmountain doesn't exist.


Brad Sallows said:


> No.  If the existing marine terminals can't handle the required volume, it would take years to overcome the legal obstacles and complete construction.  The political fight would undoubtedly be settled long before then.  Not sure how tit-for-tat starts, though, so I don't see the worth of discussing it.  If AB were to separate and simply indicate that it wants to manage and mind its own business and continue exporting commodities, what stones do we imagine anyone would be throwing?


Tariffs at the border for 1, rejection of entering NAFTA second, Albertas portion of the national debt third.


----------



## Brad Sallows (13 Jul 2021)

Those are all matters concerning the federal government of Canada.  The province of BC has incentives and authority to act in its own interests to keep commodities moving that it needs for itself or profits from moving through its ports.  I can think of few ways to push BC towards separatism faster than to demand BC fight an economic war chosen by central and eastern Canadian politicians.


----------



## Altair (13 Jul 2021)

Brad Sallows said:


> Those are all matters concerning the federal government of Canada.  The province of BC has incentives and authority to act in its own interests to keep commodities moving that it needs for itself or profits from moving through its ports.  I can think of few ways to push BC towards separatism faster than to demand BC fight an economic war chosen by central and eastern Canadian politicians.


Keep dreaming big dreams.


----------



## Good2Golf (13 Jul 2021)

Brad Sallows said:


> If the LPC wins this fall, and wins again in 3-4 years, and the CPC wins after that, it'll still reflect the customary proportion of time-in-government that has been a feature of the past 50 years.
> 
> 1963-1979, LPC (16)
> 1979-1980, CPC (1)
> ...


Interesting that you conduction some historical revisionism rebranding the PCs into the CPC, which most will accept was an intended (tricked?) ‘merger of equals’ of the Reform-turned-Canadian Alliance with the Progressive Conservatives, and which most will also acknowledge has reverted closer to the further right Canadian Alliance.  I doubt the CPC will ever recover many of the Atlantic PC seats lost in 2015, as it is a fundamentally different beast than the PCs that Atlantic Canadians were familiar and comfortable with.

I foresee the LPC only becoming more entrenched in the years to come, and the LPC/CPC ratio skewing closer to an 80/20 ratio than your near-historical 67/33.

Regards
G2G


----------



## Brad Sallows (13 Jul 2021)

> Keep dreaming big dreams.+



It is easy enough to imagine the BC Liberals, who are not particularly closely affiliated with the federal LPC, telling the feds to go pound sand if the feds demand BC do something to punish AB for leaving Canada.


----------



## Good2Golf (13 Jul 2021)

Brad Sallows said:


> It is easy enough to imagine the BC Liberals, who are not particularly closely affiliated with the federal LPC, telling the feds to go pound sand if the feds demand BC do something to punish AB for leaving Canada.



Ottawa?  Vindictive to all parties?   Never!!!


----------



## Brad Sallows (13 Jul 2021)

> Interesting that you conduction some historical revisionism



I wasn't trying to revise anything.  It stems from some general ideas I've expressed here before: FPTP electoral system is valuable because it allows sizeable minorities to elect plural majorities; in Canada, that means conservatives control the federal government some of the time (I thought 40%, but closer to one-third) through recent history.  I suppose the caveat "as long as the big conservative tent stays up" applies.  Majoritarians argue for systems that deliver governments to simple majorities, and think that is good for the health of a country.  I suspect 55% of people having the government they want 100% of the time is not healthy.

If election outcomes skew even more and the more-conservative sub-faction is rather more concentrated, I suppose it shortens the time required for dissatisfaction to move people to do something about their discontent.

As with any crisis, it won't be seen coming.


----------



## Good2Golf (13 Jul 2021)

It wasn’t the FPTP plurality and majoritans’ argument as much as what seemed to be glossing over the fundamental change to Conservatism in Canada.  While the LPC has had some notable changes even since Pearson days, it is still the LPC, and won’t change composition or recipe any time soon.  Whereas today’s Big Blue Tent is a lot smaller than than when it was PC or even CA+PC.  I wouldn’t have had an issue with ‘Con.’ In brackets but to label Clark/Campbell/Mulroney as CPC is not ingenuous IMO.  Your call, though.


----------



## Brad Sallows (13 Jul 2021)

Sure, I should either have written PC for the periods appropriate, or "liberal" and "conservative".  It's definitely a fair criticism since the PC of that time included a slice of members who eventually became BQ.


----------



## RangerRay (13 Jul 2021)

Brad Sallows said:


> It is easy enough to imagine the BC Liberals, who are not particularly closely affiliated with the federal LPC, telling the feds to go pound sand if the feds demand BC do something to punish AB for leaving Canada.



I’m not sure about that. While both Socred and NDP governments made lots of political hay getting in pissing matches with the feds, the BC Liberals have made a habit of butt-snorkeling whom ever is in power in Ottawa.  With the Lib/Con coalition shifting more Lib, I can’t see that happening anytime soon.


----------



## Altair (15 Jul 2021)

I wonder what the over/under is on the green party existing next year is.



			https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/green-party-annamie-paul-1.6101869


----------



## Good2Golf (15 Jul 2021)

Altair said:


> I wonder what the over/under is on the green party existing next year is.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/green-party-annamie-paul-1.6101869


You mean if they all incentivized to cross the floor to the Liberal Party?


----------



## Altair (15 Jul 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> You mean if they all incentivized to cross the floor to the Liberal Party?


I was thinking more of a membership revolt over what the party executive is doing, followed by a very poor showing in the election due to the instability, followed by disillusioned greens going NDP LPC.

But I guess the LPC could just scoop them up wholesale as well, but I would put that in the longshot odds category.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (15 Jul 2021)

Altair said:


> I was thinking more of a membership revolt over what the party executive is doing, followed by a very poor showing in the election due to the instability, followed by disillusioned greens going NDP LPC.
> 
> But I guess the LPC could just scoop them up wholesale as well, but I would put that in the longshot odds category.


My assessment of my local Green Party association is that they are just a minor league affiliate of the LPC.

Take that sample size of one for what you will.


----------



## LittleBlackDevil (15 Jul 2021)

Altair said:


> I wonder what the over/under is on the green party existing next year is.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/green-party-annamie-paul-1.6101869


In addition to all the stuff going on at the leadership/executive level, I just don't really see the point of the Green Party (or the NDP) anymore, since the LPC has either adopted most of their positions or outflanked them to the left.

For that matter I don't even see the point in the CPC anymore as they've adopted most LPC positions.


----------



## LittleBlackDevil (15 Jul 2021)

QV said:


> I guess we’ll see what happens, hopefully Canada remains whole but I doubt it. The Liberals or at least a loose left coalition will be in power for a long time and their divisive behaviour will erode national unity further and further.



I agree that the LPC and their left coalition will be in power for a long time and they will continue to be highly divisive.

I doubt it will be enough for anyone to separate though. 

Is there any real momentum to the western separation movement right now? I can't see any evidence that they have more than a very very small number of supporters.


----------



## YZT580 (15 Jul 2021)

LittleBlackDevil said:


> In addition to all the stuff going on at the leadership/executive level, I just don't really see the point of the Green Party (or the NDP) anymore, since the LPC has either adopted most of their positions or outflanked them to the left.
> 
> For that matter I don't even see the point in the CPC anymore as they've adopted most LPC positions.


Except the LPC does not feature Justin & Co.


----------



## QV (15 Jul 2021)

LittleBlackDevil said:


> Is there any real momentum to the western separation movement right now? I can't see any evidence that they have more than a very very small number of supporters.


That is hard to say. I'd reckon the discontent with Ottawa is quite high but I don't know if it's high enough for a significant push to separate. If there is a referendum on equalization, the outcome could be another indication. The next elections will be the biggest indicators. The Maverick and PPC could chip away at the CPC seats out West, but if the CPC has shifted left somewhat maybe they'll make up for those losses by picking up more centrist and left/centre voters who are disillusioned by the the Trudeau lead LPC. 

Best possible outcome, IMHO, is a CPC minority forced to work with the Maverick and PPC.  And the LPC smashed to new lows.


----------



## LittleBlackDevil (15 Jul 2021)

QV said:


> Best possible outcome, IMHO, is a CPC minority forced to work with the Maverick and PPC.  And the LPC smashed to new lows.



I frankly think the CPC being smashed to new lows would be the best (within the realm of possibility) outcome to wake them up that trying to be the less incompetent version of the LPC is not the best thing for Canada or themselves. Unfortunately, what is likely to happen is LPC returned to majority government, NDP and Greens reduced greatly, and CPC reduced but not enough for them to abandon their tactic of being Liberal-lite.

They will wrongly think being Liberal-lite works, when in fact all that's happened is they've bled some votes to PPC and other "mavericks" but the majority of their votes came from people who despite O'Toole's positions but feel that they "have to vote CPC to get rid of Trudeau" or to "not split the vote".


----------



## QV (15 Jul 2021)

LittleBlackDevil said:


> I frankly think the CPC being smashed to new lows would be the best (within the realm of possibility) outcome to wake them up that trying to be the less incompetent version of the LPC is not the best thing for Canada or themselves. Unfortunately, what is likely to happen is LPC returned to majority government, NDP and Greens reduced greatly, and CPC reduced but not enough for them to abandon their tactic of being Liberal-lite.
> 
> They will wrongly think being Liberal-lite works, when in fact all that's happened is they've bled some votes to PPC and other "mavericks" but the majority of their votes came from people who despite O'Toole's positions but feel that they "have to vote CPC to get rid of Trudeau" or to "not split the vote".


I agree that the LPC is likely to get a majority in the next election. But with the LPC lurch to the left I think the CPC see an opportunity to lurch to the centre, which would work for them if Canada had an honest and trustworthy media in this country. But the 4th estate no longer exists.


----------



## Good2Golf (15 Jul 2021)

If there is a single member of the CPC who believes they are positioning themselves as “Liberal-lite,” they need their heads examined. 

The “reasonable person” in Canada (ie. Whom the legal system believes to know, or ought to know what’s right) can’t help but think that the CPC is locomoting itself right, not left.

O’Toole Time & Co. will end up with fewer seats than in 2015, most likely…


----------



## dapaterson (15 Jul 2021)

Coyne had a pretty good piece in yesterday's Globe and Mail about the sanctimonious LPC and amateur hour CPC...


----------



## Altair (15 Jul 2021)

dapaterson said:


> Coyne had a pretty good piece in yesterday's Globe and Mail about the sanctimonious LPC and amateur hour CPC...


Yes, it was a pretty good one.

Touched on a few problems for the CPC

Only 41 percent of Canadians would even consider voting for them compared to 56 percent for the LPC and 48 percent for the NDP.

The tendency of the CPC to get stuck with lifers who have don't nothing but partisan politics and a hate for the LPC. 

The confidence the LPC and the left have in putting forward its policies compared to the hesitant CPC in articulating theirs.

Interestingly though, although he and many others see the issues facing the CPC  he  and many others, do not have any solutions for the party going forward


----------



## Good2Golf (15 Jul 2021)

QV said:


> I agree that the LPC is likely to get a majority in the next election. But with the LPC lurch to the left I think the CPC see an opportunity to lurch to the centre…


LPC lurch left? 🧐

it’s not a ‘lurch’…it’s an ‘expansion’ and it includes not only solid capture of more left, but also some of the centre-right.

The CPC is busy high-fiving each other on the little berg floating further and further away to the right…


----------



## LittleBlackDevil (15 Jul 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> If there is a single member of the CPC who believes they are positioning themselves as “Liberal-lite,” they need their heads examined.
> 
> The “reasonable person” in Canada (ie. Whom the legal system believes to know, or ought to know what’s right) can’t help but think that the CPC is locomoting itself right, not left.
> 
> O’Toole Time & Co. will end up with fewer seats than in 2015, most likely…



I think the only reason the CPC seems to be "locomoting itself right" is because the centre has shifted so far to the left in recent years. It wasn't that long ago that the LPC got shredded trying to run on a carbon tax platform (Stéphane Dion, 2008 election), and yet now in 2021 Erin O'Toole has done a 180 on his promise to scrap the carbon tax and has proposed his own carbon pricing system (cf. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/carbon-tax-conservatives-1.5988407).

That said, aside from their clear stance on carbon tax (now in favour), the CPC's positions are vague and unclear, possibly in hopes that they can't easily be pinned down with an accusation of being left or right, but I think we can see clear trends in the party's behaviour under Erin O'Toole's leadership.

While MPs with "right of centre" views have been silent (or removed from the party, such a Derek Sloan who perhaps had issues but the manner in which they turfed him was incredibly dishonest), high profile MP's with the CPC have adopted the language of the woke left, like Michelle Rempel Garner's public apology for being a white, cis-gender, heterosexual female (cf. 



__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1402432754927620096). The message seems to be, say unpopular right-of centre cultural things get kicked out, embrace critical race theory and get promoted (Ms Rempel-Garner was made health critic late last year, whereas Pierre Poilevre was moved out of finance critic position in February)

The CPC has completely abandoned the field when it comes to criticisms of lockdowns and rampant government overreach -- to the contrary O'Toole's few comments have been that Trudeau didn't do enough to limit civil liberties by failing to invoke the Emergencies Act. That may not be strictly left/right with, but it's certainly in favour of authoritarianism which today seems to be a leftist thing (long gone are the days of left-of-centre being liberal in the classical sense).

But, perhaps I am, as you say, "not a reasonable person". I like to think that I am, or that it's possible for reasonable people to disagree on things. I don't know you but I think a reasonable discussion about the CPC platform would be more constructive than insulting each other's intelligence/sanity.


----------



## LittleBlackDevil (15 Jul 2021)

Altair said:


> The confidence the LPC and the left have in putting forward its policies compared to the hesitant CPC in articulating theirs.



The CPC generally come off as moral cowards with their hesitancy, but it also lends credibility to the common media attack that they are "hiding something".

While it's true that the media in Canada is extremely left biased in general, and pro-LPC in general, I've never understood the CPC cowering fear of the media. They know that the media is going to attack them no matter what they do, so be bold and confident and give Canadians a clear vision in my view.


----------



## Brad Sallows (15 Jul 2021)

> The CPC is busy high-fiving each other on the little berg floating further and further away to the right



Canada is different from the US, but not enough so to not be experiencing the same phenomenon: conservatives merely oscillating around some arbitrary point measuring their attitudes, or even drifting left but necessarily much more slowly than progressives.

Almost by definition, conservatives should be expected to experience attitude shifts much more slowly than progressives.  I'm not sure what it that causes so many people to overlook this fundamental idea and attribute the increasing relative gap in attitudes to absolute movement on the part of conservatives.

People cherish some remarkable myths.


----------



## mariomike (15 Jul 2021)

Altair said:


> Interestingly though, although he and many others see the issues facing the CPC  he  and many others, do not have any solutions for the party going forward


Some advice offered here.








						Ten things that would guarantee the new CPC leader is a winner - Macleans.ca
					

Scott Gilmore: So you want to be the next prime minister? Just follow my simple list—or you're a doomed fool.




					www.macleans.ca
				






> The tendency of the CPC to get stuck with lifers who have don't nothing but partisan politics and a hate for the LPC.



If that is true, "the party" may reject the advice offered  because of who the author is, and who he is married to.



> And, let’s be frank, the CPC is not popular among female voters.



Why is that?



> If only men voted, the Liberal and Conservatives would be in a statistical tie. Only women: the Liberals win a crushing 226 seats.











						The biggest divide in Canadian politics? Men vs. Women. - Macleans.ca
					

Philippe J. Fournier: If only men voted, the Liberal and Conservatives would be in a statistical tie. Only women: the Liberals win a crushing 226 seats.




					www.macleans.ca


----------



## Altair (15 Jul 2021)

Brad Sallows said:


> Canada is different from the US, but not enough so to not be experiencing the same phenomenon: conservatives merely oscillating around some arbitrary point measuring their attitudes, or even drifting left but necessarily much more slowly than progressives.
> 
> Almost by definition, conservatives should be expected to experience attitude shifts much more slowly than progressives.  I'm not sure what it that causes so many people to overlook this fundamental idea and attribute the increasing relative gap in attitudes to absolute movement on the part of conservatives.
> 
> People cherish some remarkable myths.


Its not so much people are overlooking that, so much as Canadian society not being in tune with that. 

The CPC has every right to be the party that pumps the brakes on societal change, shifting beliefs, and the Canadian public has every right to not vote for that party. And currently 6 out of 10 Canadians are doing just that.


----------



## Good2Golf (15 Jul 2021)

LittleBlackDevil said:


> But, perhaps I am, as you say, "not a reasonable person". I like to think that I am, or that it's possible for reasonable people to disagree on things. I don't know you but I think a reasonable discussion about the CPC platform would be more constructive than insulting each other's intelligence/sanity.


well I for one haven’t hid my political background as what used to be, but no longer seems to exist, ‘small-c’ PC background, nor have I shied away from pointing out (IMO anyway) how the Reform/Canadian Alliance killed the remnants of the PCs in their effort to win it all, and set the long-term ‘shrink-right’ trend of today’s conservatives. 

I and others hashed it out often, well upthread, but included elements having to positively (not begrudgingly) affirm that climate change is occurring and how best to address it locally, nationally, globally (54% vote against such a simple statement is not ‘constructive’).  Also proactively affirm that issues of choice, particularly for women re: abortion, should be unquestioned as the law is clear.  Another ‘own goal’ by Team Blue.  Everything the CPC does seems to come a day late and/or a dollar short. O’Toole’s carbon policy isn’t bad, but imaging if it had come out as a positive, proactive policy, not a reactionary one that many coloured as a ‘kicking and screaming, getting with the times’ effort.

Anyway, I severed my formal ties with the Conservatives as, in my view, they lost the spirit of fiscal conservatives yet social progressives that was the PCs.  The CPC does not represent my views enough for me to wish that Erin O’Toole takes a knee, and Rona Ambrose decides to come back. I don’t think that’ll happen though…and Peter MacKay is rightfully done with the party as well.

I’d probably have better results to my efforts joining the LPC, and being ‘that privileged, cis-male white guy’ that everyone rolls their eyes at when I put my hand up in the back corner of the room to make a point of order/something about not throwing the baby out with the non-virtuous bath water…

$0.02

G2G


----------



## Altair (15 Jul 2021)

mariomike said:


> Some solutions offered here.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Lets see

*Stop fetishizing rural Canada.* Yes, I understand—working the land and living in small towns somehow imbues people with the beatific glow of “real Canadian-ness.” Nonetheless, over 70 per cent of the population now lives in a metropolitan area, and that proportion is growing. Not surprisingly, they aren’t voting Tory. In the last election the CPC was shut out of all the most densely populated ridings. If they started to focus on urban Canadians and their issues and concerns, that could change.

That would be great, but how to do that and not lose the base?

*Be Canadian.* This may sound like a weird one, but consider how regionally focused the CPC has become. It is no longer a national political party, but a western alienation movement. The next leader should be able to quickly and easily explain why they can improve the lives of every Canadian, from Newfoundland to Nunavut.

Solid idea.


*Understand demographics.* Canada is changing. We are not only growing more urban, but we are becoming less white and less straight. The role of women in the workplace and household continues to evolve. The CPC needs to not just catch up, but get ahead of these changes. Be the party of the next generation, not just our grandparents’ generation.

Wow, this would be a game changer. Getting ahead of these changes would definitely change the narrative, and improve the party on a whole. A lot of what you get from the CPC is the LPC is messing up on its policies, but the LPC is being proactive, not reactive.


*Have some shame.* This country is suffering from too many politicians willing to twist their opponents’ words out of context, make promises they know they’ll never keep, throw accusations they know are untrue, and even lie outright when needed. Canadians will embrace a politician they trust, someone who is self-evidently honest, someone who can still blush.

This would be nice. 

*Respect Parliament*. In a recent interview with Paul Wells, the new leader of the Bloc Québécois, Yves-François Blanchet, was asked about the heckling in the House of Commons. He replied that he was amazed at how poorly MPs behave, and he pointed out that the vast majority of the jack-assery is coming from the CPC benches—a fact that anyone who has sat through Question Period can attest. I want the next leader of the CPC to cut that crap out and drag the loudest mouths into his office with a simple warning: Voters deserve better. Grow up or get out.

Yeah, cutting out the jack assery would be nice as well.

*Believe in climate change.* The fact this even has to be said is perhaps the greatest indictment of how far the CPC has drifted away from mainstream Canada. If every platform speech doesn’t lead with how you are going to address this crisis, then stay home. Canadians are taking this seriously and if you’re not helping you’re not needed.

Very big one if they want to be competitive in Urban Canada. The CPC did just release their version of a carbon tax, but thats it. They aren't running on that, they released it because its expected that they have some sort of plan. But you don't have Erin O'Toole out there saying climate change is one of the biggest most important issues facing Canada, not in the same way the LPC or NDP or GP are. They just came up with it and point to it when asked about climate change, but they are not running on it. Doesn't help when the party membership rejects climate change being real though.

*Believe in free markets.* Another weird request, given that the Conservative Party was once seen as the champion of free markets. Now, it eschews market mechanisms like a carbon tax in favour of half-baked incentives, regulations and subsidies. Given that Bay Street is aligned with the Liberals and NDP on this issue, the CPC needs to shake its head and stop opposing any idea that isn’t its own. (Although, ironically, in this case the idea was originally proposed by the Conservative Party—but then the Liberals agreed, so…)

They painted themselves in a corner on this one. The carbon tax is the most free market policies on reducing carbon emissions, and its one that has its roots in the conservative circles from the get go. But after painting the carbon tax as a job killing intrusion for years, how do you just pivot and say its okay now? I mean, O'Toole did just come up with his own version, but its more complicated and convoluted and less free market than the LPC one, its completely bizarro world. 

*Believe in individual liberty. *Again—conservatives were once the loudest advocates for a person’s right to do whatever they damn well choose as long as it doesn’t affect others. Why have they forgotten this? I want the next leader of the CPC to not care who I sleep with, what I smoke or what gender I choose.

Problem with the big tent movements, sometimes you get people in your tent that you almost don't want in it. 

The only party to bring up abortion in any capacity is the CPC, backbenchers yes, but you don't see it in other parties. 

They only voted to recognize gay marriage in 2016, 11 years after it became legal.

They are the only party currently making a stink about banning conversion therapy. 

Individual liberty would go a long way to helping them catch up in urban canada.

*Have a plan to share.* Andrew Scheer ran on a very vague platform. Doug Ford didn’t have one at all. It would be great if you could tell voters what you are actually going to do in office, how much it will cost, and how you will pay for it. I can’t believe I have to ask for this, but here we are.

A lot of CPC supporters seem to think that just hating Justin Trudeau and his government is enough to bring about change. 

While hate for the PM may run deep in the party, its not widespread enough outside of the party for that to work. 

Its here where having a clear plan would come in very handy, other than, LPC sucks, vote for us because we are not them.

*Want to be prime minister.* Too many CPC politicians want to be the most CPCish politician they can be, more than they want to be prime minister. They love to revel in the cheers of their hard core base, and to point fingers at other conservatives who aren’t as conservative as them. This will only keep you in opposition. So choose what you want more. (Note to Erin O’Toole: when you accuse Peter MacKay of being “Liberal-Lite”, voters just hear “electable”.)

Yeah, they need to get out of their bubble/echo chamber. But lets be frank, its the way to win the leadership. O'Toole did try to pivot, but I don't think its working the way he intended. 


So yes, there is a article saying what they should do. Telling that its from over a year ago though.


----------



## LittleBlackDevil (15 Jul 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> well I for one haven’t hid my political background as what used to be, but no longer seems to exist, ‘small-c’ PC background, nor have I shied away from pointing out (IMO anyway) how the Reform/Canadian Alliance killed the remnants of the PCs in their effort to win it all, and set the long-term ‘shrink-right’ trend of today’s conservatives.
> 
> I and others hashed it out often, well upthread, but included elements having to positively (not begrudgingly) affirm that climate change is occurring and how best to address it locally, nationally, globally (54% vote against such a simple statement is not ‘constructive’).  Also proactively affirm that issues of choice, particularly for women re: abortion, should be unquestioned as the law is clear.  Another ‘own goal’ by Team Blue.  Everything the CPC does seems to come a day late and/or a dollar short. O’Toole’s carbon policy isn’t bad, but imaging if it had come out as a positive, proactive policy, not a reactionary one that many coloured as a ‘kicking and screaming, getting with the times’ effort.



The things you complain of are not CPC policy but also do not indicate any move to the right, so much as a failure to move to the left at the grassroots level (as opposed to formal party policy). The fact that people who attend the convention may vote a certain way, clearly has no impact on how the Party is actually run. Looking at the actual policies, the CPC seems to be fiscally conservative (relatively) and socially progressive. I'm not aware of any actual *policy* that is _*not*_ socially progressive. It seems that you have quit the party over bad optics (and what some people say/vote at conventions) versus actual policy, no?

I don't post as much as you do, but I also think I've been fairly open about being a "social conservative" albeit one who is frustrated with some of the self-defeating positions taken by that group. While I in principle disagree with you on the killing of babies who haven't yet exited the womb, we would agree in practice that it should not be part of the CPC platform (and it isn't nor has it been since the CPC existed). 



Good2Golf said:


> I’d probably have better results to my efforts joining the LPC, and being ‘that privileged, cis-male white guy’ that everyone rolls their eyes at when I put my hand up in the back corner of the room to make a point of order/something about not throwing the baby out with the non-virtuous bath water…



I applaud your principled "putting your money where your mouth is". I, too, am done with the CPC (for opposite reasons you are). What you describe as your positions seem that you should actually be at home with the CPC, whereas people with my views are expected to vote "team blue" but our views will never be reflected by actual policy. That said, I have no interest in trying to convince you because I'd rather see the CPC die the death. 

I think that you will find that things are much rougher for you in the LPC than the CPC and that you will be quickly left behind as the party moves ever left at a faster pace. I think you implicitly recognize this as you predict eye rolling at the "cis-white guy" offering his dinosaur opinions when UBI is on the table.


----------



## Brad Sallows (15 Jul 2021)

> Its not so much people are overlooking that, so much as Canadian society not being in tune with that.



That may be true, but has nothing to do with my point: variations of the myth/idea that conservatives are the ones changing, are wrong.


----------



## Altair (15 Jul 2021)

LittleBlackDevil said:


> The things you complain of are not CPC policy but also do not indicate any move to the right, so much as a failure to move to the left at the grassroots level (as opposed to formal party policy). The fact that people who attend the convention may vote a certain way, clearly has no impact on how the Party is actually run. Looking at the actual policies, the CPC seems to be fiscally conservative (relatively) and socially progressive. I'm not aware of any actual *policy* that is _*not*_ socially progressive. It seems that you have quit the party over bad optics (and what some people say/vote at conventions) versus actual policy, no?


Ah, this is where the CPC gets to have its cake and eat it too.

They allow free votes. So while its CPC "policy" to to not oppose abortions, its members get to vote their conscience. So where does the opposition to the current abortion laws come from? The CPC MPs. 82 (82!) out of 120 (Plus Sloan) voted in favour of  Bill C-233, which sought to ban doctors from performing an abortion based on the sex of a fetus. 

Conversion therapy ban? CPC allows members to vote their conscience, no official CPC policy on it. Half (HALF!) the CPC caucus voted against it.

So sure, there are no "policies" that are not socially progressive, just a lot of members who push their agendas that are not socially progressive, whos backers have a say in who the CPC chooses as a leader, and could full well bring forward a social progressive. 

That may sound like hidden agenda, but its not. Its very open.


----------



## Altair (15 Jul 2021)

Brad Sallows said:


> That may be true, but has nothing to do with my point: variations of the myth/idea that conservatives are the ones changing, are wrong.


Are people saying this?

I don't know of many people thinking the CPC has changed. I think their main criticism is they are stuck in the past and not keeping up with the present and definitely not the future.


----------



## Brad Sallows (15 Jul 2021)

You and I probably read different inputs.  Every few months, some left-leaning opinion writer returns to the idea of how conservatives (Canada and US) are becoming more extreme, and attributes that to changes in conservative attitudes.  From the progressive frame-of-reference, it is true that conservatives are becoming more extreme - but it is mostly because the progressive frame-of-reference is moving.  We could choose any arbitrary aggregate measure of attitudes regarding a number of prominent social/political ideas, measure it now, and measure it repeatedly in future, and with reference to that arbitrary point, it is progressives who would have the greater velocity moving away from it.

Conservatives by definition don't keep up with progressives.  If they do, they are just progressives.

A couple of days ago, Kevin Drum produced an article recognizing that the gap is due to changes in progressive attitudes.  Here, I've linked to some Pew survey results several times in the past few years which indicate the same thing.

From time to time, some writer notes that progressives gradually achieve changes, and conservatives rarely roll anything back.  Then follows the observation "what's the point of conservativism", then the point of the screed emerges, which (crudely) is "please roll over and die so we can change more quickly".  But there are always a few things which are not changing much, if at all.

The valuable role of conservativism is to uphold Chesterton's Fence.  There is no shortage of people who are simultaneously willing to break things they don't like, while having no idea of how to deal with any problems that result.

Phrased another way, conservativism is the philosophy of "know the standard, follow the standard, teach the standard, enforce the standard".  Progressivism would be harder if more people were held directly accountable for the ill effects of changes they create.


----------



## LittleBlackDevil (15 Jul 2021)

Altair said:


> Ah, this is where the CPC gets to have its cake and eat it too.
> 
> They allow free votes.



So what I am hearing is that you are opposed to free votes, and opposed to a "big tent" party. 

In that case you are definitely in the right place with the LPC (where party membership requires certain social positions).

It is highly ironic to me that social progressivism has morphed from "let people do what they want" and "government has no place in the bedrooms of the nation" into "agree with us or else"/"only approved opinions/thoughts are allowed". In that regard, the CPC is probably closer to the Liberal party positions of a few years ago.

That said, I think that the free vote things you complain of are empty gestures that serve only to somatize socially conservative voters into continuing to give their votes to the CPC while all along the CPC is actually wholly socially progressive. I find it very interesting that an empty gesture that will never amount to anything causes people such as yourself so much angst.


----------



## LittleBlackDevil (15 Jul 2021)

Altair said:


> I don't know of many people thinking the CPC has changed. I think their main criticism is they are stuck in the past and not keeping up with the present and definitely not the future.



I think Brad Sallows summed it up well ... the CPC has actually changed (leftward) but at an insufficient pace for the media and others, thus it appears that they are shifting right whereas they are just slow.

That said re: "stuck in the past" it's very true that politics are downstream of culture, and the more leftist our culture becomes the less likely anything remotely right-of-centre can ever win. I wouldn't be surprised if the Harper government was the last CPC government we'll ever see absent drastic change of course at some point. The left completely controls the media and education (the two main drivers of culture nowadays) so things will only go further and further left until people with your current views, Altair, are derided as dinosaurs holding politically unacceptable positions.


----------



## Brad Sallows (15 Jul 2021)

There's always a spread of attitudes, and most people experience changes in attitude.  Over time, the spread between the extremes should be expected to become larger.  Social media have accelerated the rate of growth of the gap and given people the power to punish others at one or more removes (eg. pressure on an employer).  Bridging the gap (getting along) is harder, and is complicated by hyper-animosity.  Several recent examples (emerging mostly from the US) involving people who were part of the tribe one day and voted off the island on the next are instructive, and not encouraging.

It won't continue forever; there will be an inflection point (probably will look more like a discontinuity).  The ants may do OK; the grasshoppers will be fucked.


----------



## QV (15 Jul 2021)

LittleBlackDevil said:


> I think Brad Sallows summed it up well ... the CPC has actually changed (leftward) but at an insufficient pace for the media and others, thus it appears that they are shifting right whereas they are just slow.
> 
> That said re: "stuck in the past" it's very true that politics are downstream of culture, and the more leftist our culture becomes the less likely anything remotely right-of-centre can ever win. I wouldn't be surprised if the Harper government was the last CPC government we'll ever see absent drastic change of course at some point. The left completely controls the media and education (the two main drivers of culture nowadays) so things will only go further and further left until people with your current views, Altair, are derided as dinosaurs holding politically unacceptable positions.


Quite the concept that an elected representative is allowed to vote their conscience for their constituents, indeed. 

We are in times where 'free votes' are considered illiberal by the progressive left and more. And the progressive left has the plurality of support. 

The four phases of ideological subversion as described by KGB defector Yuri Bezmenov in his warning to America seems to be playing out.


----------



## Altair (15 Jul 2021)

LittleBlackDevil said:


> I think Brad Sallows summed it up well ... the CPC has actually changed (leftward) but at an insufficient pace for the media and others, thus it appears that they are shifting right whereas they are just slow.
> 
> That said re: "stuck in the past" it's very true that politics are downstream of culture, and the more leftist our culture becomes the less likely anything remotely right-of-centre can ever win. I wouldn't be surprised if the Harper government was the last CPC government we'll ever see absent drastic change of course at some point. The left completely controls the media and education (the two main drivers of culture nowadays) so things will only go further and further left until people with your current views, Altair, are derided as dinosaurs holding politically unacceptable positions.


My views have changed as I have gotten older and as I educated myself on certain things. 

Trans rights for example, I had a much less accepting stance on things until I actively went out and had conversations with trans people and trans activists and saw and understood their point of view, and where what they want/wanted does not infringe on what I want/believe.

I used to be a big defender of historical figures/statues in public, and not judging them for things that were before their times. Now, I am more understanding of how that can be harmful to people who view those as symbols that people who caused harm to them, their family members, their ancestors being celebrated for those acts. While I do not fully like the movement to remove these people from the public sphere, I also understand where it is coming from and as such do not have much of a problem with it when it happens.

The environment is another, where I held certain points of view in the past, but presented with the science and understanding of today, have changed my outlook from where it once was. 

I don't think I am one to plant my feet in the ground and say that what I believed 10 years ago is exactly what I believe today. I am forever learning, forever reevaluating my beliefs and I hope I don't one day stop and say, I will believe this for the rest of my days no matter what.


----------



## OldSolduer (15 Jul 2021)

QV said:


> Quite the concept that an elected representative is allowed to vote their conscience for their constituents, indeed.
> 
> We are in times where 'free votes' are considered illiberal by the progressive left and more. And the progressive left has the plurality of support.
> 
> The four phases of ideological subversion as described by KGB defector Yuri Bezmenov in his warning to America seems to be playing out.


You mean like free and fair elections in Russia? 

There was a myth or maybe it was true that in the USSR Stalin was given a standing ovation, but no one would stop clapping. Finally one did and he was arrested as a "Counter revolutionary".


----------



## Altair (15 Jul 2021)

LittleBlackDevil said:


> So what I am hearing is that you are opposed to free votes, and opposed to a "big tent" party.


Free votes are like free speech, I support it, but don't expect me to support what someone says with that free speech or free vote.


LittleBlackDevil said:


> In that case you are definitely in the right place with the LPC (where party membership requires certain social positions).
> 
> It is highly ironic to me that social progressivism has morphed from "let people do what they want" and "government has no place in the bedrooms of the nation" into "agree with us or else"/"only approved opinions/thoughts are allowed".


But thats the thing. When people are using that free vote to vote for state intervention in the bedroom, or in gender, or in abortion, that is the opposite of social progressivism.


LittleBlackDevil said:


> In that regard, the CPC is probably closer to the Liberal party positions of a few years ago.


Not when they (MPs, not the party) are voting for socially conservative motions.


LittleBlackDevil said:


> That said, I think that the free vote things you complain of are empty gestures that serve only to somatize socially conservative voters into continuing to give their votes to the CPC while all along the CPC is actually wholly socially progressive.


And here lies the trap I think the LPC has set for the CPC. 

The LPC said it didn't want anti abortion members or supporters. CPC accepts everyone. Most Canadians are hesitant to support measures on abortion, and are content with the current laws (or lack thereof) around it. LPC gets to point at the CPC and say they are the party of anti abortion, and the CPC can deny it up and down, but their voting record on a whole says otherwise.


LittleBlackDevil said:


> I find it very interesting that an empty gesture that will never amount to anything causes people such as yourself so much angst.


One is tainted by the company they keep. 

The CPC are associated with the social conservatives, they have MPs that are open social conservatives, their voting record shows that they have a active social conservative wing, and social conservatives have a lot of sway in leadership contests. 

At that point it rings hollow to say that their platform isn't socially conservative.


----------



## Altair (15 Jul 2021)

QV said:


> Quite the concept that an elected representative is allowed to vote their conscience for their constituents, indeed.


On can vote for whatever they please if they want  free votes. But can you really be surprised if people don't support what that person voted for with their conscience?


QV said:


> We are in times where 'free votes' are considered illiberal by the progressive left and more. And the progressive left has the plurality of support.


I think its more nuanced than that. If you are a party that has core beliefs and someone is voting against said core beliefs, they might be in the wrong party.

For example, a Green party member being opposed to a carbon tax would likely not be a good fit.


----------



## mariomike (15 Jul 2021)

Altair said:


> I used to be a big defender of historical figures/statues in public, and not judging them for things that were before their times. Now, I am more understanding of how that can be harmful to people who view those as symbols that people who caused harm to them, their family members, their ancestors being celebrated for those acts. While I do not fully like the movement to remove these people from the public sphere, I also understand where it is coming from and as such do not have much of a problem with it when it happens.


The estimated cost to Toronto taxpayers to re-name Dundas Street and 60 other streets is $21.2 million. 

The cost will keep going higher as additional streets are added to the list.  Such as streets named "Indian".


----------



## Altair (15 Jul 2021)

mariomike said:


> The estimated cost to Toronto taxpayers to re-name Dundas Street and 60 other streets is $21.2 million.
> 
> The cost will keep going higher as additional streets are added to the list.  Such as streets named "Indian".


And there was a time where I felt that this was not worth it, or necessary.

But learning of how much it brings harm to some people, makes them feel like the places they live does not understand the harm it brings, 21.2 million doesn't bother me as much.

Just do the right thing.


----------



## mariomike (15 Jul 2021)

Altair said:


> And there was a time where I felt that this was not worth it, or necessary.
> 
> But learning of how much it brings harm to some people, makes them feel like the places they live does not understand the harm it brings, 21.2 million doesn't bother me as much.
> 
> Just do the right thing.


Not that there's anything wrong with it, of course.

But, it will be interesting to see the price tag for the entire country.

Not just streets. But properties with problematic names as well.

Hopefully, the removal of statues and re-naming will be peaceful .


----------



## ModlrMike (15 Jul 2021)

I can't wait until the campaign to rename Victoria kicks off.


----------



## Altair (15 Jul 2021)

mariomike said:


> Not that there's anything wrong with it, of course.
> 
> But, it will be interesting to see the cost for the entire country.
> 
> ...


I like that its happening at a local level. 

Nobody is forcing Toronto to do this. Toronto is deciding to do this. 

If at a local level people and politicians decide that its for the best, then that's up to them. So long as the provinces and feds keep their nose out of it.


----------



## mariomike (15 Jul 2021)

Altair said:


> I like that its happening at a local level.
> 
> Nobody is forcing Toronto to do this. Toronto is deciding to do this.
> 
> If at a local level people and politicians decide that its for the best, then that's up to them. So long as the provinces and feds keep their nose out of it.


A new name has already been nominated. The comments are interesting.   



__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1415505682770669572


----------



## Altair (15 Jul 2021)

mariomike said:


> A new name has already been nominated. The comments are interesting.
> 
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1415505682770669572


I like the statue idea in the comments


----------



## ModlrMike (16 Jul 2021)

This is how many now?



			https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-pitfield-dion-ethics-1.6103035
		


Ethics commissioner set to look into Liberal data contracts
Ethics Commissioner Mario Dion has asked PM for more information about contracts with longtime friend


----------



## Good2Golf (16 Jul 2021)

ModlrMike said:


> This is how many now?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Halifax Tar (16 Jul 2021)

Altair said:


> And here lies the trap I think the LPC has set for the CPC.
> 
> The LPC said it didn't want anti abortion members or supporters. CPC accepts everyone. Most Canadians are hesitant to support measures on abortion, and are content with the current laws (or lack thereof) around it. LPC gets to point at the CPC and say they are the party of anti abortion, and the CPC can deny it up and down, but their voting record on a whole says otherwise.


You hit the nail on the head here.  And I think it really shows a lack of charismatic and visionary leadership on the side of the CPC.  

The CPC are letting the Liberals have the initiative and control the message.  

I am convinced I would not take much to take it back.  And right the ship for the CPC.  You simply have to stop the blame game, provide positive alternatives and take the higher road than the Liberals will in any campaign.  But none of that makes for good click bait or memes for the unwashed masses.


----------



## QV (16 Jul 2021)

Halifax Tar said:


> You hit the nail on the head here.  And I think it really shows a lack of charismatic and visionary leadership on the side of the CPC.
> 
> The CPC are letting the Liberals have the initiative and control the message.
> 
> I am convinced I would not take much to take it back.  And right the ship for the CPC.  You simply have to stop the blame game, provide positive alternatives and take the higher road than the Liberals will in any campaign.  But none of that makes for good click bait or memes for the unwashed masses.


It will never matter who is leading the CPC/PPC or anyone other than the 600 million dollar media funding political party. The best example is abortion. Anti-abortion laws have been completely off the table for a long time but the LPC via the media keep using this club to beat the CPC and scare the voters.

The message is already mostly controlled. The best evidence of this are all the crazy scandals that directly involve the PM. No other politician in history would have survived all of that. If Harper or any other CPC/PPC leader had been implicated in any ONE of those, the media would have beat that drum, endlessly, until the member was tossed.


----------



## Altair (16 Jul 2021)

QV said:


> It will never matter who is leading the CPC/PPC or anyone other than the 600 million dollar media funding political party. The best example is abortion. Anti-abortion laws have been completely off the table for a long time but the LPC via the media keep using this club to beat the CPC and scare the voters.
> 
> The message is already mostly controlled. The best evidence of this are all the crazy scandals that directly involve the PM. No other politician in history would have survived all of that. If Harper or any other CPC/PPC leader had been implicated in any ONE of those, the media would have beat that drum, endlessly, until the member was tossed.


Is the message controlled or does the CPC not allow Canadians any alternatives?

What do you want a urban Canadian to do? Trudeau has scandals, sure. Do you want them to vote for the CPC? Why would they? They may not want pipelines, CPC likes pipelines. They may want gun control, CPC doesn't like gun control. They like the liberal version of the carbon tax where they can use the money to buy burgers, CPC would not let them use their carbon tax money on burgers.

So they may not like Trudeau, but they cannot vote CPC. Okay, NDP then? Well, look at 2011. Progressives (and Quebec Nationalists) voted NDP. Scared the center of the LPC enough that they went CPC. Got 4 years of Harper. So voting NDP is not really a great option if a person is already determined that they don't like CPC.

Okay, maybe not vote at all. Well, a good amount of that happened in 2011 as well, same result as above.

The key here is that for a good portion of Canadians, it doesn't matter what Trudeau does, because if they don't want a CPC government, the only thing preventing that is Trudeau. So the key here, how does the CPC get to a point where 6 in 10 Canadians want nothing to do with them?

People on the right, and in the CPC seem to think that if Trudeau has scandals, they should be shoe in as the next government in order to get Trudeau out. Well, it's not working, because as it stands, people like a scandal ridden Trudeau over whatever the CPC is. Until the CPC can provide a viable alternative, its their damn fault Trudeau is reelected, not voting Canadians.


----------



## Good2Golf (16 Jul 2021)

QV said:


> It will never matter who is leading the CPC/PPC or anyone other than the 600 million dollar media funding political party. The best example is abortion. Anti-abortion laws have been completely off the table for a long time but the LPC via the media keep using this club to beat the CPC and scare the voters.


Yeah…why can’t Canadians understand that Conservatives have no interest whatsoever in influencing Canada’s existing abortion laws!  😡


Oh, wait…from….43 *days* ago:

Conservative MP’s abortion bill defeated 248-82 as Liberals blast O’Toole over free vote​So a Conservative private member’s bill supported by 81 fellow conservatives (representing a 2/3 majority of the 121 Conservative MPs, and by average population by riding in CPC regions, about 8,000,000 million Canadians to parliament) isn’t to be taken as any indication that the abortion issue isn’t fully resolved and left to existing legislation?

A select quote from the linked article notes the issue that many have, particularly when trying to reconcile “nothing to see here, move in” type statements from you or others that “the law exists already and there’s no desire to alter it…”


> “This is in fact the seventh time since 2007 that a Conservative Member of Parliament has worked hard to limit women’s choices,” [Minister Monsef] said at a news conference.


So yeah…not unreasonable that most Canadians would feel that the majority of Conservatives want to alter laws to be more restrictive to women and their reproductive rights.


Regards.
G2G


----------



## Jarnhamar (16 Jul 2021)

Trudeau hitting the campaign road early.

Trudeau announces $440 million for Quebec aerospace industry​








						Trudeau announces $440 million for Quebec aerospace industry
					

MONTREAL - The federal government is investing up to $440 million in Quebec’s aerospace industry to subsidize major companies operating in a key secto...




					www.thestar.com
				





> Trudeau made the announcement in Montreal, a day after he travelled to Quebec’s Gaspé region to pledge up to $25 million to expand a wind turbine plant. The millions of dollars in federal money for Quebec come ahead of a likely election campaign, the date for which has not been set.


----------



## Altair (16 Jul 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> Yeah…why can’t Canadians understand that Conservatives have no interest whatsoever in influencing Canada’s existing abortion laws!  😡
> 
> 
> Oh, wait…from….43 *days* ago:
> ...


Yeah, it leaves Canadians with some hard math to do. 

Better make sure that if the CPC win, they don't win more that 258 seats ever.

Because if they are voting at 66 percent to put restrictions on abortion, they can do it at 258 seats because at that point, they can get 170.28 votes in favour, so lets make sure they only win 240, just to be on the safe side. Now lets see where they are currently leading in each individual riding....


----------



## QV (16 Jul 2021)

Wait... are you talking about the bill which sought to ban doctors from performing an abortion *based on the sex of a fetus?*

So of all the reasons one might obtain an abortion, 248 MPs believe that once the family finds out the fetus is a female one they should be able to eliminate it for that reason alone and perhaps keep doing so until they get a male fetus?  

That Bill to me sounds like a reasonable limitation on a serious and sensitive matter. And for a party of claimed feminists, you'd think they would take steps to protect those that can't protect themselves, such as the unborn. 

Which demographics do you think defeating this legislation helps most? Which demographics favor male births over female for example? Which countries discarded baby girls at birth? But this Bill and the CPC are framed as an anti-abortion anti choice.


----------



## Jarnhamar (16 Jul 2021)

QV said:


> Wait... are you talking about the bill which sought to ban doctors from performing an abortion *based on the sex of a fetus?*
> 
> So of all the reasons one might obtain an abortion, 248 MPs believe that once the family finds out the fetus is a female one they should be able to eliminate it for that reason alone and perhaps keep doing so until they get a male fetus?



Sex-selective abortion, pretty popular in a country that the Prime Minister admires (or at least the basic dictatorship of that country).


----------



## OldSolduer (16 Jul 2021)

Jarnhamar said:


> Sex-selective abortion, pretty popular in a country that the Prime Minister admires (or at least the basic dictatorship of that country).


And an outrageous affront - or it should be - that our half wit in chief admires China.


----------



## Remius (16 Jul 2021)

QV said:


> Wait... are you talking about the bill which sought to ban doctors from performing an abortion *based on the sex of a fetus?*
> 
> So of all the reasons one might obtain an abortion, 248 MPs believe that once the family finds out the fetus is a female one they should be able to eliminate it for that reason alone and perhaps keep doing so until they get a male fetus?
> 
> ...


That bill was just a way for CPC SOCONS to keep the abortion debate alive.   Are sex selective abortions really running rampant in Canada?  Honest question because I don’t know.

The ones that voted for this are the same ones that voted against stopping sex conversion therapies so…


----------



## Remius (16 Jul 2021)

OldSolduer said:


> And an outrageous affront - or it should be - that our half wit in chief admires China.


Meh.  The half wit they had down south in the last administration admired them as well.  Funny how those that hate Trudeau for that couldn’t bring themselves to hate Trump for it lol.

it all depends on whose team one cheers for.

For my part I’m no fan of Trudeau’s love for China.  I’d like to see a serious joint effort by western countries to curtail China’s influence.  We should stop walking on eggshells with them.


----------



## QV (16 Jul 2021)

Remius said:


> That bill was just a way for CPC SOCONS to keep the abortion debate alive.   Are sex selective abortions really running rampant in Canada?  Honest question because I don’t know.
> 
> The ones that voted for this are the same ones that voted against stopping sex conversion therapies so…


You're mind reading skills are terrible. But your demonstrated belief here is more evidence the media arm of the LPC has been very successful.



Remius said:


> Meh.  The half wit they had down south in the last administration admired them as well.  Funny how those that hate Trudeau for that couldn’t bring themselves to hate Trump for it lol.
> 
> it all depends on whose team one cheers for.
> 
> For my part I’m no fan of Trudeau’s love for China.  I’d like to see a serious joint effort by western countries to curtail China’s influence.  We should stop walking on eggshells with them.


You're ignoring 45's actual handling of China while also ignoring Trudeau's actual handling of China, but these are strawman arguments anyway.  

The fact is, this Bill would have prevented the aborting of fetus' based on gender alone, which was predominantly a risk to female fetus'.  And most of the MPs voted against it. That my friend is very despicable indeed and not in keeping with a country professing equality and human rights, but more akin to places with deplorable human rights records like China and Pakistan.


----------



## Remius (16 Jul 2021)

QV said:


> You're mind reading skills are terrible. But your demonstrated belief here is more evidence the media arm of the LPC has been very successful.
> 
> 
> You're ignoring 45's actual handling of China while also ignoring Trudeau's actual handling of China, but these are strawman arguments anyway.
> ...


I didn’t bring up te straw man in the first place.  But yes the media arm is very successfull but mostly because the CPC keeps beating itself up with its own hands.  I am 100% in agreement with you about the media.

like I said this just keep abortion front and center and gives the LPC more ammo.  Media or not.  Makes no difference.  But again do we actually have an issue with gender based abortions?  Do we have doctors doing this?  And at what scale?   Are you really comparing us to Pakistan and China in that regard?  What metrics are we using to analyse that?


----------



## FJAG (16 Jul 2021)

QV said:


> The fact is, this Bill would have prevented the aborting of fetus' based on gender alone, which was predominantly a risk to female fetus'.  And most of the MPs voted against it. That my friend is very despicable indeed and not in keeping with a country professing equality and human rights, but more akin to places with deplorable human rights records like China and Pakistan.


The bill itself wasn't the issue. The problem was that it was seen by many as an attempt to insert the thin edge of the wedge (and there was probably an equal or greater number that didn't understand the effect of the bill but who merely heard "abortion" and had all their dog whistles go off)

I understand and support the concept behind the bill but the bill itself was a entirely unnecessary self-inflicted wound by the CPC. There are enough leaders and followers within the CPC who have socon beliefs and would cut loose with them if given a chance. The electorate isn't stupid and recognizes that. I'm a fiscon and am sticking with the CPC for the time being but mostly because of my utter loathing with what the alternatives are - the NDP because they are simpletons and the Liberals because of who controls that party and their penchant for putting self above country.

I'm not sure how long I can control my gag reflex, however. I was much happier with the CPC when the word "progressive" was part of their name and agenda. For Lord's sake we couldn't even get majority agreement on climate change. If the CPC spent half their effort on a proper communication platform rather then their constant campaign to wheedle a contribution out of me, I'd be a lot happier. Unfortunately the socons are still a large part of the CPC base and completely throwing them under the bus would just result in another Reform Party so one has to humour them. Talk about Catch 22.


----------



## Brad Sallows (16 Jul 2021)

> Until the CPC can provide a viable alternative, its their damn fault Trudeau is reelected, not voting Canadians.



The damn fault lies, and always will lie, with voters.

So 82 of 121 voted to ban sex-selective abortions.  On one of the less controversial reasons for restricting abortion, from a group that must represent the hardest socially conservative core of ridings, they could only get to 2/3 of their own membership.  Hint: it won't scale linearly with larger pluralities.

 I reiterate: conservatives will never elect enough members to have a working majority to do away with SSM or put in place abortion restrictions.  The only way conservatives get to a majority in parliament is by electing a tranche of members who will not support those measures, because there are not enough ridings which would elect such members.  The same principle applies as elsewhere: the most conservative person electable in, say, Toronto is not as conservative as the one electable in rural AB.  The ceiling for parliament as a whole I doubt would ever get anywhere near 170.  The threat is a boogeyman.


----------



## Jarnhamar (16 Jul 2021)

OldSolduer said:


> And an outrageous affront - or it should be - that our half wit in chief admires China.


I think we're on the same page with our criticisms in meaning the Chinese government rather than China.


----------



## Altair (16 Jul 2021)

Brad Sallows said:


> The damn fault lies, and always will lie, with voters.
> 
> So 82 of 121 voted to ban sex-selective abortions.  On one of the less controversial reasons for restricting abortion, from a group that must represent the hardest socially conservative core of ridings, they could only get to 2/3 of their own membership.  Hint: it won't scale linearly with larger pluralities.
> 
> I reiterate: conservatives will never elect enough members to have a working majority to do away with SSM or put in place abortion restrictions.  The only way conservatives get to a majority in parliament is by electing a tranche of members who will not support those measures, because there are not enough ridings which would elect such members.  The same principle applies as elsewhere: the most conservative person electable in, say, Toronto is not as conservative as the one electable in rural AB.  The ceiling for parliament as a whole I doubt would ever get anywhere near 170.  The threat is a boogeyman.


I like how you ignored the carbon tax, gun control and pipelines


----------



## Jarnhamar (16 Jul 2021)

Brad Sallows said:


> So 82 of 121 voted to ban sex-selective abortions.


Devils advocate. What if there was a way to detect whether an unborn baby had a predisposition to be a homosexual or not. Would opposing selective abortions be viewed the same if Canadians were aborting babies that would likely be homosexual?


----------



## Remius (16 Jul 2021)

Jarnhamar said:


> I think we're on the same page with our criticisms in meaning the Chinese government rather than China.


A very good distinction to make.  Thanks for that.


----------



## Altair (16 Jul 2021)

QV said:


> Wait... are you talking about the bill which sought to ban doctors from performing an abortion *based on the sex of a fetus?*
> 
> So of all the reasons one might obtain an abortion, 248 MPs believe that once the family finds out the fetus is a female one they should be able to eliminate it for that reason alone and perhaps keep doing so until they get a male fetus?
> 
> ...








						CityNews
					






					www.google.com
				






> A majority of the Canadian public are satisfied with the country’s abortion policies, a new poll says.
> 
> The DART_ & _Maru/Blue Voice Canada poll released on Friday says 75 per cent of Canadians were “satisfied” with Canada’s abortion policies, with 25 per cent indicating they are not satisfied.
> 
> ...



Now imagine what happens when you are a person who would never vote for a party who's members vote for taking away the right of a woman for getting an abortion, no matter the reason.

Oh wait,we know the answer. 6 out of 10 Canadians don't consider theCPC as a viable voting option. 

It was a LPC trap, the CPC walked right into it, and now the CPC has a hard cap over their head from just 1 issue alone.

Never mind all the rest.


----------



## Jarnhamar (16 Jul 2021)

Altair said:


> I like how you ignored the carbon tax, gun control and pipelines


He probably would have spoken about gun control but the LPC would censor it since its a matter of national security.


----------



## Brad Sallows (16 Jul 2021)

> I like how you ignored the carbon tax, gun control and pipelines



That's a pretty big brain fart right there.  You do realize I was writing about something specific, and am not under obligation to you to address everything you think needs to be addressed?


----------



## Remius (16 Jul 2021)

Brad Sallows said:


> That's a pretty big brain fart right there.  You do realize I was writing about something specific, and am not under obligation to you to address everything you think needs to be addressed?


To be honest though I think that the CPC can still shape the gun rights issue and carbon pricing to there advantage if they can communicate a bit better on those issues.


----------



## Altair (16 Jul 2021)

Brad Sallows said:


> That's a pretty big brain fart right there.  You do realize I was writing about something specific, and am not under obligation to you to address everything you think needs to be addressed?


You did quote me to be fair.


----------



## Brad Sallows (16 Jul 2021)

I did, for the one line, to make the point that voters are responsible for election results.

The rest was about the so-con boogeyman scare.


----------



## Altair (16 Jul 2021)

Brad Sallows said:


> I did, for the one line, to make the point that voters are responsible for election results.


And political parties are responsible for providing platforms that convince the voting public to vote for them.

If a party isn't doing that,it's disingenuous to blame the voter.

The CPC is not entitled to Canadians votes if the Liberals are messing up anymore than the Marijuana party


----------



## OldSolduer (16 Jul 2021)

Jarnhamar said:


> I think we're on the same page with our criticisms in meaning the Chinese government rather than China.


As Ed McMahon used to say:

“you are correct sir hahaha “


----------



## Brad Sallows (16 Jul 2021)

> If a party isn't doing that,it's disingenuous to blame the voter.



A party obviously can not be all things to all people.  It's absurd for any one person to blame all parties for not fitting what he wants; it's absurd for any number of people to complain.  And people are liars.

Conservatives are not homogeneous.  The CPC has the same problem facing Republicans in the US: there is a sub-faction of the party that can't stand not being in control of the party, so they go sit in a corner and sulk and either withhold their votes or vote for another party.  It doesn't occur to them to suck up their dissatisfaction and support the people who supported them, and wait for the wheel to turn.


----------



## Altair (16 Jul 2021)

Brad Sallows said:


> A party obviously can not be all things to all people.


Of course not. A party just has to be enough things to enough people. 


Brad Sallows said:


> It's absurd for any one person to blame all parties for not fitting what he wants;


It is, but is also absurd to blame the voters when a party isn't giving the individuals enough of what they want.


Brad Sallows said:


> it's absurd for any number of people to complain.


They aren't complaining so much as not voting for the parties that are not giving them enough of what they want.


Brad Sallows said:


> And people are liars.


Election results are not lies. Polling isn't lying.


Brad Sallows said:


> Conservatives are not homogeneous.  The CPC has the same problem facing Republicans in the US: there is a sub-faction of the party that can't stand not being in control of the party, so they go sit in a corner and sulk and either withhold their votes or vote for another party.


Or what they are offering isn't what they want and the LPC is closer to what they want, or what they are going to get. 


Brad Sallows said:


> It doesn't occur to them to suck up their dissatisfaction and support the people who supported them, and wait for the wheel to turn.


Again, blaming the voter is the most petulant thing one can do. The CPC doesn't own the vote of any person in this country. If the CPC is actively irritating a sub faction of their supporters, hell ya that sub faction will go elsewhere or park their vote. Same way there were subfactions of the LPC that bolted to the NDP in 2011. 

Its up to the parties to come up with a platform and priorities that enough voters can support, and if they do not, they will not get good results. The CPC isn't where they are today because of the voting public, the CPC is where they are today because they are failing to be a viable alternative.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (16 Jul 2021)

Altair said:


> . The CPC isn't where they are today because of the voting public, the CPC is where they are today because they are failing to be a viable alternative.


Exactly.  How I wish they would, so that I could vote *for* them again, as opposed to voting *against* someone else


----------



## RangerRay (17 Jul 2021)

It’s almost like the Tories aren’t even trying to convince Blue Liberals to support them other than “look how bad your guy is!” (Which, he is).

It also doesn’t help that Tories in Alberta, Manitoba and Ontario are putting pucks in their own net with ham-fisted ideological but unpopular decisions. Tends to make people stay with the loser they have than take a flyer on Door #2.


----------



## Good2Golf (17 Jul 2021)

Attract Blue Liberals seems lower on the list than shun Red Tories…

While the Liberal are doing a great job facilitating internal fractures in the Greens and NDP and subsuming the byproduct of those fractures into their own party, the Conservatives continue to ignore ‘selection and maintenance of the aim’ (rebuild to be a credible, if not attractive alternative to the the existing government) and seem to support their own internal feeling better about their internal coherence than a drive to form the next government. 

A quick look at the math would indicate LPC eating most of the Green machine, a fair chunk of Orange and about 2/3 of old school
PC territory, leaving mostly a Rose by any other name ‘Reform/Alliance/CPC’ Blue Machine moving forward.


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Jul 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> Attract Blue Liberals seems lower on the list than shun Red Tories…
> 
> While the Liberal are doing a great job facilitating internal fractures in the Greens and NDP and subsuming the byproduct of those fractures into their own party, the Conservatives continue to ignore ‘selection and maintenance of the aim’ (rebuild to be a credible, if not attractive alternative to the the existing government) and seem to support their own internal feeling better about their internal coherence than a drive to form the next government.
> 
> ...



Remember the Reagan democrats? More recently, Boris Johnson won by turning a bunch of previously solid Labour ridings Tory Blue. 

I wrote about this a couple of years ago: Blue-collar conservatism


----------



## Brad Sallows (17 Jul 2021)

The usual choices, "exit" or "voice", apply.  Some conservatives have chosen, and will choose, "exit".

No point musing about better defence policies in one forum while finding reasons in another forum to vote for a party which ranges from indifferent to hostile to spending money on defence.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (17 Jul 2021)

Jarnhamar said:


> I think we're on the same page with our criticisms in meaning the Chinese government rather than China.


Ah, but the Chicom government IS China. It will remain that way until the population replaces the current dictatorship.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (17 Jul 2021)

Edward Campbell said:


> Remember the Reagan democrats? More recently, Boris Johnson won by turning a bunch of previously solid Labour ridings Tory Blue.
> 
> I wrote about this a couple of years ago: Blue-collar conservatism


If the CPC were smart enough to differentiate between union members and union leadership, they could make significant gains. The leadership will almost never vote for them, but union members are likley to be fairly conservative, like guns, 4x4's, jobs and have a fairly strong value system.


----------



## FJAG (17 Jul 2021)

Colin Parkinson said:


> If the CPC were smart enough to differentiate between union members and union leadership, they could make significant gains. The leadership will almost never vote for them, but union members are likley to be fairly conservative, like guns, 4x4's, jobs and have a fairly strong value system.


Not so much nurses and teachers. For them its the bottom line in their pay and benefits packages - and there are lots of them.

🍻


----------



## LittleBlackDevil (17 Jul 2021)

Altair said:


> But thats the thing. When people are using that free vote to vote for state intervention in the bedroom, or in gender, or in abortion, that is the opposite of social progressivism.



I think we have very different ideas on what constitutes the state staying out of the bedroom. In my view the government should simply be silent/not pass any laws relating to the bedroom.

The CPC has never proposed any laws, for example, outlawing certain sexual orientations for example.  It's the LPC on the other hand who is putting forth government bills (totally different from Private Members' bills that are DOA) that would purport to criminalize publicly holding opinions that they disagree with (i.e. C-10).



Altair said:


> The LPC said it didn't want anti abortion members or supporters. CPC accepts everyone. Most Canadians are hesitant to support measures on abortion, and are content with the current laws (or lack thereof) around it. LPC gets to point at the CPC and say they are the party of anti abortion, and the CPC can deny it up and down, but their voting record on a whole says otherwise.



I wasn't aware than abortion was outlawed the last time the CPC was in power 2008-2015?



Altair said:


> The CPC are associated with the social conservatives, they have MPs that are open social conservatives, their voting record shows that they have a active social conservative wing, and social conservatives have a lot of sway in leadership contests.
> 
> At that point it rings hollow to say that their platform isn't socially conservative.



Just because they have some SoCon conservatives is totally different from having a socially conservative platform. The CPC itself when it was in government did nothing socially conservative. That is their track record.

That said, it would probably be better if SoCons had their own party. But it would probably be worse for those who hate SoCons because they would likely have more influence, especially if they were ever needed to prop up a coalition government. Right now they are paid lip service by the CPC I will grant you that, but in reality have no power and are neutralized.


----------



## mariomike (17 Jul 2021)

FJAG said:


> Not so much nurses and teachers. For them its the bottom line in their pay and benefits packages - and there are lots of them.
> 
> 🍻


I think in Ontario, they are represented by provincial unions. My ex was in the Ontario Nurses Association, before she went into management.

Provincial elections would likely be of more interest to teachers and nurses, than federal or municipal.

A lot depends on which level of government your union negotiates with.

It may not have much impact on who you vote for at the federal level, if you negotiate your pay and benefit packages at the provincial or municipal level.

That allows you to vote for whatever your favorite chew toy happens to be at the federal level, without impacting your pay and benefit package negotiated at a non-federal level.

This explains the endorsement philosophy of the union elected by its members to represent career full-time firefighters and paramedics in the United States and Canada. Most firefighters and paramedics negotiate with municipalities.






						IAFF Endorsement Philosophy - IAFF
					






					www.iaff.org
				






> No one, including your union, has a right to tell you how to vote.


Unions are concerned with the level of government that employs their members.


----------



## Altair (17 Jul 2021)

LittleBlackDevil said:


> I think we have very different ideas on what constitutes the state staying out of the bedroom. In my view the government should simply be silent/not pass any laws relating to the bedroom.


Things like abortion, gender, sexual orientation are bedroom topics to me.


LittleBlackDevil said:


> The CPC has never proposed any laws, for example, outlawing certain sexual orientations for example.  It's the LPC on the other hand who is putting forth government bills (totally different from Private Members' bills that are DOA) that would purport to criminalize publicly holding opinions that they disagree with (i.e. C-10).


Proposed any laws? No.

Voted against banning conversion therapy? Yes.

Voted for adding more restrictions on abortion? Yes.


LittleBlackDevil said:


> I wasn't aware than abortion was outlawed the last time the CPC was in power 2008-2015?


it wasn't. But when there are motions put forward about putting more restrictions on abortions, which party is it come from using? The CPC.


LittleBlackDevil said:


> Just because they have some SoCon conservatives is totally different from having a socially conservative platform. The CPC itself when it was in government did nothing socially conservative. That is their track record.


You're right, they didn't do anything. They just have members who consistently try to do something. It's one reason they cannot shake the narrative. 


LittleBlackDevil said:


> That said, it would probably be better if SoCons had their own party. But it would probably be worse for those who hate SoCons because they would likely have more influence, especially if they were ever needed to prop up a coalition government. Right now they are paid lip service by the CPC I will grant you that, but in reality have no power and are neutralized.


They are tainting the CPC now that they are neutralized, imagine how much they would taint the CPC if they got some of their legislation passed with CPC help because they held the balance of power?

6 in 10 Canadians would not vote CPC now, how much would that rise if they had a SOCON partner in parliament?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (18 Jul 2021)

Those dastardly CPC, how dare they concern themselves with abortion. They should take a page from the grits and concentrate on things like lowering the age of consent for anal sex or legitimizing sex with animals.


----------



## Altair (18 Jul 2021)

Fishbone Jones said:


> Those dastardly CPC, how dare they concern themselves with abortion.


They may at their own risk. They are free to prioritize any issue they want to, and Canadians are free to never vote for them.

Win win? Wait...


Fishbone Jones said:


> They should take a page from the grits and concentrate on things like lowering the age of consent for anal sex


Damn right they should. The government should have no say in what teens are doing in the bedroom with another cosenting teen.

Should the state be throwing 16 year old gay male teens in jail for engaging in anal sex? Especially since age of consent for all other sex acts in 16? Should straight 16 year old teens be thrown in jail for trying anal sex when all other sex acts the age of consent is 16?

GTFO of the bedroom.


Fishbone Jones said:


> or legitimizing sex with animals.


See, this is what I never get.

I, as  obvious supporter of the LPC, can admit that they have faults. Failings. They are not perfect. Sometimes, they even fail be be good. Sometimes they fall flat on their faces. They have obvious things that they could be better at, or are just flat out horrible in others.

So I never get why people like you need to lie and make shit up. Why? They have so many weak points that you could go after as opposed to making up stupid shit like this.



			https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.5181494&ved=2ahUKEwjd-ZKH-u3xAhVVGVkFHf1wCLYQFjACegQIIBAC&usg=AOvVaw0OFHODBv-qp29TQXfT_rWj&ampcf=1
		




> Bill C-84 responds, in part, to a 2016 Supreme Court of Canada decision that ruled a convicted sexual offender — identified only as D.L.W. to protect his victims — was not guilty of bestiality related to charges stemming from sexual activity involving one of his stepdaughters and the family dog.


They didn't legalize it, the law didn't include what this man did.



> In a 6-1 decision, a majority of the justices ruled that the Criminal Code provisions on bestiality did not adequately define which sexual acts with animals are prohibited. In his ruling, Justice Thomas Cromwell (who has since retired) urged Parliament to revisit the definition.





> Bill C-84 also changes wording in the Criminal Code to clarify that bestiality involves any contact for a sexual purpose between a person and an animal. The Code's existing definition is understood to focus on penetration as the essential element in an act of bestiality.




So they expanded the definition of what constitutes beastiality and you call that legalizing it? 

Like I said,so much to be critical on and you just make stuff up. 

sad.


----------



## Jarnhamar (18 Jul 2021)

> Bill C-84 also changes wording in the Criminal Code to clarify that bestiality involves any contact for a sexual purpose between a person and an animal



Unless the person experiences it differently, then it's just a misunderstanding.


----------



## Altair (18 Jul 2021)

Jarnhamar said:


> Unless the person experiences it differently, then it's just a misunderstanding.


You have many misunderstandings with your pets?


----------



## brihard (19 Jul 2021)

Altair said:


> You have many misunderstandings with your pets?


Pet... or Shilo?


----------



## Altair (19 Jul 2021)

brihard said:


> Pet... or Shilo?


----------



## The Bread Guy (19 Jul 2021)

Altair said:


> So they expanded the definition of what constitutes beastiality and you call that legalizing it?


Nuanced facts & explanations make for weak memes or zingers ....


----------



## daftandbarmy (19 Jul 2021)

The Bread Guy said:


> Nuanced facts & explanations make for weak memes or zingers ....


----------



## ModlrMike (22 Jul 2021)

You know, it's easier just to fess up the first time:

From CP:


			Sajjan directed military to provide him with aide in Vancouver


----------



## Jarnhamar (22 Jul 2021)

ModlrMike said:


> You know, it's easier just to fess up the first time:


Are you trying to define his experience?


----------



## Good2Golf (22 Jul 2021)

Jarnhamar said:


> Are you trying to define his experience?



I think, through experience, only the experiencer is allowed to experience things the way that they experience them.  Others’ experiences may not experience sameness to the original experiencer’s experience.  Your experience may vary.


----------



## Haggis (22 Jul 2021)

ModlrMike said:


> You know, it's easier just to fess up the first time:
> 
> From CP:
> 
> ...


So, we now wait a few days to discover how fair, open and transparent the REO process was for this position.


----------



## MJP (22 Jul 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> I think, through experience, only the experiencer is allowed to experience things the way that they experience them.  Others’ experiences may not experience sameness to the original experiencer’s experience.  Your experience may vary.


How much experience would an experiencer experience if an experiencer could experience experience kinda thing


----------



## Loachman (22 Jul 2021)

FJAG said:


> Unfortunately the socons are still a large part of the CPC base and completely throwing them under the bus would just result in another Reform Party so one has to humour them. Talk about Catch 22.



The Reform Party was very libertarian and welcomed diverse views and discussions.


----------



## Weinie (22 Jul 2021)

MJP said:


> How much experience would an experiencer experience if an experiencer could experience experience kinda thing


There is zero need for experience, or experiencers. Only architects need apply.


----------



## Jarnhamar (22 Jul 2021)

Haggis said:


> So, we now wait a few days to discover how fair, open and transparent the REO process was for this position.


I'd say probably very open and fair.

_"We need a low rank/high rank major who lives in Vancouver with experience in law enforcement. Priority to applicants with the first name Greg"._


----------



## PuckChaser (22 Jul 2021)

Weinie said:


> There is zero need for experience, or experiencers. Only architects need apply.


You could day the MND is the architect of Class B contracts...


----------



## Good2Golf (22 Jul 2021)

Loachman said:


> The Reform Party was very libertarian and welcomed diverse views and discussions.


Sure…so long as you weren’t gay or a lesbian and wanted to get legally married.  The party policy opposed gay marriages in Canada, even though they were protected by law.  Preston Manning and many of the Reform’s SOCONs were personally opposed to homosexuality, to wit his position that "homosexuality is destructive to the individual, and in the long run, society.”


----------



## MilEME09 (22 Jul 2021)

PuckChaser said:


> You could day the MND is the architect of Class B contracts...


Explains a lot, the CaF needs to wake up and stop using class B as a band aid without solving the bigger issue


----------



## RangerRay (22 Jul 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> Sure…so long as you weren’t gay or a lesbian and wanted to get legally married.  The party policy opposed gay marriages in Canada, even though they were protected by law.  Preston Manning and many of the Reform’s SOCONs were personally opposed to homosexuality, to wit his position that "homosexuality is destructive to the individual, and in the long run, society.”


Coming of political age in BC in the 90s, Reform wasn’t the socon boogeyman there that it appeared/became in the East. Basically, after 1993 the PC’s became a fringe party there and Alberta; virtually non-existent. As a result, mainstream centre-right conservatives joined the party and more liberal members went to the Liberals. In other parts of the country where the PCs still held sway, the mainstream centre-right members stayed with the party and more extreme elements went to Reform, hence their poorer election showings east of Saskatchewan. 

At this time, the Liberals opposed same sex marriage as well. Doesn’t make it right, but it was mainstream thinking at the time.


----------



## Good2Golf (22 Jul 2021)

> At this time, the Liberals opposed same sex marriage as well.


By ‘opposed’ yes if you mean just the 28 Liberals who voted against the bill.  Chrétien left it a free vote and the large majority of Liberals votes yes for gay marriage. 

Were you insinuating that the Liberals were just as anti-gay as the Reformers? 🧐


----------



## RangerRay (23 Jul 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> By ‘opposed’ yes if you mean just the 28 Liberals who voted against the bill.  Chrétien left it a free vote and the large majority of Liberals votes yes for gay marriage.
> 
> Were you insinuating that the Liberals were just as anti-gay as the Reformers? 🧐


No, but in the 90’s I recall same sex marriage not being a popular idea in the mainstream. I didn’t think it gained more acceptance until the 2000s. But maybe I am misremembering things. 🤷‍♂️

My point was that places where the PCs were wiped out, Reform became the centre-right party. Where the PCs still had party members and infrastructure, Reform was populated by those on the fringes right.

It’s unfortunate now that the CPC seems to be preaching to its base instead of trying to expand its appeal in places it needs to win. Being the party of rural/Western/white working class resentment won’t defeat Trudeau.


----------



## Loachman (23 Jul 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> Sure…so long as you weren’t gay or a lesbian and wanted to get legally married.  The party policy opposed gay marriages in Canada, even though they were protected by law.  Preston Manning and many of the Reform’s SOCONs were personally opposed to homosexuality, to wit his position that "homosexuality is destructive to the individual, and in the long run, society.”



Ah, yes, Warren Kinsella.

I have little respect for either him or his views on most things, but he is useful from time-to-time and I used to read a lot of his articles when they were published more frequently.

I joined the Reform Party on the day that Kim Campbell tabled her firearms legislation in 1990 or 1991, and sent copies of my application and the accompanying letter of explanation and cheque to Brian Mulroney, Kim Campbell, my Conservative MP (I knew his kids in school and flew him on a pre-White Paper MP visit to Lahr, during which I pointed out Tiffany as we passed overhead), and one other whom I cannot remember. That was before Reform was officially active in Ontario.

I found the party quite refreshing, due to the quantity and quality of regular newsletters, meaningful surveys, other printed information, and the afore-mentioned diversity of thought and discussion. Policies were very much grassroots, with a little guidance in some cases. There was no more anti-gay discussion than in general society of the time; I don't think that it was an issue to many/most of us at all, either within or without the party.

That was the beginning of my appreciation for individual rights and freedoms, which continues today. Previously, I had considered rights to be basically meaningless, as anything merely existing on paper could be overridden by any government that chose to do so under any pretext (like recently). I still see rights and freedoms as fragile things, which need constant effort to protect and preserve.

And I came to realize that rights had to apply equally to all - neither more nor less to any particular person or group (not that there are any group rights in Canada). If they did not, then they were not rights. There are no such things as "gay rights", for example, only "human rights".

On the subject of gay marriage, when discussion began in the media, I had no objection because nothing was being taken away from me, or anybody else, but neither was I especially supportive. It should not have been an issue at all, really - it just needed government action to legislate the contractual side (basic fairness aspect) and the accompanying ceremonial aspect was up to individual Churches (in the overall organizational sense as well as specific congregations), or Elvises, or whatever. I presumed that divorce lawyers would have been ecstatic due to the increase in their customer base.

When the party became active in Ontario, I attended riding association functions, including several nomination campaigns. In each of the latter, we had several excellent potential candidates, many (possibly even most) of whom were women. We did not care about external features like skin colour, but only such trivial things as intelligence, motivation, people skills, and ethics etcetera.

We welcomed anyone and everyone.

Yes, there were some wild cards in the Prairie region, but their colourful attributes did not seem to garner much real influence within the party overall.


----------



## Good2Golf (23 Jul 2021)

> On the subject of gay marriage, when discussion began in the media, I had no objection because nothing was being taken away from me, or anybody else, but neither was I especially supportive. It should not have been an issue at all, really - it just needed government action to legislate the contractual side (basic fairness aspect) and the accompanying ceremonial aspect was up to individual Churches (in the overall organizational sense as well as specific congregations), or Elvises, or whatever.


 
So then why make the party policy something that would deny gay couples to legally marry?


----------



## daftandbarmy (23 Jul 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> So then why make the party policy something that would deny gay couples to legally marry?



Because Canadian politicians continue to rely heavily on 'church centred stakeholders', it seems. Top of Page 15:

Interesting article here FYI:  https://www.ubcpress.ca/asset/20215/1/9780774835589_Excerpt.pdf


----------



## Loachman (23 Jul 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> So then why make the party policy something that would deny gay couples to legally marry?



I am not sure. I had no interest in that area. It could have been a holdover from earlier, as, barring any perceived need or push from somebody, policy items may just not get updated.

I don't remember it ever coming up in discussion, or anybody caring one way or the other.

Small government, and minimal governmental interfering in people's lives, were pretty high high up on our chart, so if it ever would have come up it would have generated some interesting discussion. Some people would have had a hard time balancing the equal rights/fairness/minimal interference aspect with other personal beliefs, I am sure.

But, really, nobody's going to go back and undo that, whatever their personal beliefs.


----------



## Good2Golf (23 Jul 2021)

Loachman said:


> But, really, nobody's going to go back and undo that, whatever their personal beliefs.


So then why not put such contemporary issues to bed (abortion, climate change, etc.) and get rid of the seagulls around conservatives’ neck during the election? 🤷🏻‍♂️


----------



## ModlrMike (23 Jul 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> So then why not put such contemporary issues to bed (abortion, climate change, etc.) and get rid of the seagulls around conservatives’ neck during the election? 🤷🏻‍♂️



Because they've allowed themselves to be defined by their opposition.


----------



## Loachman (23 Jul 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> So then why not put such contemporary issues to bed (abortion, climate change, etc.) and get rid of the seagulls around conservatives’ neck during the election? 🤷🏻‍♂️



I'll attempt to get into those issues soon, but they are not likely to die down regardless of any party policies.

Personally, I dislike abortion and will eventually outline my specific views and concerns.

Man-made "climate change" is a crock that is only being pushed by media, "celebrities", governments, and other interested parties because it is a money-maker and prestige-generator for them. Not one, single, prophecy-of-doom has come to pass in many decades, and none of the models used to predict dire outcomes has successfully reflected reality. Taxing carbon (dioxide) is futile, and only serves to move industries to countries with far more lax (if any) environmental policies.


----------



## Loachman (23 Jul 2021)

ModlrMike said:


> Because they've allowed themselves to be defined by their opposition.



That, too.

Communications have sucked for ages.


----------



## Jarnhamar (23 Jul 2021)

An empowering story for the women who voted Liberal.

Satire article about a true story.

Liberal candidate dropped for boudoir photos as party only allows nudity on Zoom​








						Liberal candidate dropped for boudoir photos as party only allows nudity on Zoom
					

DARTMOUTH - The Nova Scotia Liberals are defending their choice to drop candidate Robyn Ingraham over revealing photos, citing party rules that state that members can only have their nudes publicly shared if it’s during a Zoom meeting.




					thebeaverton.com
				





> The Nova Scotia Liberals are defending their choice to drop candidate Robyn Ingraham over revealing photos, citing party rules that state that members can only have their nudes publicly shared if it’s during a Zoom meeting.
> 
> “This has nothing to do with sexism or double standards,” explained Liberal Leader Iain Rankin. “This candidate was viewed in a revealing state by consenting members of the public, and that is wrong. It appears that she didn’t even make an attempt to expose her genitals to her unsuspecting online co-workers, as per Liberal tradition.”




And the true story.
Critics decry 'double standard' in former Liberal candidate's departure​


			https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/robyn-ingraham-departure-double-standard-critics-1.6112774
		




> But on Wednesday evening, *Ingraham posted an open letter explaining that the Liberal Party told her to step down and to blame her mental illness. *She said a party official told her that her boudoir photos, which have been posted online, were making the "higher-ups" nervous.



Forced her to step down and told her to blame her mental health. Nice.

Hey MarioMike, how many women in Canada voted for these guys again?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Jul 2021)

Hypocrisy, thy name is liberal.


----------



## mariomike (23 Jul 2021)

Jarnhamar said:


> Hey MarioMike, how many women in Canada voted for these guys again?











						The biggest divide in Canadian politics? Men vs. Women. - Macleans.ca
					

Philippe J. Fournier: If only men voted, the Liberal and Conservatives would be in a statistical tie. Only women: the Liberals win a crushing 226 seats.




					www.macleans.ca


----------



## Altair (23 Jul 2021)

Jarnhamar said:


> An empowering story for the women who voted Liberal.
> 
> Satire article about a true story.
> 
> ...


Provincial.


----------



## Haggis (23 Jul 2021)

Altair said:


> Provincial.


So, nudity is okay at the federal level?


----------



## Good2Golf (23 Jul 2021)

Haggis said:


> So, nudity is okay at the federal level?


…and black face…and cultural appropriation…and…


----------



## Altair (24 Jul 2021)

Haggis said:


> So, nudity is okay at the federal level?


No idea to be honest.

But this is the Liberal minority government 2019-???? thread and this is a provincial liberal matter, so wrong place  no?


----------



## YZT580 (24 Jul 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> So then why not put such contemporary issues to bed (abortion, climate change, etc.) and get rid of the seagulls around conservatives’ neck during the election? 🤷🏻‍♂️


BECAUSE THE 3RD ESTATE WON'T LET IT.  And you can be sure that someone somewhere will ask a candidate his personal views on those issues.  Shortly thereafter those personal views will be expressed as "a conservative spokesperson said..." and voila, you have another secret agenda.  And you can be sure that the libs have an entire library of quotes from a few years back to ensure that those issues remain front and centre.


----------



## Altair (24 Jul 2021)

YZT580 said:


> BECAUSE THE 3RD ESTATE WON'T LET IT.  And you can be sure that someone somewhere will ask a candidate his personal views on those issues.  Shortly thereafter those personal views will be expressed as "a conservative spokesperson said..." and voila, you have another secret agenda.  And you can be sure that the libs have an entire library of quotes from a few years back to ensure that those issues remain front and centre.


You seem to be forgetting the part where cpc mps keep putting forward private members bills and voting for more restrictions on abortion, making it rather easy for the 3rd estate to make the claim that the CPC is the party of anti abortion.

The CPC could just do what the LPC did and kick the anti abortion members out of the party.


----------



## Jarnhamar (24 Jul 2021)

Altair said:


> No idea to be honest.
> 
> But this is the Liberal minority government 2019-???? thread and this is a provincial liberal matter, so wrong place  no?



Certainly an embarrassing story, I'd try to deflect it too.


----------



## Altair (24 Jul 2021)

Jarnhamar said:


> Certainly an embarrassing story, I'd try to deflect it too.


I really don't care what the NSLP is up to.


----------



## OldSolduer (24 Jul 2021)

Altair said:


> No idea to be honest.
> 
> But this is the Liberal minority government 2019-???? thread and this is a provincial liberal matter, so wrong place  no?


The average voter will not distinguish between the two so a provincial matter will bleed over into a federal matter and vice versa.


----------



## Jarnhamar (24 Jul 2021)

Altair said:


> I really don't care what the NSLP is up to.


I believe you.
I think it's sad so many people appear so conveniently selective in what they care about when it comes to ethics and integrity.


----------



## ModlrMike (24 Jul 2021)

Altair said:


> No idea to be honest.
> 
> But this is the Liberal minority government 2019-???? thread and this is a provincial liberal matter, so wrong place  no?



Maybe the fruit doesn't fall far from the tree? People have no problem linking the actions of provincial conservative parties with the federal one. Why should the Liberals get different treatment?


----------



## Brad Sallows (24 Jul 2021)

The Liberal party in BC is an example of one not closely affiliated with the federal party.  Although the NDP provincial and federal parties used to be strongly connected, there's been some recent divergence and open talk of putting more distance between federal and provincial wings.  Any conclusion about NS Liberals would have to draw on the simple fact of how connected that provincial wing is to the federal party, if at all.


----------



## YZT580 (24 Jul 2021)

Altair said:


> You seem to be forgetting the part where cpc mps keep putting forward private members bills and voting for more restrictions on abortion, making it rather easy for the 3rd estate to make the claim that the CPC is the party of anti abortion.
> 
> The CPC could just do what the LPC did and kick the anti abortion members out of the party.


True they could but then where is the freedom of speech that we brag about so much in that action.  Plus, if the voters in the individual's home riding oppose his actions, they have the ability to turf him in the next election.  Its called democracy and it may be messy, ungainly, and full of decisions that go against the feelings and convictions of many but it is 200% better than the alternatives.  We brag about our freedoms vis-a-vis China or Cuba for example but if I write a note to the editor stating my feelings re: abortion or the schools thing, or whatever, I will be condemned, branded a homophobe, labelled sexist and quite possibly lose my job; if I still had one.  Trudeau basically said anyone who doesn't totally agree with him is not welcome in the liberal party which makes him nothing more than a Fidel Castro wanna-be and the liberal party a flock of sheep.


----------



## Altair (24 Jul 2021)

YZT580 said:


> True they could but then where is the freedom of speech that we brag about so much in that action.


Freedom of speech is lovely.

What people do with it is not always lovely.

The CPC has the issue where their freedom of speech is costing them.

They have the choice, they can be right in their eyes, or they can win. They are choosing to be righteous and right in their adherence to free speech.


YZT580 said:


> Plus, if the voters in the individual's home riding oppose his actions, they have the ability to turf him in the next election.  Its called democracy and it may be messy, ungainly, and full of decisions that go against the feelings and convictions of many but it is 200% better than the alternatives.


If the party come out and says that it will not run any anti abortion candidates those voters will go elsewhere. The voters in those ridings may go somewhere else, they may not,but the CPC could no longer be accused of being the party of anti abortion, could they?


YZT580 said:


> We brag about our freedoms vis-a-vis China or Cuba for example but if I write a note to the editor stating my feelings re: abortion or the schools thing, or whatever, I will be condemned, branded a homophobe, labelled sexist and quite possibly lose my job; if I still had one.


Yes. Because some views are no longer viewed as widely acceptable in society. Freedom of speech doesn't mean Freedom from consequences. If I ran around saying gay marriage was immoral and all those sinners would burn in hell,  my freedom of speech allows for that, but damn right i would face consequences for it.


YZT580 said:


> Trudeau basically said anyone who doesn't totally agree with him is not welcome in the liberal party which makes him nothing more than a Fidel Castro wanna-be and the liberal party a flock of sheep.


The Greens ,Bloc and NDP do similar. I suppose they are Fidel Castro wanna be as well.

There is one major party that allows for this, the CPC. They are the outliers here, not the other way around.

And again, the CPC can do what it wants to do, but they can be punished at the polls accordingly.


----------



## Altair (24 Jul 2021)

Brad Sallows said:


> The Liberal party in BC is an example of one not closely affiliated with the federal party.  Although the NDP provincial and federal parties used to be strongly connected, there's been some recent divergence and open talk of putting more distance between federal and provincial wings.  Any conclusion about NS Liberals would have to draw on the simple fact of how connected that provincial wing is to the federal party, if at all.


But liberals are all the same, no?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (24 Jul 2021)

Altair said:


> No idea to be honest.
> 
> But this is the Liberal minority government 2019-???? thread and this is a provincial liberal matter, so wrong place  no?


So, I just heard an attack ad on the radio, against Erin O’Toole, paid for by the “Coalition for something or other” (Pretty clearly a Liberal Party Affiliate- the NDP and Greens are not after CPC voters).

It was pretty over the top (along the same lines as “Troops. In the Streets. Etc”). The basic jist was that Erin O’Toole is Jason Kenney!!!

So if the Federal Liberals are linking the CPC to the Provincial Parties, turnabout is fair play, no?


----------



## Mick (24 Jul 2021)

Brad Sallows said:


> The Liberal party in BC is an example of one not closely affiliated with the federal party.  Although the NDP provincial and federal parties used to be strongly connected, there's been some recent divergence and open talk of putting more distance between federal and provincial wings.  Any conclusion about NS Liberals would have to draw on the simple fact of how connected that provincial wing is to the federal party, if at all.


Good post.  BC Liberals are in fact totally unaffiliated with the federal party.

NB, NS, PEI, and NL Liberals are all officially affiliated with the federal party (i.e. the President of the NSLP is also the Provincial Board Director of the LPC, according to the NSLP constitution).


----------



## Altair (24 Jul 2021)

SeaKingTacco said:


> So, I just heard an attack ad on the radio, against Erin O’Toole, paid for by the “Coalition for something or other” (Pretty clearly a Liberal Party Affiliate- the NDP and Greens are not after CPC voters).
> 
> It was pretty over the top (along the same lines as “Troops. In the Streets. Etc”). The basic jist was that Erin O’Toole is Jason Kenney!!!
> 
> So if the Federal Liberals are linking the CPC to the Provincial Parties, turnabout is fair play, no?


That's funny.

I wasn't aware that we posters here were affiliates of federal parties and as such, had to engage in turnabout.

I was more under the impression that we were simply talking federal politics here, not provincial.

I suppose I'll begin talking about provincial parties in this thread as well. I just wanted to know what the expectations are here.

Many thanks.


----------



## Jarnhamar (24 Jul 2021)

Altair said:


> I suppose I'll begin talking about provincial parties in this thread as well. I just wanted to know what the expectations are here.
> 
> Many thanks.



Sweet. You can start with the provincial liberal party forcing a female, successful business owning if I'm not mistaken, candidate to quit because of some pictures she took  and then tell her to * lie* about it and blame mental health.


----------



## Altair (24 Jul 2021)

Jarnhamar said:


> Sweet. You can start with the provincial liberal party forcing a female, successful business owning if I'm not mistaken, candidate to quit because of some pictures she took  and then tell her to * lie* about it and blame mental health.


Darn those provincial NS Liberals!


----------



## SeaKingTacco (24 Jul 2021)

Altair said:


> Darn those provincial NS Liberals!


And, by extension, Justin Trudeau.

Just using LPC rules…


----------



## Altair (24 Jul 2021)

SeaKingTacco said:


> And, by extension, Justin Trudeau.
> 
> Just using LPC rules…


Yes, darn Justin Trudeau for getting personally involved in the nomination affairs of the candidate selection process of Dartmouth South for the NS provincial liberal party.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (24 Jul 2021)

Altair said:


> Yes, darn Justin Trudeau for getting personally involved in the nomination affairs of the candidate selection process of Dartmouth South for the NS provincial liberal party.


I know, right?


----------



## Jarnhamar (24 Jul 2021)

Altair said:


> Yes, darn Justin Trudeau





Altair said:


> Darn those provincial NS Liberals!


I get it. This place can be an echo chamber when it comes to criticizing Trudeau and the Liberals, and I'm one of the loudest offenders.

Your nonchalant approach to Liberal behavior (not all the time, just most IMO) is really reminiscent of all the mess-dinosaurs who laugh about troops getting fucked around or crack jokes about people in positions of power and authority behaving poorly. I'm sure I border on being sanctimonious about this stuff, if not crossing over to it, but that _whatever lol _attitude really seems to be a reflection of what the LPC stands for, from the top to the bottom. 

The Liberal party, whether federal or provincial, tries to sell Canadians on how progressive they are and all their gender equality virtue signaling. They're pretty successful actually in selling that image. People like yourself shrugging stuff like this off empower that behavior to continue.


----------



## MilEME09 (24 Jul 2021)

SeaKingTacco said:


> So, I just heard an attack ad on the radio, against Erin O’Toole, paid for by the “Coalition for something or other” (Pretty clearly a Liberal Party Affiliate- the NDP and Greens are not after CPC voters).
> 
> It was pretty over the top (along the same lines as “Troops. In the Streets. Etc”). The basic jist was that Erin O’Toole is Jason Kenney!!!
> 
> So if the Federal Liberals are linking the CPC to the Provincial Parties, turnabout is fair play, no?


I heard a similar ad today, attacking Kenny for wanting to pay cut nurses which morphed into a Erin O'tool and conservatives hate health care. Feels like the election is already on.


----------



## Remius (24 Jul 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> I heard a similar ad today, attacking Kenny for wanting to pay cut nurses which morphed into a Erin O'tool and conservatives hate health care. Feels like the election is already on.


Got two calls from the conservative MP for my riding already. Mid say it’s a matter of weeks if not days that we’ll be in full campaign season.


----------



## Altair (24 Jul 2021)

Jarnhamar said:


> I get it. This place can be an echo chamber when it comes to criticizing Trudeau and the Liberals, and I'm one of the loudest offenders.


Not quite. I just think the politics the parties, all parties, engage in is complete and utter nonsense.

I just find it sad when it starts to appear here.


Jarnhamar said:


> Your nonchalant approach to Liberal behavior (not all the time, just most IMO) is really reminiscent of all the mess-dinosaurs who laugh about troops getting fucked around or crack jokes about people in positions of power and authority behaving poorly. I'm sure I border on being sanctimonious about this stuff, if not crossing over to it, but that _whatever lol _attitude really seems to be a reflection of what the LPC stands for, from the top to the bottom.


I tend to not care of what provincial parties do so long as they are not effecting the province where I reside.

This goes for all of them. LPC, NDP, CPC, I could not care less. More on that later.


Jarnhamar said:


> The Liberal party, whether federal or provincial, tries to sell Canadians on how progressive they are and all their gender equality virtue signaling. They're pretty successful actually in selling that image. People like yourself shrugging stuff like this off empower that behavior to continue.


There are Liberal parties in Quebec, and liberal parties in BC that might as well be liberals in name only. The BC LPC are more politically aligned to the CPC, and the QC LPC want nothing to do with the Feds. The Saskatchewan party is a merger of the Liberals and conservatives, so technically anything they do could be a blight on the federal parties.

The BC NDP and the Alberta NDP fought a public battle over pipelines, and the Federal NDP more or less threw the AB NDP under the bus.

And to top it off, the nomatter which party is in power and who is PM, they all have a bone to pick with the federal government and all say they are getting the shaft with funding.

So I leave provincial issues with the provinces and federal issues with the Feds.

Do the parties do this? No. But I like to think of myself as way better than the gutter politics the politicians engage in.

Poli=many

Tics=blood sucking insects.


----------



## YZT580 (24 Jul 2021)

Altair said:


> Freedom of speech is lovely.
> 
> What people do with it is not always lovely.
> 
> ...


So by your way of thinking the party must take a stand and not allow anyone with a different view on some issues to be a part.  That is pure unadulterated sanctimonious bullfeathers.  And yes all parties that don't permit other opinions are in the same class as the liberals.  For all their faults, the conservative party is the only one that actually allows freedom of speech and yes freedom of speech comes with consequences. 

 If people were actually able to express their views without fear of being ganged up on I think you would find that many, a substantial minority at any rate are not happy with the moral changes that have crept in.  They want a standard not an anything goes society.  Name calling and ridicule are the methods by which Trudeau et al ensure that their (at least in the recent past) minority views dominate.


----------



## Altair (24 Jul 2021)

YZT580 said:


> So by your way of thinking the party must take a stand and not allow anyone with a different view on some issues to be a part.


No party has to do anything.

My opinion is that a party cannot take a unpopular position and then complain that they lose. It does not matter to me that the unpopular postion is born of free speech, an unpopular position is a unpopular position.


YZT580 said:


> That is pure unadulterated sanctimonious bullfeathers.  And yes all parties that don't permit other opinions are in the same class as the liberals.  For all their faults, the conservative party is the only one that actually allows freedom of speech and yes freedom of speech comes with consequences.


And that freedom of speech is likely costing them 6 out of 10 potential voters.

If thats the price they are willing to pay, power to them, but they should not complain when they lose elections or cannot compete in urban Canada.


YZT580 said:


> If people were actually able to express their views without fear of being ganged up on I think you would find that many, a substantial minority at any rate are not happy with the moral changes that have crept in.  They want a standard not an anything goes society.  Name calling and ridicule are the methods by which Trudeau et al ensure that their (at least in the recent past) minority views dominate.


If enough Canadians didn't like those view they would vote for parties with a different viewpoint.

6 out of 10 Canadians are voting for parties with those viewpoints. Take from that what you will.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Jul 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> I heard a similar ad today, attacking Kenny for wanting to pay cut nurses which morphed into a Erin O'tool and conservatives hate health care. Feels like the election is already on.


It has been since before the summer shutdown. Trudeau just never bothered telling the other parties. This let's him wander around smiling and mumbling bumbling through his speeches, handing out millions to buy votes. What he doesn't hand out, he gives to his minions  so they can all make their grandioise announcements while pissing away more of our tax money. We know he's  campaigning, and he knows, we know. Problem is, as always when it comes to Canadians or Canada, he just doesn't care. He's  not a Prime Minister and he doesn't  work for Canada, he's  a global socialist bagman. He has spent us into 1.3 trillion in debt and when there was no more money, he had the BoC print him more. This is leading us to massive inflation. Normal, middle class Canadians can no longer afford a home. He made an absolute shit show of the pandemic. The fact that we've  made out as well as we have is down to the cities and the provinces and the military moving the stuff. Hadju is a disaster, Tam flip flops more than Fouci, Freeland just stays as far away as possible. And Trudeau? He just wanders around passing out our taxpayer money and speaking moistly, dividing whatever groups he can.


----------



## YZT580 (24 Jul 2021)

Altair said:


> No party has to do anything.
> 
> My opinion is that a party cannot take a unpopular position and then complain that they lose. It does not matter to me that the unpopular postion is born of free speech, an unpopular position is a unpopular position.
> 
> ...


With the exception of 2015, you have to go back to 2004 to find an election where the libs. received more votes than the conservatives so the largest minority is generally onside with the conservative approach and their lead is generally quite substantial.  Given the amount of bad press that the PCs generally garner, that is pretty good. If I understand your stand correctly, the only thing that matters is winning.  Morals, free speech, convictions are all secondary.  Sad, in the end such an approach results in believing in nothing.  I'm done


----------



## brihard (25 Jul 2021)

Fishbone Jones said:


> It has been since before the summer shutdown. Trudeau just never bothered telling the other parties. This let's him wander around smiling and mumbling bumbling through his speeches, handing out millions to buy votes. What he doesn't hand out, he gives to his minions  so they can all make their grandioise announcements while pissing away more of our tax money. We know he's  campaigning, and he knows, we know. Problem is, as always when it comes to Canadians or Canada, he just doesn't care. He's  not a Prime Minister and he doesn't  work for Canada, he's  a global socialist bagman. He has spent us into 1.3 trillion in debt and when there was no more money, he had the BoC print him more. This is leading us to massive inflation. Normal, middle class Canadians can no longer afford a home. He made an absolute shit show of the pandemic. The fact that we've  made out as well as we have is down to the cities and the provinces and the military moving the stuff. Hadju is a disaster, Tam flip flops more than Fouci, Freeland just stays as far away as possible. And Trudeau? He just wanders around passing out our taxpayer money and speaking moistly, dividing whatever groups he can.


Against all that, the Conservatives must be doing something truly, dismally wrong.


----------



## daftandbarmy (25 Jul 2021)

brihard said:


> Against all that, the Conservatives must be doing something truly, dismally wrong.



Like selecting a 'Vanilla Leader'? 

Yeah, that would be one thing...


----------



## RangerRay (25 Jul 2021)

Altair said:


> There are Liberal parties in Quebec, and liberal parties in BC that might as well be liberals in name only. The BC LPC are more politically aligned to the CPC, and the QC LPC want nothing to do with the Feds. The Saskatchewan party is a merger of the Liberals and conservatives, so technically anything they do could be a blight on the federal parties.


As I said above, the BC Liberal party is a free enterprise coalition of everyone between blue Liberals and blue Tories, and will butt snorkel whomever is in power in Ottawa, and generally try not to speak I’ll of any federal Tory or Liberal. NDP are fair game.

When Christie Clark was doing her radio gig between retiring from politics and becoming Liberal leader, she frequently attacked PM Harper and the Tories using LPC talking points (then attack the BC Teachers Federation in the next segment). As soon as she became leader and Premier, she made sure to get photographed of her snuggling up to PM Harper during one of her kid’s hockey games and never said anything bad about him again.

When Justin Trudeau became PM, she became one of his groupies!


----------



## Good2Golf (25 Jul 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> Like selecting a 'Vanilla Leader'?
> 
> Yeah, that would be one thing...


The other thing is trying to be opposed to EVERYTHING the other parties (i.e. LPC) have as a position….which is not setting themselves up as a Centre-to-Right party, but rather an “Everything-Right-of-Liberals” party.

That’s why the CPC is connecting with far fewer Canadians than they need to…


----------



## Altair (25 Jul 2021)

YZT580 said:


> With the exception of 2015, you have to go back to 2004 to find an election where the libs.


yes, true. If only the CPC vote was more efficient.


YZT580 said:


> received more votes than the conservatives so the largest minority is generally onside with the conservative approach and their lead is generally quite substantial.  Given the amount of bad press that the PCs generally garner, that is pretty good.


the victim thing doesn't really garner any sympathy. 


YZT580 said:


> If I understand your stand correctly, the only thing that matters is winning.  Morals, free speech, convictions are all secondary.  Sad, in the end such an approach results in believing in nothing.  I'm done


Dude, the PPC are all about free speech and morals as well, and believe they are righteous and right. Should they win elections? 

The Bloc are probably the most self righteous party in parliament seeing as they have 1 goal and they have zero desire to rule. You won't find a party with more conviction than them. Should they be handed the reigns of power?

Or maybe the party platforms actually matter? Policies matter? 

Believe what you want I guess.


----------



## Loachman (26 Jul 2021)

YZT580 said:


> Trudeau basically said anyone who doesn't totally agree with him is not welcome in the liberal party which makes him nothing more than a Fidel Castro wanna-be and the liberal party a flock of sheep.



Well, there was that photo comparison between him, Fidel, and his stepfather, Pierre, a few years ago.

There should be a Maury Povich "Your ARE the father" parody.


----------



## blacktriangle (26 Jul 2021)

Loachman said:


> Well, there was that photo comparison between him, Fidel, and his stepfather, Pierre, a few years ago.
> 
> There should be a Maury Povich "Your ARE the father" parody.


Don't forget to invite Mick Jagger and the dude from V for Vendetta!


----------



## mariomike (26 Jul 2021)

Loachman said:


> Well, there was that photo comparison between him, Fidel, and his stepfather, Pierre, a few years ago.
> 
> There should be a Maury Povich "Your ARE the father" parody.












						Is Justin Trudeau Fidel Castro’s Love Child?
					

Claims that Fidel Castro and Margaret Trudeau had an affair that resulted in the current Canadian prime minister are impossible on both biological and historical grounds.




					www.snopes.com
				












						No, internet, Fidel Castro isn’t Trudeau’s real father. The Canadian prime minister just really, really looks like him
					

The only way Castro could have fathered Justin is if a 22-year-old Margaret slipped away to stage an unprotected tryst with a communist leader she had never met




					nationalpost.com


----------



## Colin Parkinson (1 Aug 2021)

A ad on radio about O'Toole as the "Typical Conservative" by the "Coalition to Protect Canada" hmmm, can't even be upfront as to who you are.


----------



## CBH99 (1 Aug 2021)

“Coalition to Protect Canada”…??

3:32am local time.  Exhausted.  But damnit this sounds too dumb to not Google right now 😅


----------



## ModlrMike (1 Aug 2021)

They don't Google, so who the hell are they?


----------



## suffolkowner (1 Aug 2021)

ModlrMike said:


> They don't Google, so who the hell are they?


I didn't find them either as I googled out of curiosity


----------



## Haggis (1 Aug 2021)

Jarnhamar said:


> The irony of the prime ministers rapey hands getting a pass is incredible.


It was all about how it was experienced by the parties involved. Regardless, he apologized (mostly because he was caught) and it was a long time ago, so let's move on.

But, look what a GOFO did a long time ago.  He needs to act on that NOW!  And, he's disappointed in les Canadiens and their recent draft pick because it draws parallels to his past behaviour that the voters may not overlook again.  Can we just move on and go after the GOFOs instead?


----------



## RangerRay (1 Aug 2021)

ModlrMike said:


> They don't Google, so who the hell are they?


Astroturf?









						What Is Astroturfing in Politics? Definition and Examples
					

In politics, astroturfing misleads people into believing a policy or candidate has ample support in order to sway others to join the alleged majority.




					www.thoughtco.com
				




Edited to add link.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (1 Aug 2021)

CBH99 said:


> “Coalition to Protect Canada”…??
> 
> 3:32am local time.  Exhausted.  But damnit this sounds too dumb to not Google right now 😅


Near as I can figure from the sparse info available, they are a “public interest group” of progressives, whose sole goal is to ensure that Conservatives never form Government again.

Of course, they are entirely opaque on who the funding comes from (I would bet that the lion’s share is almost certainly foreign). And really, only one party benefits: the LPC.

Naturally, if the CPC even so much as gets a Christmas Card from a Republican, the CBC goes nuts,  with 24/7 coverage about the evils of foreign influence in Canadian politics.   

 Something like this? The lack of curiosity from the CBC news department speaks volumes…


----------



## brihard (1 Aug 2021)

I can’t find anything on them from some cursory check. Nothing recent on Google or Twitter. Can’t find a website.

That’s one of the challenges about the writ not having dropped; the restrictions and conditions around election spending have yet to come into effect. At this point it’s a free for all.


----------



## Good2Golf (1 Aug 2021)

brihard said:


> That’s one of the challenges about the writ not having dropped; the restrictions and conditions around election spending have yet to come into effect. At this point it’s a free for all.


…because under fear of severe verbal chastising by the Ethics Commissioner, the Liberals will suddenly become transparent (like they promised in 2015…


----------



## Haggis (1 Aug 2021)

brihard said:


> That’s one of the challenges about the writ not having dropped; the restrictions and conditions around election spending have yet to come into effect. At this point it’s a free for all.


The campaign has been well underway for several months now.


----------



## Jarnhamar (1 Aug 2021)

Trudeau's pulling out the big guns, if this doesn't scream election announcement in the next few weeks I don't know what does.

* Trudeau: “Every woman in Canada has a right to a safe and legal abortion"*



> “It’s time men stop telling other men that it’s okay for them to decide what women can or cannot do with their bodies.”











						Trudeau: “Every woman in Canada has a right to a safe and legal abortion”
					

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has released a statement on abortion in Canada, and a woman’s right to choose.




					cultmtl.com


----------



## YZT580 (1 Aug 2021)

He points the finger at men as the big, bad ogres but there are numerous groups associated with, and headed by women who also oppose anything goes abortion.  But they never get mentioned or any headlines at all.


----------



## ModlrMike (1 Aug 2021)

We haven't reached the point where we divide people into sub-groups. That comes later.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (1 Aug 2021)

YZT580 said:


> He points the finger at men as the big, bad ogres but there are numerous groups associated with, and headed by women who also oppose anything goes abortion.  But they never get mentioned or any headlines at all.


The most rabid (by far) anti-abortionist person I know is a woman....


----------



## MilEME09 (1 Aug 2021)

Given how polling is showing the gap between the two parties is growing, it's no wonder the liberals are playing that card. It's there is case of tight race break glass card, every time. Each time the Cpc doesn't react enough to put the issue to bed.


----------



## Good2Golf (1 Aug 2021)

Actually they (CPC) react too much in the sense of providing too much (more) information than just saying ‘what I support…’ and leave it at that.  If Scheer had answered the same way as Trudeau, it would have been done and dusted years ago…(Trudeau’s personal own believe I’d Roman Catholic compliant right to life, but he’s smart to couch his words in unassailable “women shouldn’t have to be told by men how to manage their own bodies” phrasing.  O’Toole’s response remains closer to Scheer’s response than to Trudeau.  Just agree with the PM because it is the right answer for the great majority of Canadians.  This incessant desire by CPC leaders yo them keep talking and explain, ‘but if’…just slides then back into the mainstream Canadians’ penalty box.  Sure, CPC-donating members will like it, but that won’t provide much consolation for the next four years as they bemoan why they didn’t get elected.


----------



## Jarnhamar (1 Aug 2021)

O'Toole should really up the Conservatives game.
Offer free abortions that come with air miles or Cineplex points.


----------



## MilEME09 (1 Aug 2021)

Jarnhamar said:


> O'Toole should really up the Conservatives game.
> Offer free abortions that come with air miles or Cineplex points.


Na gotta partner will the oil industry, so Petro points


----------



## Colin Parkinson (2 Aug 2021)

Simple enough is to say "If we got a big enough petition (name some very large number) from Canadians to reopen the discussion, then we honour that, until then the issue is off the table regardless of what any individual MP says" You also state that the CPC allows people to have different ideas and say them because that is democracy and freedom of speech, but the parties agenda is right here in this book.


----------



## Maxman1 (2 Aug 2021)

Jarnhamar said:


> Trudeau's pulling out the big guns, if this doesn't scream election announcement in the next few weeks I don't know what does.
> 
> * Trudeau: “Every woman in Canada has a right to a safe and legal abortion"*
> 
> ...



So basically restating what Erin O'Toole said the other day, just without the mention of the federal government having no authority to dictate health care spending to provinces.


----------



## YZT580 (2 Aug 2021)

Colin Parkinson said:


> Simple enough is to say "If we got a big enough petition (name some very large number) from Canadians to reopen the discussion, then we honour that, until then the issue is off the table regardless of what any individual MP says" You also state that the CPC allows people to have different ideas and say them because that is democracy and freedom of speech, but the parties agenda is right here in this book.


It may be written in the book but the cons. have a hidden agenda!


----------



## hattrick72 (2 Aug 2021)

Colin Parkinson said:


> Simple enough is to say "If we got a big enough petition (name some very large number) from Canadians to reopen the discussion, then we honour that, until then the issue is off the table regardless of what any individual MP says" You also state that the CPC allows people to have different ideas and say them because that is democracy and freedom of speech, but the parties agenda is right here in this book.


After the Liberals released their OIC on riffles/guns, what would stop another party from releasing an OIC on abortion? I say this because the law that was made was struck down at least partially and what we do now doesn't follow what the law intended.


----------



## brihard (2 Aug 2021)

hattrick72 said:


> After the Liberals released their OIC on riffles/guns, what would stop another party from releasing an OIC on abortion? I say this because the law that was made was struck down at least partially and what we do now doesn't follow what the law intended.


Because the law as currently written expressly provides for the classification and regulation of firearms by Orders in Council. That's how firearms regulations worked already. There was already a statutory provision, court tested, that makes that a regulatory mechanism. I don't think there's a lot of understanding, generally, about how statute and regulations interact. Things can be criminalized by regulation, yes, BUT only where there is an enabling statute, passed by legislature, that makes it an offense to breach regulations passed by OIC. This approach allows for better nimbleness and flexibility when things change. A couple other real life examples- changes to impaired driving law in the past few years created a regulatory power to define blood concentrations of certain drugs as was done for a long time already with alcohol. While for alcohol it's a nice easy 'over .08', because we're dealing with a single known substance, there are hundreds of drugs out there and they're constantly changing, along with evolving science. Creating a statutory provision to allow regulatory definition of blood drug content makes it easier to deal with each one as the science settles, rather than having to pass a bill each time some guy creates a new mix of crap in their kitchen and gets high off of it. Another off the wall example - it's an offense to violate Canadian sanctions against the Syrian government. The Special Economic Measures Act (statute) creates an authority for an OIC to define prohibited (sanctioned) activity, but the statute still creates the offense. This let's the government tighten or loosen sanctions through simple regulation rather than having to go to Parliament each time. So that's the sort of system that's in play with guns, and other things as well. Note that I'm not defending the wisdom of the approach on that specific issue of guns- just describing the legal mechanics.

Provision of abortion is a health matter, and so, in the sense that it's a regulated medical practice, is regulated by the provinces. The _criminalization_ of abortion, as was previously the case, was an exercise of the constitutional authority vested in the federal government to pass criminal law. The practice was criminalized through the mechanism of requiring there to be a certificate issued by a 'Therapeutic abortion committee', which WAS a provincially regulated entity. The Supreme Court ruled that criminalizing abortion in the absence of such a certificate was a violation of a woman's life, liberty, and security of the person under the Charter. 

The Morgentaler ruling made it very clear: 



> State interference with bodily integrity and serious state-imposed psychological stress, at least in the criminal law context, constitutes a breach of security of the person. Section 251 clearly interferes with a woman's physical and bodily integrity. Forcing a woman, by threat of criminal sanction, to carry a foetus to term unless she meets certain criteria unrelated to her own priorities and aspirations, is a profound interference with a woman's body and thus an infringement of security of the person.



This breach was not saved by Section 1 of the Charter. In effect, the government does not get to criminalize abortion. Any regulatory roundabout that attempted to achieve the same ends not in an aboveboard manner would be subject to legal challenge and would fail.


----------



## Haggis (2 Aug 2021)

YZT580 said:


> It may be written in the book but the cons. have a hidden agenda!


And the Liberals don't?  On any subject??


----------



## Good2Golf (2 Aug 2021)

Maxman1 said:


> So basically restating what Erin O'Toole said the other day, just without the mention of the federal government having no authority to dictate health care spending to provinces.


👍🏼 

Exactly. Welcome to Canadian politics.  Lead, follow or watch from the sidelines.


----------



## hattrick72 (2 Aug 2021)

brihard said:


> Because the law as currently written expressly provides for the classification and regulation of firearms by Orders in Council. That's how firearms regulations worked already. There was already a statutory provision, court tested, that makes that a regulatory mechanism. I don't think there's a lot of understanding, generally, about how statute and regulations interact. Things can be criminalized by regulation, yes, BUT only where there is an enabling statute, passed by legislature, that makes it an offense to breach regulations passed by OIC. This approach allows for better nimbleness and flexibility when things change. A couple other real life examples- changes to impaired driving law in the past few years created a regulatory power to define blood concentrations of certain drugs as was done for a long time already with alcohol. While for alcohol it's a nice easy 'over .08', because we're dealing with a single known substance, there are hundreds of drugs out there and they're constantly changing, along with evolving science. Creating a statutory provision to allow regulatory definition of blood drug content makes it easier to deal with each one as the science settles, rather than having to pass a bill each time some guy creates a new mix of crap in their kitchen and gets high off of it. Another off the wall example - it's an offense to violate Canadian sanctions against the Syrian government. The Special Economic Measures Act (statute) creates an authority for an OIC to define prohibited (sanctioned) activity, but the statute still creates the offense. This let's the government tighten or loosen sanctions through simple regulation rather than having to go to Parliament each time. So that's the sort of system that's in play with guns, and other things as well. Note that I'm not defending the wisdom of the approach on that specific issue of guns- just describing the legal mechanics.
> 
> Provision of abortion is a health matter, and so, in the sense that it's a regulated medical practice, is regulated by the provinces. The _criminalization_ of abortion, as was previously the case, was an exercise of the constitutional authority vested in the federal government to pass criminal law. The practice was criminalized through the mechanism of requiring there to be a certificate issued by a 'Therapeutic abortion committee', which WAS a provincially regulated entity. The Supreme Court ruled that criminalizing abortion in the absence of such a certificate was a violation of a woman's life, liberty, and security of the person under the Charter.
> 
> ...


Thank you for your thorough response, how would section 251 fit in the context of vaccination?


----------



## ballz (2 Aug 2021)

brihard said:


> Provision of abortion is a health matter, and so, in the sense that it's a regulated medical practice, is regulated by the provinces. The _criminalization_ of abortion, as was previously the case, was an exercise of the constitutional authority vested in the federal government to pass criminal law. The practice was criminalized through the mechanism of requiring there to be a certificate issued by a 'Therapeutic abortion committee', which WAS a provincially regulated entity. The Supreme Court ruled that criminalizing abortion in the absence of such a certificate was a violation of a woman's life, liberty, and security of the person under the Charter.
> 
> The Morgentaler ruling made it very clear:
> 
> ...



The Morgentaler ruling didn't have any majority opinion from the Court and so it has no binding precedent, so it did not create a "right to have an abortion" so to speak.

Justice Dickson wrote an opinion in support of Morgentaler, signed by Justice Lamer.
Justice Beetz wrote an opinion in support of Morgentaler, signed by Justice Estey.
Justice Wilson wrote an opinion in support of Morgentaler, signed by no one else. (I personally thought this one most aligns with my own thoughts on abortion at this time)

So he had 5x Justices rule in his favour, meaning his acquittal was restored, but because each opinion only had at most 2 people agreeing on a legal perspective, it doesn't create a binding precedent.

Would love to hear an explanation of this nuance from people that actually know how law works but I think I've summarized it correctly.


----------



## brihard (2 Aug 2021)

hattrick72 said:


> Thank you for your thorough response, how would section 251 fit in the context of vaccination?


You would need to pose a more precise legal question, sorry. Section 251 criminalized abortion. Section 251 is now of no force force or effect. To gauge how the same legal reasoning might apply to vaccines, you would have to give a situation - ideally one touching on similar points of criminal law.

It sorta feels like there’s something specific you’re trying to lead towards here? If so, just fire away.


----------



## Jarnhamar (2 Aug 2021)

brihard said:


> It sorta feels like there’s something specific you’re trying to lead towards here? If so, just fire away.


If a pregnant woman in Canada is murdered could her murderer be charged with 2 counts of manslaughter?


----------



## Haggis (2 Aug 2021)

Jarnhamar said:


> If a pregnant woman in Canada is murdered could her murderer be charged with 2 counts of manslaughter?


No.  The baby has to have been born alive to be the victim of a homicide.

Here's a story from 2018 that addresses this


----------



## Jarnhamar (2 Aug 2021)

Thanks!


----------



## hattrick72 (2 Aug 2021)

brihard said:


> You would need to pose a more precise legal question, sorry. Section 251 criminalized abortion. Section 251 is now of no force force or effect. To gauge how the same legal reasoning might apply to vaccines, you would have to give a situation - ideally one touching on similar points of criminal law.
> 
> It sorta feels like there’s something specific you’re trying to lead towards here? If so, just fire away.


State interference with bodily integrity and serious state-imposed psychological stress, at least in the criminal law context, constitutes a breach of security of the person.

Would any of the following situations be protected by what is above:
1. Someone who feels vaccines are interfering with and negatively affecting the integrity of their immune system.
2. A pregnant women who wants to wait until birth to get vaccinated.
3. Religious freedom for Jehovah's witnesses who do not believe in medical intervention.
4. Men or women who don't want vaccine because they haven't had the opportunity to have kids yet. 

From here, if these are reasonable expectations that can be protected by law, will these be the avenues citizens will be using if vaccines become mandated for everyone or a two class society is created and the rights of the individual are decided by vaccine status. 

My thought process is the emergency order is the mechanism that allows government to say unvaccinated visitors must quarantine in Nova Scotia for 2 weeks, but if you're vaccinated you do not need to quarantine. Once those orders are lifted, the ability for the government to dictate such a rule will be nonexistent.


----------



## Remius (2 Aug 2021)

hattrick72 said:


> State interference with bodily integrity and serious state-imposed psychological stress, at least in the criminal law context, constitutes a breach of security of the person.
> 
> Would any of the following situations be protected by what is above:
> 1. Someone who feels vaccines are interfering with and negatively affecting the integrity of their immune system.
> ...


It’s going to be interesting to see how it is handled.

I doubt they will mandate vaccines.  No will be forced to take a vaccine.  I think the law is clear on that.

However, mandating proof of vaccination is not the same beast.  There is some precedent that if an organisation can prove that they mandate PROOF of vaccination for access as a result of safety and hazard protocols that they may be in their right to do so,  but it isn’t cut and dry.  I suspect something like that may get tested legally.



			https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mandatory-vaccine-workplaces-vaccine-passport-1.5836153
		


an article explaining it a bit.


----------



## Altair (2 Aug 2021)

Remius said:


> It’s going to be interesting to see how it is handled.
> 
> I doubt they will mandate vaccines.  No will be forced to take a vaccine.  I think the law is clear on that.
> 
> ...


It would be amazing if we could just offer free, cheap, easy rapid tests for everyone, vaccinated or not.


----------



## Jarnhamar (2 Aug 2021)

Women think they can get free pregnancy tests at the hospital. They're sort of right, it's free to them. Tax payers are on the hook for something like $100 a test.


----------



## Altair (2 Aug 2021)

Jarnhamar said:


> Women think they can get free pregnancy tests at the hospital. They're sort of right, it's free to them. Tax payers are on the hook for something like $100 a test.


The horror.


----------



## OldSolduer (2 Aug 2021)

Altair said:


> The horror.


Sarcastic reply as usual. Health care ain’t free in case you haven’t noticed.
Think about it.


----------



## Altair (3 Aug 2021)

OldSolduer said:


> Sarcastic reply as usual. Health care ain’t free in case you haven’t noticed.
> Think about it.


Nothing is free.

The police are not free.

Firefighters are not free.

Teachers are not free.

The military isn't free.

It's a matter of what a society is willing to pay for. 

Vaccines are not free. They cost the government money, our tax dollars. But to you and me, and the general public, they do not cost us money.

Pregnancy tests, if it gives a woman peace, or time to plan, or whatever a woman needs at that time, I don't care, I'm fine with society paying for that. If Jarnhamar is opposed to that, that's on him but I don't see the issue.

So for free rapid testing as a way to avoid societal strife and keep people safe, I'm more than fine with that as well.


----------



## Remius (3 Aug 2021)

Just call it government subsidized. The argument is stupid.  “Free”, “taxpayer subsidized” etc etc.  Rapid testing should be provided.  If not then the unvaccinated will have to pay for it.  I don’t mind if my tax money goes to pay for unvaccinated people getting rapid testing so they can participate in society.


----------



## Altair (3 Aug 2021)

Remius said:


> Just call it government subsidized. The argument is stupid.  “Free”, “taxpayer subsidized” etc etc.  Rapid testing should be provided.  If not then the unvaccinated will have to pay for it.  I don’t mind if my tax money goes to pay for unvaccinated people getting rapid testing so they can participate in society.


And people wonder why I'm so sarcastic.


----------



## OldSolduer (3 Aug 2021)

I see you have an answer for every point that is contrary to yours. 


Altair said:


> Nothing is free.
> 
> The police are not free.
> 
> ...


At some point our way of life will become unsustainable. At some point our system will break.


----------



## Altair (3 Aug 2021)

OldSolduer said:


> I see you have an answer for every point that is contrary to yours.


Should I just....not answer?


OldSolduer said:


> At some point our way of life will become unsustainable. At some point our system will break.


Probably. I don't think pregnancy tests for women, or rapid tests for the public will be the straw that breaks the camels back.

Which is why I respond the way I do. We just, as a nation, spent 350+ billion in deficit spending in one year at the federal level alone, and we are talking about pregnancy and rapid tests.

It's akin to having tens of thousand of dollars in credit card or student debt, and stressing about buying something from the value menu.


----------



## Jarnhamar (3 Aug 2021)

Remius said:


> Just call it government subsidized. The argument is stupid.  “Free”, “taxpayer subsidized” etc etc.  Rapid testing should be provided.  If not then the unvaccinated will have to pay for it.  I don’t mind if my tax money goes to pay for unvaccinated people getting rapid testing so they can participate in society.



Better yet if someone doesn't want to get vaccinated and they get covid let them pay for their trip to the hospital and treatment. 



Altair said:


> And people wonder why I'm so sarcastic.



Not me lol


----------



## Altair (3 Aug 2021)

Jarnhamar said:


> Not me lol


This is true.

But your legions of defenders here sure give me grief.


----------



## Jarnhamar (3 Aug 2021)

What can I say, I'm a real Shay Patrick Cormac.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Aug 2021)

Altair said:


> Nothing is free.
> 
> The police are not free.
> 
> ...


So, I pay money, in taxes for vaccines, but I don't pay for vaccines🙄 Is that like trudeau saying he took on all this debt, so I wouldn't have to?🤣 That's  some funny shit right there. And people wonder why I'm so sarcastic.😏


----------



## Altair (3 Aug 2021)

Fishbone Jones said:


> So, I pay money, in taxes for vaccines,



you pay taxes. 


Fishbone Jones said:


> but I don't pay for vaccines🙄


your personal funds were unchanged after you got your vaccine, thus you did not directly pay for it.

for example someone who pays no taxes still got a vaccine.


Fishbone Jones said:


> Is that like trudeau saying he took on all this debt, so I wouldn't have to?🤣


The government of Canada is the holder of the debt. You, Fishbone Jones Hopefully did not incur more debt.


Fishbone Jones said:


> That's  some funny shit right there. And people wonder why I'm so sarcastic.😏


Original.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Aug 2021)

I help pay for every benefit I get from the government, including vaccines. Whether those vaccines go to millionaires or illegal aliens. Just because I didn't  pay out of pocket at the time, doesn't mean I didn't help pay for it through taxes.Unfortunately, those same taxes go to pay for government incompetence also. I'm  not arguing this ridiculous premise anymore. If you're  incapable of connecting those dots, I'm not being involved. As to your comment on my comment, I stole it from you to show the ridiculousness of this discussion.


----------



## Remius (3 Aug 2021)

Welcome to being a citizen of a country.  Taxes are a reality.  How they are used to benefit the population is another issue but I’m glad I won the lottery and living here.  First world problems indeed.


----------



## Altair (3 Aug 2021)

Fishbone Jones said:


> I help pay for every benefit I get from the government, including vaccines. Whether those vaccines go to millionaires or illegal aliens. Just because I didn't  pay out of pocket at the time, doesn't mean I didn't help pay for it through taxes.


You pay taxes regardless of what is bought with it. If they didn't buy vaccines....your taxes are the same. If they buy vaccines...your taxes are the same. You pay your taxes, and the government does what it does with it, but to say you indirectly bought something....no.


Fishbone Jones said:


> Unfortunately, those same taxes go to pay for government incompetence also. I'm  not arguing this ridiculous premise anymore. If you're  incapable of connecting those dots, I'm not being involved.


You do have a habit of taking your ball and going home. 


Fishbone Jones said:


> As to your comment on my comment, I stole it from you to show the ridiculousness of this discussion.


It was a great comment on my part, I am flattered you stole it.


----------



## Ostrozac (3 Aug 2021)

hattrick72 said:


> State interference with bodily integrity and serious state-imposed psychological stress, at least in the criminal law context, constitutes a breach of security of the person.


There is nothing in the Emergencies Act that would allow for mandatory immunization at the federal level. So that wouldn’t be an option Canada wide.

The same wouldn’t necessarily be true at the provincial level. Quebec’s Public Health Act, for example, does contain a provision for compulsory vaccination of up to the entire population of the province, but I don’t believe it’s ever been used or tested in court.


----------



## Weinie (3 Aug 2021)

Altair said:


> you pay taxes.
> 
> your personal funds were unchanged after you got your vaccine, thus you did not directly pay for it.
> 
> ...



The gov't of Canada is able to incur debt through their ability to raise funds to offset that debt. That offset is primarily through taxes, whether corporate or individual. To state that the GOC debt is not impacting Fishbone Jones, or you and I,  is disingenuous.  At the end of the day, we (and generations to come) will all face a tax hike as a consequence  of increased GoC spending.


----------



## GR66 (3 Aug 2021)

Weinie said:


> The gov't of Canada is able to incur debt through their ability to raise funds to offset that debt. That offset is primarily through taxes, whether corporate or individual. To state that the GOC debt is not impacting Fishbone Jones, or you and I,  is disingenuous.  At the end of the day, we (and generations to come) will all face a tax hike as a consequence  of increased GoC spending.


Don't worry....the deficit will take care of itself!


----------



## Jarnhamar (3 Aug 2021)

I'll pay 70% taxes if it means conservatives don't get elected and ban abortions!


----------



## Altair (3 Aug 2021)

Weinie said:


> The gov't of Canada is able to incur debt through their ability to raise funds to offset that debt. That offset is primarily through taxes, whether corporate or individual. To state that the GOC debt is not impacting Fishbone Jones, or you and I,  is disingenuous.  At the end of the day, we (and generations to come) will all face a tax hike as a consequence  of increased GoC spending.


You know this is not true.

Governments are able to offset debt burden by GDP growth. If the debt is growing 2 percent and the economy is growing 5 percent, you know that the debt burden goes down as a result. One can grow their way out of debt, however it does take discipline to make sure your debt isn't growing faster than your GDP.



GR66 said:


> Don't worry....the deficit will take care of itself!


See, GR66 gets it.


----------



## Altair (3 Aug 2021)

Jarnhamar said:


> I'll pay 70% taxes if it means conservatives don't get elected and ban abortions!


Me too.


----------



## Weinie (3 Aug 2021)

Altair said:


> You know this is not true.
> 
> Governments are able to offset debt burden by GDP growth. If the debt is growing 2 percent and the economy is growing 5 percent, you know that the debt burden goes down as a result. One can grow their way out of debt, however it does take discipline to make sure your debt isn't growing faster than your GDP.
> 
> ...



You cannot grow your way out of a 650 billion dollar debt without reducing spending. Only an idiot would suggest that.

If the economy grows by 5 percent, then the levee/aggregate of taxes increases proportionally, based on that growth, meaning more money into gov't coffers. They rarely consider debt burden, it actually encourages the gov't to increase spending, and debt, to garner votes.


----------



## Good2Golf (3 Aug 2021)

GR66 said:


> Don't worry....the deficit will take care of itself!



No, Trudeau is taking care of debt, so we don’t have to.

#assininelogic


----------



## Altair (3 Aug 2021)

Weinie said:


> You cannot grow your way out of a 650 billion dollar debt without reducing spending. Only an idiot would suggest that.


I see what you mean, but...wait...you posted more, let me read that first.


Weinie said:


> If the economy grows by 5 percent, then the levee/aggregate of taxes increases proportionally, based on that growth, meaning more money into gov't coffers. They rarely consider debt burden, it actually encourages the gov't to increase spending, and debt, to garner votes.


Oh, so you can grow out of debt. Its just that governments are not disciplined enough to do so. Well, now that's different. It almost sounds like...


Altair said:


> Governments are able to offset debt burden by GDP growth. If the debt is growing 2 percent and the economy is growing 5 percent, you know that the debt burden goes down as a result. One can grow their way out of debt, however it does take discipline to make sure your debt isn't growing faster than your GDP.


How about that?


----------



## Altair (3 Aug 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> No, Trudeau is taking care of debt, so we don’t have to.
> 
> #assininelogic


Unless you wanted every canadian who lost a job due to covid to be ruined, then ya, its better that the feds foot the bill.

Then toss in businesses, provinces, municipalities... Yeah, we could have been looking at the 2008 crash all over again, how much money would that have saved us?


----------



## hattrick72 (3 Aug 2021)

Altair said:


> You know this is not true.
> 
> Governments are able to offset debt burden by GDP growth. If the debt is growing 2 percent and the economy is growing 5 percent, you know that the debt burden goes down as a result. One can grow their way out of debt, however it does take discipline to make sure your debt isn't growing faster than your GDP.
> 
> ...


GDP is calculated three ways and they should all come to the same answer. 

The first is what you are alluding to, but one of the factors is the cost of the material to create the goods. This can be eroded by inflation and can drop the gdp as a result. 

The second way is based on incomes. 

The third way is based on goods created compared to what can be consumed by the population and incomes. 

Doesn't matter what way you measure it, they should come to the same answer. OECD utilizes the first method. 

The government's ability to print money to create the debt and release it into the economy will cause inflation. If inflation goes too high, what we have/get paid is less. There is a point where pensions like ours will become insolvent. The members that pay in can't pay in enough to maintain payments out to match indexed inflation. They either close the fund or stop indexing. Both are catastrophic to the pensioner in a high inflation environment. Workers have the opportunity for their wages to catch up provided there isn't hyper inflation. 

Anyways, we shouldn't be comfortable with the amount of debt we added. I believe we needed to react, but not to that extent. I really liked the cerb and mortgage deferral program. I dislike the cews. 

Anyways, what is fine is done, but we need to figure out how much of our future was taken away and find a way to replace it so Canada and it's pensioners can stay solvent


----------



## Weinie (4 Aug 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> No, Trudeau is taking care of debt, so we don’t have to.
> 
> #assininelogic


Phuch





Altair said:


> I see what you mean, but...wait...you posted more, let me read that first.
> 
> Oh, so you can grow out of debt. Its just that governments are not disciplined enough to do so. Well, now that's different. It almost sounds like...
> 
> How about that?


Parse the message I posted as much as you want. If you want to live in Bizarro world, where everything LPC decision-wise is catechism, go for it.  I have, as you may have noticed, a different Canada view. But you do you.


----------



## MilEME09 (4 Aug 2021)

Jarnhamar said:


> I'll pay 70% taxes if it means conservatives don't get elected and ban abortions!


Cause they banned abortions last time they were in power with a majority right? It is never going to happen no matter how much the religious fringe of the party or the liberal attack ad machine may want it.


----------



## Altair (4 Aug 2021)

hattrick72 said:


> GDP is calculated three ways and they should all come to the same answer.


Let me just say, I really appreciate someone who takes their time and writes a well reasoned argument or point. Much better than the talking points or gotchas that are all too common on the internet today.


hattrick72 said:


> The first is what you are alluding to, but one of the factors is the cost of the material to create the goods. This can be eroded by inflation and can drop the gdp as a result.


Very true.


hattrick72 said:


> The second way is based on incomes.
> 
> The third way is based on goods created compared to what can be consumed by the population and incomes.


Agreed.


hattrick72 said:


> Doesn't matter what way you measure it, they should come to the same answer. OECD utilizes the first method.


Most metrics come to a very similar number.


hattrick72 said:


> The government's ability to print money to create the debt and release it into the economy will cause inflation. If inflation goes too high, what we have/get paid is less. There is a point where pensions like ours will become insolvent. The members that pay in can't pay in enough to maintain payments out to match indexed inflation. They either close the fund or stop indexing. Both are catastrophic to the pensioner in a high inflation environment. Workers have the opportunity for their wages to catch up provided there isn't hyper inflation.


This is where we are going to stop agreeing. Printing money doesn't necessarily cause inflation. Case in point, since 2010, the money supply has never been higher. Inflation didn't skyrocket. In the past year, the money supply globally has skyrocketed, inflation to date has not followed the same trajectory. 

Why is that right now? Because there is also massive downwards pressure on prices due to recessions. Lower wages, lower spending, large stockpiles of inventory which needs to be sold at a discount, there are factors that counter the effect of printing all this money. 

In terms of the Canadian dollar, which can crater if too much is printed, remember, currencies are judged off of each other, based on the underlying economy they represent, interest rates, and scarcity. Interest rates being low, and less scarcity should mean it would be falling, but it isn't. Why? Because currencies are judged off of each other, and every other major currency is doing the same thing. The EURO, the USD, everyone is just printing money like mad right now.


hattrick72 said:


> Anyways, we shouldn't be comfortable with the amount of debt we added. I believe we needed to react, but not to that extent. I really liked the cerb and mortgage deferral program. I dislike the cews.


No one should be happy with it, but at the end of this its better that the economy doesn't collapse.


hattrick72 said:


> Anyways, what is fine is done, but we need to figure out how much of our future was taken away and find a way to replace it so Canada and it's pensioners can stay solvent


So long as inflation is under control and debt spending isn't insane Canada should be okay. We will need a roadmap to get back on track though, but its hard to do so when still in the crisis that is causing the spending in the first place.


----------



## Altair (4 Aug 2021)

Weinie said:


> Phuch
> Parse the message I posted as much as you want. If you want to live in Bizarro world, where everything LPC decision-wise is catechism, go for it.  I have, as you may have noticed, a different Canada view. But you do you.


You may want to extend your worldview mate.

UK is having massive spending.

France is having massive spending.

Italy is having massive spending.

The USA is having massive spending. (two different administrations as well)

Germany is having massive spending.

Japan is having massive spending.

Spain is having massive spending.

Do I need to go on?

If there is a reckoning coming because of massive spending, it will hit all countries, which means two things.

One, it doesn't matter if Canada spent or not, because if the aforementioned nations are in a economic world of hurt because of massive spending, the ensuing global economic depression would hammer Canada anyways.

And two, if it doesn't, then Canada would be one of the few nations not to engage in economy saving stimulus and as a result everyone else has healthy economies and a post pandemic economic rebound, and Canada is a economic smoking crater in the ground.

And I don't think its a LPC versus CPC thing either. The CPC in 2008 showed that they would open the financial taps to save the economy (or their electoral prospects). The CPC voted for these measures as well, so they own it too. So saying its just the LPC who would do this is disingenuous and you should know that.


----------



## Altair (4 Aug 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> Cause they banned abortions last time they were in power with a majority right? It is never going to happen no matter how much the religious fringe of the party or the liberal attack ad machine may want it.


The fact that the former simply feeds the latter, and effectively at that, is an irony that I hope isn't missed.


----------



## Weinie (4 Aug 2021)

Altair said:


> You may want to extend your worldview mate.
> 
> UK is having massive spending.
> 
> ...


So, your rationale is, because many other countries in the G20 and otherwise, did stupid (and massively overreactive) actions that will  reverberate for generations, Canada is bound to follow that COA? There be monsters.


----------



## Altair (4 Aug 2021)

Weinie said:


> So, your rationale is, because many other countries in the G20 and otherwise, did stupid (and massively overreactive) actions that will  reverberate for generations, Canada is bound to follow that COA. There be monsters


Again, if they all did it and their economies start to suffer, Canada gets walloped regardless of whether we did it or not.

If they did it and Canada didn't and their economies don't suffer, Canada would get walloped.  

So risk benefit analysis, scenario 1 Canada "may" get walloped. Scenario 2, Canada "would" get walloped.


----------



## hattrick72 (4 Aug 2021)

Altair said:


> Let me just say, I really appreciate someone who takes their time and writes a well reasoned argument or point. Much better than the talking points or gotchas that are all too common on the internet today.
> 
> Very true.
> 
> ...


"This is where we are going to stop agreeing. Printing money doesn't necessarily cause inflation. Case in point, since 2010, the money supply has never been higher. Inflation didn't skyrocket. In the past year, the money supply globally has skyrocketed, inflation to date has not followed the same trajectory."

Have you looked at the price of housing their Canada since 2010? I would argue it is the one asset that has inflated the most in Canada. If you look throughout the world, housing is being bought and held onto as a hedge which is driving the price in many other countries. The last statistic I looked at there were 40k houses in London England that were empty in 2012, there are 40k houses in Toronto that are empty etc. Australia is as bad as Canada on this metric. There are other industries that have seen inflation, but nothing like housing. I bring this up because our discretionary spending on a place to live directly impacts what we can consume and what will be created in the economy. I get that the monthly payment has not inflated grossly when compared to the purchase price, although it has grown. The price of rent has lagged and is increasing. 

"Why is that right now? Because there is also massive downwards pressure on prices due to recessions. Lower wages, lower spending, large stockpiles of inventory which needs to be sold at a discount, there are factors that counter the effect of printing all this money."

We haven't had a"real" recession because we have printed our way out of them. Government is not allowing the excess fat to be trimmed by the economy. Lower wages, yes, just don't include COVID wage due to distortion. Lower spending, yes, see housing, large stockpiles of inventory, yes and no, silly chains are distorting so I'm not sure. To me the factors are the number of countries printing money to stay afloat. 

I agree we are all printing money; however, there isn't another country that is printing as much as Canada per capita (I need to look at some old charts to see if this is the most accurate way to portray it) we are also a large country with provincial debt and can't be compared apples to apples with other countries. Some think provincial debt is a more point, I don't feel that way. 

My mindset from the beginning was as long as we maintained spending on the same order as other G20 nations, hopefully we come out with the same clout that we went in with. The US dollar being the world reserve benefits us. 

If we raise interest rates, or debt to gdp hurts is badly and it is the only thing that can maintain our dollar with works reserves. I believe we have far less wiggle room for interest rate movement than our G20 brethren. That is what is scary, that is where the inflation threat comes from. 

You raise a lot of good points, these are the only counter points I have this late at night.


----------



## Altair (4 Aug 2021)

hattrick72 said:


> "This is where we are going to stop agreeing. Printing money doesn't necessarily cause inflation. Case in point, since 2010, the money supply has never been higher. Inflation didn't skyrocket. In the past year, the money supply globally has skyrocketed, inflation to date has not followed the same trajectory."
> 
> Have you looked at the price of housing their Canada since 2010? I would argue it is the one asset that has inflated the most in Canada. If you look throughout the world, housing is being bought and held onto as a hedge which is driving the price in many other countries. The last statistic I looked at there were 40k houses in London England that were empty in 2012, there are 40k houses in Toronto that are empty etc. Australia is as bad as Canada on this metric. There are other industries that have seen inflation, but nothing like housing. I bring this up because our discretionary spending on a place to live directly impacts what we can consume and what will be created in the economy. I get that the monthly payment has not inflated grossly when compared to the purchase price, although it has grown. The price of rent has lagged and is increasing.


Yes, housing has increased, but that it just one facet of the economy. on a whole, inflation has been around 3-3.5 percent, just slightly higher than the BoC target of 1-3 percent. This is despite tossing WW2 inflation adjusted money at the economy. 


hattrick72 said:


> "Why is that right now? Because there is also massive downwards pressure on prices due to recessions. Lower wages, lower spending, large stockpiles of inventory which needs to be sold at a discount, there are factors that counter the effect of printing all this money."
> 
> We haven't had a"real" recession because we have printed our way out of them. Government is not allowing the excess fat to be trimmed by the economy. Lower wages, yes, just don't include COVID wage due to distortion. Lower spending, yes, see housing, large stockpiles of inventory, yes and no, silly chains are distorting so I'm not sure. To me the factors are the number of countries printing money to stay afloat.


We haven't seen real depressions due to spending our way out of it. We definitely got recessions. Layoffs, business shutdowns, lockdowns, business failures, reduced spending in things other than housing,  the economy shrunk 5.4 percent last year. This put a great deal of downward pressure on inflation.


hattrick72 said:


> I agree we are all printing money; however, there isn't another country that is printing as much as Canada per capita (I need to look at some old charts to see if this is the most accurate way to portray it) we are also a large country with provincial debt and can't be compared apples to apples with other countries. Some think provincial debt is a more point, I don't feel that way.


It raises the question whether the federal government is the lender of last resort for the provinces. If it isn't, then the feds are fine. If it is, then the feds are in trouble and as a result would want more fiscal say in the budgets of the provinces, akin to the EU central bank. 

Lets see what happens in newfoundland, because that canary in the coal mine is a test run for the country. 


hattrick72 said:


> My mindset from the beginning was as long as we maintained spending on the same order as other G20 nations, hopefully we come out with the same clout that we went in with. The US dollar being the world reserve benefits us.
> 
> If we raise interest rates, or debt to gdp hurts is badly and it is the only thing that can maintain our dollar with works reserves. I believe we have far less wiggle room for interest rate movement than our G20 brethren. That is what is scary, that is where the inflation threat comes from.


Correct, we do have a lot less wiggle room than our G20 brethren, but they are facing a lot of the same issues. I doubt anyone is looking at raising interest rates right now. As for spending, we spent more, but our federal debt burden was lower than a lot of them, so we had more room to spend. Again, the main factor here is whether the federal government is a lender of last resort for the provinces, if it is, we need to toss provincial debt on top of federal debt and then things get dicey.


hattrick72 said:


> You raise a lot of good points, these are the only counter points I have this late at night.


Good night.


----------



## Brad Sallows (4 Aug 2021)

> Printing money doesn't necessarily cause inflation. Case in point, since 2010, the money supply has never been higher. Inflation didn't skyrocket. In the past year, the money supply globally has skyrocketed, inflation to date has not followed the same trajectory.  Why is that right now? Because there is also massive downwards pressure on prices due to recessions. Lower wages, lower spending, large stockpiles of inventory which needs to be sold at a discount, there are factors that counter the effect of printing all this money.




Or to rephrase, the velocity of money is slow.  Price inflation isn't just a function of money supply; it also depends on velocity (the rate at which money changes hands).  COVID countermeasures slowed velocity. 

As things open up, the expanded money supply and all the money people were unable to spend during COVID restrictions will be in play.  The increased demand will prompt people to increase supply, but I'm skeptical supply will keep pace with demand for a while. Thus, a period of price inflation, which is already observed.  The countermeasure would be to take money out of the money supply.  Good luck with that.


----------



## Altair (4 Aug 2021)

Brad Sallows said:


> Or to rephrase, the velocity of money is slow.  Price inflation isn't just a function of money supply; it also depends on velocity (the rate at which money changes hands).  COVID countermeasures slowed velocity.


A very fair point, one I didn't consider beyond thinking that a lot of that downward pressure would start to let off.


Brad Sallows said:


> As things open up, the expanded money supply and all the money people were unable to spend during COVID restrictions will be in play.  The increased demand will prompt people to increase supply, but I'm skeptical supply will keep pace with demand for a while. Thus, a period of price inflation, which is already observed.  The countermeasure would be to take money out of the money supply.  Good luck with that.


So there are a few factors at play. The first being that there will still be some hesitant to fully let loose and return to things pre covid, at least just yet. 

Second, it depends on what people will be spending this money on. Recreational things, movies, dinners, concerts etc , or material, cars, tvs, more houses. 

You're right about the latter being largely unsustainable, but the former can be buffered more so.

And lastly, how much money are we talking? People I know, (anecdotal) have been using their money to build and buy decks, engage in hobbies that they would not have before, investing. So are we talking about a big wave, spread out over months, or a tsunami crashing ashore in a short time period? I have no idea, I wont pretend to, I'm not an economist. I keep my eye on trends for sure, but I'm no expert. 

Interesting times ahead for sure, one way or another. As large a fiscal experiment on a global scale has never been tried before, so everything about this is uncharted waters. Lets see if there are indeed monsters.


----------



## Brad Sallows (4 Aug 2021)

> And lastly, how much money are we talking?



Roughly, well over half what the federal government normally spends in a year (which is probably near $360B) but not quite as much as what the federal government has additionally spent (which I think has passed $280B).

Example: Remarks back in March by some guy I guess is with BoC, claiming about $180B in additional savings last year ("To summarize, these sizable shifts in income and spending resulted in an unprecedented increase in savings in 2020 of about $180 billion, or roughly $5,800 per Canadian").  Presumably more has accumulated in the first half of this year.


----------



## Remius (4 Aug 2021)

There is no doubt that we will have to endure an economic storm at some point.  If history is any indicator likely within the next 5 years or so.

How the government will react to it is anybody’s guess.

My guess would be cuts to the public sector and maybe a hike in the GST/PST.


----------



## Brad Sallows (4 Aug 2021)

Cuts, I doubt.  Usually a 0,0,0 contract, and then a few years down the road, "make up" for the 0,0,0 years.


----------



## dapaterson (4 Aug 2021)

Under DRAP there were workforce reductions, and collective agreement increases were absorbed out of existing departmental reference levels (no additional funding).


----------



## Altair (4 Aug 2021)

Remius said:


> There is no doubt that we will have to endure an economic storm at some point.  If history is any indicator likely within the next 5 years or so.
> 
> How the government will react to it is anybody’s guess.
> 
> My guess would be cuts to the public sector and maybe a hike in the GST/PST.


localized or global?

One is not great, one is devastating.


----------



## Remius (4 Aug 2021)

Altair said:


> localized or global?
> 
> One is not great, one is devastating.


If you lose your job, house or income it’s devastating.  Global or localized.


----------



## Altair (4 Aug 2021)

Remius said:


> If you lose your job, house or income it’s devastating.  Global or localized.


Yes, naturally. However if the Canadian economy is struggling and the American one is booming, theirs economy can prop up ours some. 

If both are in the dumps, you have a lot more people losing jobs, houses and incomes.


----------



## Jarnhamar (4 Aug 2021)

Maybe the Liberals should try to pass a bill that would allow them to tax and spend without Parliament approval (again).


----------



## daftandbarmy (4 Aug 2021)

It looks like weak demand will be the biggest problem worldwide:


The coronavirus effect on global economic sentiment​
Despite the overall optimism, the COVID-19 pandemic still looms largest as a risk to economic growth in respondents’ countries. The pandemic is cited most often, followed by unemployment and domestic political conflicts, and is the most common risk in every region but Latin America and India. As in the previous survey, executives in Latin America and in Europe cite unemployment more often than their peers—and this month are followed closely by those in India—although the shares saying so have fallen since January.

For respondents’ own companies, weak demand remains the greatest threat to growth, though increasing industry competition has risen in the ranks. Across sectors, respondents in consumer packaged goods and retail are the most likely among their peers to say so: 41 percent cite it as a risk to company growth, versus 28 percent of those in all other industries.









						The coronavirus effect on global economic sentiment
					

In the latest survey, inflation and geopolitical conflicts remain the top perceived economic risks, while concerns about energy volatility predominate in Europe.




					www.mckinsey.com


----------



## Altair (4 Aug 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> It looks like weak demand will be the biggest problem worldwide:
> 
> 
> The coronavirus effect on global economic sentiment​
> ...


Ah good. 

That will help keep inflation down.


----------



## suffolkowner (4 Aug 2021)

Brad Sallows said:


> Roughly, well over half what the federal government normally spends in a year (which is probably near $360B) but not quite as much as what the federal government has additionally spent (which I think has passed $280B).
> 
> Example: Remarks back in March by some guy I guess is with BoC, claiming about $180B in additional savings last year ("To summarize, these sizable shifts in income and spending resulted in an unprecedented increase in savings in 2020 of about $180 billion, or roughly $5,800 per Canadian").  Presumably more has accumulated in the first half of this year.


It says in the article its the Deputy Governor. They've also been saying that 50% of Canadians are within $200 of insolvency, hard to resolve the two


----------



## Altair (4 Aug 2021)

suffolkowner said:


> It says in the article its the Deputy Governor. They've also been saying that 50% of Canadians are within $200 of insolvency, hard to resolve the two


50 percent of canadians are within 200 dollars of insolvency, 50 percent of canadians have been using this time to bank away a lot of money.


----------



## Weinie (6 Aug 2021)

Altair said:


> You know this is not true.
> 
> Governments are able to offset debt burden by GDP growth. If the debt is growing 2 percent and the economy is growing 5 percent, you know that the debt burden goes down as a result. One can grow their way out of debt, however it does take discipline to make sure your debt isn't growing faster than your GDP.
> 
> ...


Here is one assessment of what we are now on the hook for.



			Opinion: Canadians deserve better than five decades of deficits
		


The Parliamentary Budget Officer has finally answered the burning question: will Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s budget balance itself? The answer: yes, it will — but not for another almost 50 years. According to data published by the PBO, under status quo policies the federal government will balance its budget again in the year 2070 .

By then, Ottawa will have added another $2.7 trillion to its debt tab. That’s on top of its current $1 trillion of federal debt.

More deficits mean more debt that Canadian kids and grandkids will need to pay back.

A baby born this year owes more than $26,000 in federal government debt. By the time the budget is balanced a half-century from now, newborns will be on the hook for about $67,000.

You owe Fishbone Jones an apology.


----------



## Altair (6 Aug 2021)

Weinie said:


> Here is one assessment of what we are now on the hook for.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Now now. Let's wait until 2070 to see if this is true. That's the logic around here, no?


Weinie said:


> By then, Ottawa will have added another $2.7 trillion to its debt tab. That’s on top of its current $1 trillion of federal debt.


We shall see if this is true come 2070.


Weinie said:


> More deficits mean more debt that Canadian kids and grandkids will need to pay back.
> 
> A baby born this year owes more than $26,000 in federal government debt. By the time the budget is balanced a half-century from now, newborns will be on the hook for about $67,000.
> 
> You owe Fishbone Jones an apology.


If this is true in 2070 I will certainly apologize.


----------



## Weinie (6 Aug 2021)

Altair said:


> Now now. Let's wait until 2070 to see if this is true. That's the logic around here, no?
> 
> We shall see if this is true come 2070.
> 
> If this is true in 2070 I will certainly apologize.


Spoken like a true Gerald Butts' acolyte.


----------



## daftandbarmy (6 Aug 2021)

Our debt to GDP ratio is appalling....

"And yet, Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland continues to use our supposedly low indebtedness to rationalize massive government spending increases based on borrowing, including in her first speech as finance minister and the recent 2021 budget. In reality, Canada’s debt situation is not nearly as rosy as the federal government would have us believe. Ottawa should exercise much more caution in buying things with debt."











						Opinion: Our debt problem is a lot worse than Ottawa is letting on
					

Huge leap in gross debt puts us among top five most indebted




					financialpost.com


----------



## Altair (6 Aug 2021)

Weinie said:


> Spoken like a true Gerald Butts' acolyte.


I don't want to bring up old disputes, but this was the exact same logic that was used for the vaccine procurement. 

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Wait until July I heard, wait until September I heard. Fine. Wait until 2070.


----------



## Brad Sallows (6 Aug 2021)

Budget forecasts based on status quo continuing more than about 12 months are worthless.

"Paying back" is kind of a weird notion, since the government just rolls over whatever has come due each year.  In any given year during which it is not in deficit, it might retire some debt instead of rolling it over.

What matters are limits on borrowing (which are not infinite) and going rates for debt when it is rolled over.  If borrowing becomes impractical, either revenues must be found/created, or expenses decreased, or the government defaults.

Programs have been squeezed before, which is a manifestation of "paying back".


----------



## Altair (6 Aug 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> Our debt to GDP ratio is appalling....
> 
> "And yet, Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland continues to use our supposedly low indebtedness to rationalize massive government spending increases based on borrowing, including in her first speech as finance minister and the recent 2021 budget. In reality, Canada’s debt situation is not nearly as rosy as the federal government would have us believe. Ottawa should exercise much more caution in buying things with debt."
> 
> ...



Thats a weird system of measurement. 

Pension plans still have value, counting it as debt is like buying a house and not accounting for the equity


----------



## Altair (6 Aug 2021)

Brad Sallows said:


> Budget forecasts based on status quo continuing more than about 12 months are worthless.


It's weird when we agree on something.


Brad Sallows said:


> "Paying back" is kind of a weird notion, since the government just rolls over whatever has come due each year.  In any given year during which it is not in deficit, it might retire some debt instead of rolling it over.


Its weirder still when someone brings forward a factual point that isn't automatically this party bad.


Brad Sallows said:


> What matters are limits on borrowing (which are not infinite) and going rates for debt when it is rolled over.  If borrowing becomes impractical, either revenues must be found/created, or expenses decreased, or the government defaults.


Bravo sir/madame/non binary gender


Brad Sallows said:


> Programs have been squeezed before, which is a manifestation of "paying back".


Austerity until its affordable again, but other than that, sure.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (7 Aug 2021)

Some simple math as to why the debt is terrible for Canadians. This was all based off numbers gathered when Trudeau first took office so I suspect the interest payments have increased if only due to the massive increase in debt, but at that point we had 600 billion in debt. We were paying 35 billion a year in interest. That coincidentally happened to be the amount that we had a deficit for even with all of Trudeaus extra non-essential spending. 

So at that point in time if we had had no debt we wouldn't have had any deficit. At that point every 10 years we were paying more than half of what our national debt was in interest and not shrinking our debt any. Great way to deprive your children and grandchildren of their wealth for your temporary non-essential gains. Our debt skyrocketed right around 1974 under Mr. Trudeau Sr. increasing significantly with the increase in what we expected government to do for us but in line with a increase in funds to pay for them. From 1974-2010 we have spent over a trillion dollars on servicing our debt. 

I fail to understand how anyone can argue that debt is a good thing. It makes sense in times of need (i.e. WWII, WWI, etc.), but it also needs to be paid back as soon as possible to prevent us selling out our childrens futures for nothing.


----------



## Brad Sallows (7 Aug 2021)

It's not just children's futures that are affected.  The debt accumulated from the mid '70s to mid '80s, and the cost of servicing it, was partly why some of the people wanting nice things from government went empty-handed through the '80s and '90s and onward.

Again, no point whining about the state of the CAF on any matter requiring more money while simultaneously finding excuses to keep the LPC in control.


----------



## MilEME09 (7 Aug 2021)

Brad Sallows said:


> It's not just children's futures that are affected.  The debt accumulated from the mid '70s to mid '80s, and the cost of servicing it, was partly why some of the people wanting nice things from government went empty-handed through the '80s and '90s and onward.
> 
> Again, no point whining about the state of the CAF on any matter requiring more money while simultaneously finding excuses to keep the LPC in control.


Interest payments on our debt alone takes a huge chunk of the federal budget, and it's only going to get worse


----------



## YZT580 (7 Aug 2021)

Simple truth that people and governments forget:  when you owe money you are only as free as the lender allows.  A good example of that is the manner in which China is gradually gaining de facto control over a number of African and Asian countries through their silk road initiatives.  So who do we owe and to what extent does that debt control our foreign policy?


----------



## Altair (7 Aug 2021)

Eaglelord17 said:


> Some simple math as to why the debt is terrible for Canadians. This was all based off numbers gathered when Trudeau first took office so I suspect the interest payments have increased if only due to the massive increase in debt, but at that point we had 600 billion in debt. We were paying 35 billion a year in interest. That coincidentally happened to be the amount that we had a deficit for even with all of Trudeaus extra non-essential spending.
> 
> So at that point in time if we had had no debt we wouldn't have had any deficit. At that point every 10 years we were paying more than half of what our national debt was in interest and not shrinking our debt any. Great way to deprive your children and grandchildren of their wealth for your temporary non-essential gains. Our debt skyrocketed right around 1974 under Mr. Trudeau Sr. increasing significantly with the increase in what we expected government to do for us but in line with a increase in funds to pay for them. From 1974-2010 we have spent over a trillion dollars on servicing our debt.
> 
> I fail to understand how anyone can argue that debt is a good thing. It makes sense in times of need (i.e. WWII, WWI, etc.), but it also needs to be paid back as soon as possible to prevent us selling out our childrens futures for nothing.


One could toss 2008 financial crisis and 2020 covid crisis there as well, no?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (7 Aug 2021)

First of all, it's important to understand that Government borrowing is not like you or I going to the bank to get a loan (which, BTW is what China is doing to get control of Asian/African countries: China comes over and offers them a loan - to build an infrastructure that is useful to them and to China - with terms that give ownership of the infrastructure to China in case of default - then China barely uses it at the beginning so it becomes unsustainable, the Asian/African country defaults and China becomes the owner - at which time it uses it fully to its own benefit).

Government borrow by issuing bonds. At its most basic, a bond is a document that basically states "I, GoC, will pay (say) C$1,000,000 to the bearer of this bond in ten years". Then the government goes on the market with, say, a thousand of these bonds as an issue. Well, the investors (not lenders - investors) make their calculation and bid on the bonds, say at 60% of the value (which is a nominal 4% annual yield - not interest - yield). So the Government has raised 600 million dollars to finance its operations, in return for paying $1B in ten years. In the year that the government pays back the billion, the whole billion is accounted for in what is known as "debt servicing" in the national accounts (again, not interest payment but debt servicing). While some bonds, to make them easier to sell, include a small nominal interest payment each year (mostly the ones sold to the public in general such as Canada saving bonds) and therefore these interests are also included in the national accounts as debt servicing for this year, they form a very small part of the whole.

That's why you cannot equate debt servicing amount every year with interest payments nor can you calculate directly the effect of annual deficit on the national debt. That is also why government (particularly the Bank of Canada) is often active in the bond market to "buy back" government debt (i.e. bonds). Here is how it works: Say that today, the government can sell bonds for  a nominal 2%, meaning they can sell a ten year $1Mil. bond at $800,000, but that five years ago, they had to sell for a nominal 5% (i.e. they sold it then for $500,000). The old bond still has five years to run, but it's been traded on the market many times for investors to cash in the accrued value of getting near the term. At five year, it is probably trading at around $750,000. So the government (or BoC) issues the new bond at nominal 2%, gets $800k, buys back on the open market the five year old bond for $750k (which becomes voided since the issuer has now recovered it), pockets $50k, wipes out $1B from its debt load in five years but takes on $1B of debt load in ten years. However, because of inflation and economic growth in the meantime, that $1B in ten years is actually less of a debt load than the $1B in five years they just wiped out.

All this to say that, regardless of the fact that politician in the opposition parties (it always the ones in the opposition ) at the time always try to play the easy populist card of comparing sovereign debt with "mom-and-pop dealing with the big bad banker", sovereign debt does not repeat not work the same way at all.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (7 Aug 2021)

No, but you can reach a point where it gets difficult/expensive to sell new bonds, because the market begins to get nervous.

And the money you spending buying bonds or paying out bonds is still not being used to do things for the populous.


----------



## dapaterson (7 Aug 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> Interest payments on our debt alone takes a huge chunk of the federal budget, and it's only going to get worse


The PBO has an interesting article at Analysis of Federal Debt: 2020-21 on federal debt.


----------



## Brad Sallows (7 Aug 2021)

Regular "investors" don't always want to buy all the bonds governments want to sell, which is when the real problems begin.


----------



## Weinie (7 Aug 2021)

Brad Sallows said:


> Regular "investors" don't always want to buy all the bonds governments want to sell, which is when the real problems begin.


And some governments become bond whores.


----------



## MilEME09 (7 Aug 2021)

At any point could we in theory look to see who do we owe to, and who owes us, take a hard look and go to them and say can we mutually write off X debt where X equals what we mutually owe each other?


----------



## Weinie (7 Aug 2021)

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> First of all, it's important to understand that Government borrowing is not like you or I going to the bank to get a loan (which, BTW is what China is doing to get control of Asian/African countries: China comes over and offers them a loan - to build an infrastructure that is useful to them and to China - with terms that give ownership of the infrastructure to China in case of default - then China barely uses it at the beginning so it becomes unsustainable, the Asian/African country defaults and China becomes the owner - at which time it uses it fully to its own benefit).
> 
> Government borrow by issuing bonds. At its most basic, a bond is a document that basically states "I, GoC, will pay (say) C$1,000,000 to the bearer of this bond in ten years". Then the government goes on the market with, say, a thousand of these bonds as an issue. Well, the investors (not lenders - investors) make their calculation and bid on the bonds, say at 60% of the value (which is a nominal 4% annual yield - not interest - yield). So the Government has raised 600 million dollars to finance its operations, in return for paying $1B in ten years. In the year that the government pays back the billion, the whole billion is accounted for in what is known as "debt servicing" in the national accounts (again, not interest payment but debt servicing). While some bonds, to make them easier to sell, include a small nominal interest payment each year (mostly the ones sold to the public in general such as Canada saving bonds) and therefore these interests are also included in the national accounts as debt servicing for this year, they form a very small part of the whole.
> 
> ...


But it is still debt, whether or not it is less of a debt load. How about some fiscal responsibility?


----------



## OldSolduer (7 Aug 2021)

Weinie said:


> But it is still debt, whether or not it is less of a debt load. How about some fiscal responsibility?


That would mean telling (pick your favourite social programs) the piggy bank is bare. JT and his den of ne’er do wells aren’t good at saying “no” to those they like.


----------



## Altair (7 Aug 2021)

OldSolduer said:


> That would mean telling (pick your favourite social programs) the piggy bank is bare. JT and his den of ne’er do wells aren’t good at saying “no” to those they like.


The better question is which party would say the piggy bank is bare?

Even the CPC, if elected, says they would run deficits for a decade.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (7 Aug 2021)

Yes debt is still debt. And yes, some times investors don't want to buy anymore. But even in the 1990's, when Federal debt servicing was at almost 50% of total tax revenues, and Eric Malling was doing his darnedest to scare us about  a "debt-wall" on W5, the Canadian bonds were rated at AAA+ by rating agencies and with no indication that they were even planning on reviewing them - so the GoC had no trouble then whatsoever at selling them. Now, I oversimplified earlier to make a point, but the PBO is basically right on: At this time, with what is planned and the current forecasts, we are nowhere even remotely near any debt problem.

Now, that doesn't mean I like government spending - and those who know where I stand on fiscal responsibility know damn well that I do not like any uncalled for spending aimed at just giving goodies to groups/sub-groups left, right and centre, just to get vote (and that I hate Liberal profligacy). For me, there has to be a good reason to spend and it has to be on programs that can demonstrate that they are better off being run by government rather than the private sector. 

All I am saying is, if even the PBO says that we are doing fine on debt at this point, perhaps harping on the national debt is not the best electoral strategy against the Trudeau government. Uselessly calling an election just because he doesn't like answering to Parliament, and by breaking the fixed date election at that to do so, that's a good point. Pointing out that we still have no clue how his government has been spending the multi-billions of dollars they have added to the budget, connecting that to the WE scandal, and extrapolating that it might be the real reason he wants a majority - as Parliament is currently trying to delve into all this and his members block and filibuster to death any attempt at getting info: That's a good one. Pointing out all the extra social welfare programs he is pulling out of his sleeve, never explaining where he will find the financing, and pointing out that he had no mandate from the people to do this: That's a good one to go on. There are many more, but the debt is not one such issue at this time to hang your election on for the opposition parties.


----------



## Altair (7 Aug 2021)

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> Yes debt is still debt. And yes, some times investors don't want to buy anymore. But even in the 1990's, when Federal debt servicing was at almost 50% of total tax revenues, and Eric Malling was doing his darnedest to scare us about  a "debt-wall" on W5, the Canadian bonds were rated at AAA+ by rating agencies and with no indication that they were even planning on reviewing them - so the GoC had no trouble then whatsoever at selling them. Now, I oversimplified earlier to make a point, but the PBO is basically right on: At this time, with what is planned and the current forecasts, we are nowhere even remotely near any debt problem.


Correct.


Oldgateboatdriver said:


> Now, that doesn't mean I like government spending - and those who know where I stand on fiscal responsibility know damn well that I do not like any uncalled for spending aimed at just giving goodies to groups/sub-groups left, right and centre, just to get vote (and that I hate Liberal profligacy). For me, there has to be a good reason to spend and it has to be on programs that can demonstrate that they are better off being run by government rather than the private sector.
> 
> All I am saying is, if even the PBO says that we are doing fine on debt at this point, perhaps harping on the national debt is not the best electoral strategy against the Trudeau government. Uselessly calling an election just because he doesn't like answering to Parliament, and by breaking the fixed date election at that to do so, that's a good point. Pointing out that we still have no clue how his government has been spending the multi-billions of dollars they have added to the budget, connecting that to the WE scandal, and extrapolating that it might be the real reason he wants a majority - as Parliament is currently trying to delve into all this and his members block and filibuster to death any attempt at getting info: That's a good one. Pointing out all the extra social welfare programs he is pulling out of his sleeve, never explaining where he will find the financing, and pointing out that he had no mandate from the people to do this: That's a good one to go on. There are many more, but the debt is not one such issue at this time to hang your election on for the opposition parties.


Better than trying to trash the LPC would be provide a good platform of what they would do instead. 

Its very easy to bash the government in power, but I think Canadians want a clear picture of what the alternative is before they toss those currently steering the ship. 

Blame the left and their policies, but one cannot dispute that they have a lot of them, new ones, and they pretty clearly articulate them.

The right, IMHO, is far too focused on what they think the left is doing wrong and not focused enough on what they would do instead.


----------



## Weinie (7 Aug 2021)

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> Yes debt is still debt. And yes, some times investors don't want to buy anymore. But even in the 1990's, when Federal debt servicing was at almost 50% of total tax revenues, and Eric Malling was doing his darnedest to scare us about  a "debt-wall" on W5, the Canadian bonds were rated at AAA+ by rating agencies and with no indication that they were even planning on reviewing them - so the GoC had no trouble then whatsoever at selling them. Now, I oversimplified earlier to make a point, but the PBO is basically right on: At this time, with what is planned and the current forecasts, we are nowhere even remotely near any debt problem.
> 
> Now, that doesn't mean I like government spending - and those who know where I stand on fiscal responsibility know damn well that I do not like any uncalled for spending aimed at just giving goodies to groups/sub-groups left, right and centre, just to get vote (and that I hate Liberal profligacy). For me, there has to be a good reason to spend and it has to be on programs that can demonstrate that they are better off being run by government rather than the private sector.
> 
> All I am saying is, if even the PBO says that we are doing fine on debt at this point, perhaps harping on the national debt is not the best electoral strategy against the Trudeau government. Uselessly calling an election just because he doesn't like answering to Parliament, and by breaking the fixed date election at that to do so, that's a good point. Pointing out that we still have no clue how his government has been spending the multi-billions of dollars they have added to the budget, connecting that to the WE scandal, and extrapolating that it might be the real reason he wants a majority - as Parliament is currently trying to delve into all this and his members block and filibuster to death any attempt at getting info: That's a good one. Pointing out all the extra social welfare programs he is pulling out of his sleeve, never explaining where he will find the financing, and pointing out that he had no mandate from the people to do this: That's a good one to go on. There are many more, but the debt is not one such issue at this time to hang your election on for the opposition parties.


Not trying to pick a fight, and you have made several good points about understanding fiscal policies and their long term implications.

I am an anti-debt guy, especially when I have one vote in 338 ridings, and governments, of all stripes( I will concede that Chretien/Martin in the early nineties did well) consistently outdo themselves to buy votes. It is my, and your earnings, both current, and future, that they throw around. That pisses me off.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (7 Aug 2021)

I should add that, I have no real problem with governments floating bonds to build stuff: ports, railways, ships, power plants, airports, etc.

Where the trouble begins (and where we are heading) is when the bonds are being floated to pay for social programming, pensions and wages. That is where the spiral begins…


----------



## Altair (7 Aug 2021)

The funny part here is where everyone is looking at federal debt levels and not paying near enough attention at provincial levels.


----------



## YZT580 (7 Aug 2021)

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> First of all, it's important to understand that Government borrowing is not like you or I going to the bank to get a loan (which, BTW is what China is doing to get control of Asian/African countries: China comes over and offers them a loan - to build an infrastructure that is useful to them and to China - with terms that give ownership of the infrastructure to China in case of default - then China barely uses it at the beginning so it becomes unsustainable, the Asian/African country defaults and China becomes the owner - at which time it uses it fully to its own benefit).
> 
> Government borrow by issuing bonds. At its most basic, a bond is a document that basically states "I, GoC, will pay (say) C$1,000,000 to the bearer of this bond in ten years". Then the government goes on the market with, say, a thousand of these bonds as an issue. Well, the investors (not lenders - investors) make their calculation and bid on the bonds, say at 60% of the value (which is a nominal 4% annual yield - not interest - yield). So the Government has raised 600 million dollars to finance its operations, in return for paying $1B in ten years. In the year that the government pays back the billion, the whole billion is accounted for in what is known as "debt servicing" in the national accounts (again, not interest payment but debt servicing). While some bonds, to make them easier to sell, include a small nominal interest payment each year (mostly the ones sold to the public in general such as Canada saving bonds) and therefore these interests are also included in the national accounts as debt servicing for this year, they form a very small part of the whole.
> 
> ...


So why did New Zealand have to default on their loans a few decades ago?


----------



## Altair (7 Aug 2021)

YZT580 said:


> So why did New Zealand have to default on their loans a few decades ago?


They never defaulted on their debt.


----------



## YZT580 (8 Aug 2021)

Altair said:


> They never defaulted on their debt.


True.  Here is what happened and it should have served as an alarm to all those governments who like to spend.  
No, New Zealand was a basket case economically due to years of mishandling of the economy by various goverments - with the final nails hammered in the in the economic coffin by the National Government under Prime Minister Robert Muldoon (1975 - 1984).

Things were dire in 1984, the economic ‘cookie jar’ was empty. To stop a run on the New Zealand Dollar the NZ Reserve Bank even had to shut down Foreign exchange dealing of the NZ dollar. This kind of thing is probably where the ‘bankruptcy’ idea came from.

Luckily the incoming labour government had a certain Roger Douglas as Finance Minister, curiously, for a Labour minister he was ‘far right’ economically. He immediately set about floating the currency and bringing in a raft of measures which helped in the short and long term to stabilise the economy and set New Zealand on an upward economic path.

The years of Rogernomics however are remembered for being brutal as NZ’s economy was thrown open to the world and things got much worse for Kiwis before it got better - it is however hard to see how the social impact could have been eased without making New Zealand’s economic adjustment period longer.  The answer is from a web site called quora and the author is a New Zealander named Brian.  From what I have read and remember it is a reasonably accurate summation.  New Zealand was a basket case


----------



## Altair (8 Aug 2021)

YZT580 said:


> True.  Here is what happened and it should have served as an alarm to all those governments who like to spend.
> No, New Zealand was a basket case economically due to years of mishandling of the economy by various goverments - with the final nails hammered in the in the economic coffin by the National Government under Prime Minister Robert Muldoon (1975 - 1984).
> 
> Things were dire in 1984, the economic ‘cookie jar’ was empty. To stop a run on the New Zealand Dollar the NZ Reserve Bank even had to shut down Foreign exchange dealing of the NZ dollar. This kind of thing is probably where the ‘bankruptcy’ idea came from.
> ...


Austerity is a pain, true.

Canada went through the same thing in the 90s, did we not? We may need to do so again, but that is life.


----------



## daftandbarmy (8 Aug 2021)

YZT580 said:


> True.  Here is what happened and it should have served as an alarm to all those governments who like to spend.
> No, New Zealand was a basket case economically due to years of mishandling of the economy by various goverments - with the final nails hammered in the in the economic coffin by the National Government under Prime Minister Robert Muldoon (1975 - 1984).
> 
> Things were dire in 1984, the economic ‘cookie jar’ was empty. To stop a run on the New Zealand Dollar the NZ Reserve Bank even had to shut down Foreign exchange dealing of the NZ dollar. This kind of thing is probably where the ‘bankruptcy’ idea came from.
> ...



FYI... a damned near run thing:

"In the early 1980s, global events and New Zealand’s government response drove the country towards economic collapse. Debt, inflation, and unemployment grew. To address the crisis, several legislative reforms in the style of New Public Management were passed between the mid-1980s and early 1990s. The currency was floated, price and income controls were relaxed, state-owned enterprises such as the national airline were corporatized, government accounting was scrutinized, and outputs rather than inputs were monitored in government departments. These reforms transformed New Zealand into a country that holds transparency and accountability in high regard. The economy recovered, and the population flourished and gained better access to a wider range of goods and services. This chapter analyses the reasons and the circumstances that led to the success of New Zealand’s economic reforms. The authors also discuss what economic vulnerabilities remain for New Zealand and consider the extent to which the New Zealand model offers lessons for other countries."









						New Zealand’s Economic Turnaround
					

In the early 1980s, global events and New Zealand’s government response drove the country towards economic collapse. Debt, inflation, and unemployment grew. To address the crisis, several legislative reforms in the style of New Public Management were passed between the mid-1980s and early 1990s...




					oxford.universitypressscholarship.com


----------



## Good2Golf (8 Aug 2021)

> These reforms transformed New Zealand into a country that holds transparency and accountability in high regard.



Fortunately Canada takes those qualities to heart as well, so we shouldn’t have any economic challenges in the future…


----------



## Jarnhamar (8 Aug 2021)

"Buying Canadians with our own money".

Yup sounds about right.









						EDITORIAL: Trudeau out to buy the election
					

The polls show the public doesn’t want an election, the opposition parties call it unnecessary and reckless and there’s growing concern among Canadians about a…




					torontosun.com


----------



## Good2Golf (8 Aug 2021)

On the plus side, Trudeau and the Govermnent are looking after debt, so we don’t have to…


----------



## SeaKingTacco (8 Aug 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> On the plus side, Trudeau and the Govermnent are looking after debt, so we don’t have to…


hmmmmm…..fell asleep in Dr. Dunnett’s Economics class?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 Aug 2021)

At least he's finally spending money in Canada, instead of in every shithole country out there. Every dollar he sends off shore is gone forever, never to return. Now, if we could just see the contracts and accounting or even a list as to where he donated it all and what was actually done with it. Millions in Canadian taxpayer money up in smoke like it never existed and he'll never be held accountable. It has all the earmarks of money laundering, but he would never do that, right?


----------



## RangerRay (8 Aug 2021)

Based on everything I’ve seen the last few years, I didn’t think we were supposed to worry about debt and deficits anymore. Everyone seems to have jettisoned fiscal probity.


----------



## Good2Golf (8 Aug 2021)

RangerRay said:


> Based on everything I’ve seen the last few years, I didn’t think we were supposed to worry about debt and deficits anymore. Everyone seems to have jettisoned fiscal probity.



Have no fear, the finance team is here to take care of things…


----------



## OldSolduer (8 Aug 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> Fortunately Canada takes those qualities to heart as well, so we shouldn’t have any economic challenges in the future…
> 
> View attachment 65963


Of course. 😈


----------



## OldSolduer (9 Aug 2021)

ANOTHER bribe - The GoC and Manitoba have made an announcement that child care will cost $10 a day or less in Manitoba by 2026 under terms of some kind of agreement.

Over promise and never deliver should be the LPCs motto.


----------



## Altair (9 Aug 2021)

OldSolduer said:


> ANOTHER bribe - The GoC and Manitoba have made an announcement that child care will cost $10 a day or less in Manitoba by 2026 under terms of some kind of agreement.
> 
> Over promise and never deliver should be the LPCs motto.


The national childcare plan was announced months ago.

We were even talking about it here.

Edit: during the budget talks in April.


----------



## OldSolduer (9 Aug 2021)

Altair said:


> The national childcare plan was announced months ago.
> 
> We were even talking about it here.


This announcement was made today. Have a good one.


----------



## Altair (9 Aug 2021)

OldSolduer said:


> This announcement was made today. Have a good one.


The announcement was made today because the provinces have been in negotiations with the feds on how to fund it from the budget back in april.


----------



## OldSolduer (9 Aug 2021)

Altair said:


> The announcement was made today because the provinces have been in negotiations with the feds on how to fund it from the budget back in april


Don't you find it a tad suspicious considering the election writ will most likely be dropped before the end of the month???


----------



## Altair (9 Aug 2021)

OldSolduer said:


> Don't you find it a tad suspicious considering the election writ will most likely be dropped before the end of the month???


The provinces have been negotiating terms with the feds since April. 

Quebec announced a week ago, NS a month ago


----------



## OldSolduer (9 Aug 2021)

Altair said:


> The provinces have been negotiating terms with the feds since April.
> 
> Quebec announced a week ago, NS a month ago


And just in time for the election. Give me a break. 

Over promise and not deliver - like clean water for First Nations.


----------



## Altair (9 Aug 2021)

OldSolduer said:


> And just in time for the election. Give me a break.
> 
> Over promise and not deliver - like clean water for First Nations.


It was in the budget. We were talking about this in April. 



SupersonicMax said:


> Yeah, because it's frigging ridiculously expensive.





Altair said:


> Sounds like you need universal childcare.





Altair said:


> People should love this policy. It literally creates a bigger tax base.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## OldSolduer (9 Aug 2021)

Altair said:


> It was in the budget. We were talking about this in April.


Who pays for that.

Can you even fathom that the taxpayer - us - is stressed already, or will you blindly follow the LPC over the cliff.


----------



## Altair (9 Aug 2021)

OldSolduer said:


> Who pays for that.
> 
> Can you even fathom that the taxpayer - us - is stressed already, or will you blindly follow the LPC over the cliff.


Ugh, I'm not going over the costs versus societal benefits discussion again, read back over the conversations that were had at budget time.

I'm just saying that its not the feds just pulling this out of thin air, the money was allocated in the budget in April and the provinces have been discussing terms with the feds since then.

Manitoba now.

Quebec was last week.

Newfoundland was 2 weeks ago.

PEI was 3 weeks ago.

Nova Scotia and BC were a month ago.

 So saying that the Manitoba announcement today was some election related thing is just incorrect.

Edit: Added Newfoundland.


----------



## Remius (9 Aug 2021)

OldSolduer said:


> And just in time for the election. Give me a break.
> 
> Over promise and not deliver - like clean water for First Nations.


It was announced as early as Nov 2020 I think.









						Liberals take step on national child-care system, promise plan coming in 2021 budget
					

The federal government is proposing millions of dollars in new spending as a down payment on a planned national child-care system that the Liberals say will be outlined in next spring's budget.



					www.ctvnews.ca


----------



## suffolkowner (9 Aug 2021)

I think its a stupid expansion of the roleof government. $10 a day for something that costs what like $150?


----------



## dapaterson (9 Aug 2021)

Quebec's introduction of low-cost child care resulted in significant economic expansion.


----------



## Altair (9 Aug 2021)

dapaterson said:


> Quebec's introduction of low-cost child care resulted in significant economic expansion.


Cue the Quebec hate in 3,2,1...

It's moot however.

It's in the budget, the money is allocated, the provinces are setting up their programs, or in the case of Quebec  getting reimbursed for their existing one, and it would take a brave PM indeed to try to take that away from parents, from kids, and from the 10 provinces.


----------



## Weinie (9 Aug 2021)

dapaterson said:


> Quebec's introduction of low-cost child care resulted in significant economic expansion.


But it hasn't resulted in demographic expansion, which is forecast to actually shrink in Quebec in the next fifty years or so, along with a significant increase in elderly persons, with their associated pension and medical costs. With a smaller tax base, they will have to cut somewhere, or tax the shyte out of Quebecers, and demand greater transfer payments. 

This is a complicated economic game, that sees immediate gains in a sector, without realizing the significant knock-on effects. But all political platforms/decisions get framed in 4 year windows.


----------



## Brad Sallows (9 Aug 2021)

> +Quebec's introduction of low-cost child care resulted in significant economic expansion.



Sure, it's so easy to tease cause and effect out of economic changes.


----------



## dapaterson (9 Aug 2021)

When in part it's driven by expansion of the female workforce, the correlation is quite strong.


----------



## Weinie (9 Aug 2021)

dapaterson said:


> When in part it's driven by expansion of the female workforce, the correlation is quite strong.


But you can't suck and blow at the same time.

Demographics will factor in to future policy decisions





__





						The Daily — Population projections: Canada, provinces and territories, 2018 to 2068
					

Today, Statistics Canada looks to the future with the release of a new edition of population projections for Canada and the provinces and the territories.




					www150.statcan.gc.ca


----------



## Remius (9 Aug 2021)

If anything the  pro life crowd should be cheering this.


----------



## brihard (9 Aug 2021)

It’s almost as if when you unlock the brains and industry of the half of your workforce that was traditionally kept at home child-rearing, good things can happen economically...


----------



## Altair (9 Aug 2021)

Remius said:


> If anything the  pro life crowd should be cheering this.


Pro life only cares while the life is in the womb, once its made it out, it had better start earning its keep.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (9 Aug 2021)

brihard said:


> It’s almost as if when you unlock the brains and industry of the half of your workforce that was traditionally kept at home child-rearing, good things can happen economically...



Yea, because having that second car and hot tub is so much more important then caring about having unknown strangers raise your kids....


----------



## brihard (10 Aug 2021)

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> Yea, because having that second car and hot tub is so much more important then caring about having unknown strangers raise your kids....


Uh, how long has it been since you’ve needed to look at what it costs to buy a first home? You’ve got a generational advantage here. Single income families aren’t really a viable thing anymore unless they want to spend their life caught in the apartment rent trap.


----------



## Altair (10 Aug 2021)

I would have hoped that the CPC would take the same tack as Bruce here and hand the LPC an easy victory in the next election, but they have wisely kept their mouths shut on the issue.

They probably know its a easy winning issue for those its effects, younger Canadians with kids and women.


----------



## brihard (10 Aug 2021)

Altair said:


> I would have hoped that the CPC would take the same tack as Bruce here and hand the LPC an easy victory in the next election, but they have wisely kept their mouths shut on the issue.
> 
> They probably know its a easy winning issue for those its effects, younger Canadians with kids and women.


Erin O’Toole’s been pounding the housing costs drum quite loudly. It’s a good issue for them to be picking for some campaign focus, it’ll resonate with a lot of normal people and a lot of younger people.


----------



## The Bread Guy (10 Aug 2021)

suffolkowner said:


> I think its a stupid expansion of the roleof government. $10 a day for something that costs what like $150?


A lot of "public services" don't break even - like public transit, for example.  So the question is:  should low-cost day care be a public service?  

On the one hand, some see evidence it can be good for the economy.  On the other, some see it having not-so-good short-and-longer-term effects.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (10 Aug 2021)

dapaterson said:


> When in part it's driven by expansion of the female workforce, the correlation is quite strong.


And the evidence is that the majority of those Quebec 10$ daycare slots were snapped up by upper middle class families and not necessarily the people that maybe needed it the most.

I am uncomfortable with Governments taking forays into childcare when, I think we can all agree based on recent events, the track record of stewardship of children in care is not strong in this country. But, maybe this time it will be different…

I am also uncomfortable with the “certainty” in some quarters that government funded/provided daycare is the only model. I am rather partial to idea of choice. Perhaps we could come up with the system that would cost about the same money where parents could either chose subsidized daycare or chose for one of them to be subsidized to stay home and raise their own children?


----------



## daftandbarmy (10 Aug 2021)

The Bread Guy said:


> A lot of "public services" don't break even - like public transit, for example.  So the question is:  should low-cost day care be a public service?
> 
> On the one hand, some see evidence it can be good for the economy.  On the other, some see it having not-so-good short-and-longer-term effects.



Coincidentally, the BC Commies NDP just announced a $28 million program to enable under 12s to ride public transit for free. 

This is clearly pandering to their strong hold on the urban regions, like Vancouver and Victoria, and another snub to rural BC which has few NDP MLAs and less public transit but, as we're seeing with the fires,is suffering the most from climate change.









						B.C. rolling out free transit for kids starting in September
					

British Columbia’s youngest residents will be able to ride all forms of public transit for free starting next month.




					vancouverisland.ctvnews.ca


----------



## Good2Golf (10 Aug 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> Coincidentally, the BC Commies NDP just announced a $28 million program to enable under 12s to ride public transit for free.
> 
> This is clearly pandering to their strong hold on the urban regions, like Vancouver and Victoria, and another snub to rural BC which has few NDP MLAs and less public transit but, as we're seeing with the fires,is suffering the most from climate change.
> 
> ...


Vancouver/Victoria, BC’s new ‘Toronto’.

604/250 becomes 416/905’s obnoxious little brother.


----------



## daftandbarmy (10 Aug 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> Vancouver/Victoria, BC’s new ‘Toronto’.
> 
> 604/250 becomes 416/905’s obnoxious* and less productive* little brother.



There, FTYFY


----------



## dapaterson (10 Aug 2021)

Transit requires population density to be effective.

If your lifestyle choice is all about sprawl and increased infra costs to service one home, where in urban areas those costs are amortized over hundreds of homes, don't be surprised that that majority is able to gain support


----------



## mariomike (10 Aug 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> Vancouver/Victoria, BC’s new ‘Toronto’.


Province of Vancouver?









						City-state provinces in Canada? Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver
					

Empire Toronto.   Jarnhamar, keep calling Toronto an "empire".  I'll keep reminding you that the "empire" has to go grovelling to Queen's Park with hat in hand to beg permission every time they wish to install a speed bump on a city street.  As for Toronto Police, as the largest municipal police...




					www.milnet.ca


----------



## Brad Sallows (10 Aug 2021)

> When in part it's driven by expansion of the female workforce, the correlation is quite strong.



Was the expansion due to subsidized child care?  A look at work force participation over time, broken down by province or region, would be more compelling than a claim of an effect that could be due to other policy changes.

I doubt young families looking for houses will benefit.  Subsidizing things that middle class families want puts more money into the hands of all middle class families, and one of the things they want is better homes in better neighbourhoods.  Young families are still going to be at the back of the line when more established families start bidding wars over houses with their subsidy windfalls.  I suppose some advocates are still holding out hope for that economic unicorn, an increase in demand for the same amount of supply which does not result in price increases.

There may be good reasons for subsidizing child care, but advocates should try steel-manning their case rather than squinting and cherry-picking one or two observations that look good and leaving it to critics to demolish the conclusion by looking more closely at all the moving parts.  Some things that probably will not turn out to be true no matter how many data are teased: a social program that pays for itself with increased tax revenues, a remarkable net increase in work force participation, improvements in quality of care, effective cost control, better outcomes for children across the board and not just in unrepresentative sample studies.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 Aug 2021)

I don't know about other places, but some daycare have early start learning. My grandson was at a Montessori daycare. We picked that one because of their program.

If the government is funding a daycare, does that mean they get to control the programs used in those daycare facilities?


----------



## Brad Sallows (10 Aug 2021)

I would expect publicly-run daycares to follow some kind of plan, the same way publicly-run schools do.

Unfortunately, the plan probably doesn't matter very much.  Gains from accelerated early learning wash out by the late pre-teen years.  Better if the kids are well-socialized, well-mannered, and not over-watched or pushed.


----------



## daftandbarmy (10 Aug 2021)

Fishbone Jones said:


> I don't know about other places, but some daycare have early start learning. My grandson was at a Montessori daycare. We picked that one because of their program.
> 
> If the government is funding a daycare, does that mean they get to control the programs used in those daycare facilities?


Yes.

The socialist paradox: the less you pay the fewer the choices you have.

You know, like issued kit only comes in two sizes: too large, too small.


----------



## Altair (10 Aug 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> Yes.
> 
> The socialist paradox: the less you pay the fewer the choices you have.
> 
> You know, like issued kit only comes in two sizes: too large, too small.


There isn't going to be a spot for every kid, so there will still be private daycare to choose from, they are not going anywhere.

This is the best of both worlds, private for those who want private, and public for those who cannot afford private.

This would make for more choices  not less.

Current choices are, 

1) Be able to afford private daycare

2)Stay at home

New choices will be

1)Be able to afford private daycare

2)Access public affordable daycare

3)Stay at home


----------



## Brad Sallows (10 Aug 2021)

Depending on what each province proposes, access and subsidy are two different things.  If you can find a daycare to take your child, you are eligible for a subsidy (just as if you can find a doctor, you are eligible for public coverage).


----------



## Altair (10 Aug 2021)

Brad Sallows said:


> Depending on what each province proposes, access and subsidy are two different things.  If you can find a daycare to take your child, you are eligible for a subsidy (just as if you can find a doctor, you are eligible for public coverage).


I think it's more in depth than that.

If it is based on the Quebec model, which I believe to be the case, the individual daycare is either in the program or not.

If it's in the program,then they offer 10 dollars a day daycare, reimbursed by the province, via the Feds, per child under their care.

The parents don't see any of the paperwork besides the 10 dollars a day.

All the parent will know is if they are paying 200 dollars a month on daycare or 2500


----------



## Altair (10 Aug 2021)

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/otoole-rush-election-1.6135011
		




> O'Toole also promised to commit more federal infrastructure spending to rural areas — places he said are central to "Canada's economy, culture and way of life."
> 
> "Rural Canada has been neglected by the Liberals. With Canada's Conservatives, help is on the way," O'Toole said.



Needs to win in urban Canada...


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 Aug 2021)

Oh boy, how will Team O'Toole top that? 

I know. 
Quick and convienient free abortions 

$10 daycare

AND vouchers to drop your kids off at $10 daycare when you get abortions.


----------



## Altair (10 Aug 2021)

Jarnhamar said:


> Oh boy, how will Team O'Toole top that?
> 
> I know.


I love this game.


Jarnhamar said:


> Quick and convienient free abortions


I don't think any party is running on changing the rules around abortion, yet you keep bringing it up. Only members of 1 party keep bringing it up. 


Jarnhamar said:


> $10 daycare


Seems popular enough that the CPC isn't campaigning against it.


Jarnhamar said:


> AND vouchers to drop your kids off at $10 daycare when you get abortions.


You're salty and the election hasn't even begun yet.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 Aug 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> Yes.
> 
> The socialist paradox: the less you pay the fewer the choices you have.
> 
> You know, like issued kit only comes in two sizes: too large, too small.


That is exactly what I was wondering. The socialist construct. Once dependent on government, they decide. Like housing, food and medicine. Once funded, you no longer have a choice where you live, what you eat or how you're  treated. Ottawa will decide.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 Aug 2021)

Brad Sallows said:


> I would expect publicly-run daycares to follow some kind of plan, the same way publicly-run schools do.
> 
> Unfortunately, the plan probably doesn't matter very much.  Gains from accelerated early learning wash out by the late pre-teen years.  Better if the kids are well-socialized, well-mannered, and not over-watched or pushed.


That's  not the concern Brad. The concern is losing the ability to choose.


----------



## Altair (10 Aug 2021)

Fishbone Jones said:


> That is exactly what I was wondering. The socialist construct. Once dependent on government, they decide. Like housing, food and medicine. Once funded, you no longer have a choice where you live, what you eat or how you're  treated. Ottawa will decide.


except private daycare will still exist, same as private schools still exist despite there being public schools...

You don't like public school, you send your kid to private school, you don't like public daycare, send your kid to private daycare.

I don't see the issue. I also don't know why Manitoba signing a deal with the feds made this such a pressing concern, provinces have been signing on the this for over  a month now.


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 Aug 2021)

Altair said:


> I love this game.


Yea you do 😁



> I don't think any party is running on changing the rules around abortion, yet you keep bringing it up. Only members of 1 party keep bringing it up.



LPC counts on Canadians afraid of abortion rules being challanged, despite it not being fucked with for 10 years of CPC at the helm. It's not unexpected. 

LPC also counts on pro-choice Canadians hating pro-life Canadians for their beliefs. 

Trudeau kicked off the pre-election campaign by talking about "It’s time men stop telling other men that it’s ok for them to decide what women can or cannot do with their bodies."  
He's making the topic of abortion an election issue. Smart. 



> Seems popular enough that the CPC isn't campaigning against it.



I like the premise of it. I paid out the ass for child care last time I was on tour and didn't make a ton of extra cash. 

It was mentioned above people took advantage of Quebec's cheap day care. Lots of well off families nabbing it up. We know the LPC likes their well off donors. I'm anxious to see the mess it turns into. 



> You're salty and the election hasn't even begun yet.


Naw I've embraced defeat already. Now it's a show from my comfy seat.  


In any case political promises are trash and Canadians are raccoons.


----------



## Good2Golf (10 Aug 2021)

Jarnhamar said:


> In any case political promises are trash and Canadians are raccoons.


----------



## Altair (10 Aug 2021)

I swear, do people complain when there is a food bank for the less fortunate that all restaurants and supermarkets will close


Jarnhamar said:


> Yea you do 😁


I must hate myself.


Jarnhamar said:


> LPC counts on Canadians afraid of abortion rules being challanged, despite it not being fucked with for 10 years of CPC at the helm. It's not unexpected.
> 
> LPC also counts on pro-choice Canadians hating pro-life Canadians for their beliefs.
> 
> ...


You know what? Fair. Point granted.


Jarnhamar said:


> I like the premise of it. I paid out the ass for child care last time I was on tour and didn't make a ton of extra cash.
> 
> It was mentioned above people took advantage of Quebec's cheap day care. Lots of well off families nabbing it up. We know the LPC likes their well off donors. I'm anxious to see the mess it turns into.


This is like healthcare, or education, or marijuana to an extent. Feds make the general rules, and front the money in the case of healthcare and education and the provinces run the program. So how big a mess it will turn into is up to the provinces.


Jarnhamar said:


> Naw I've embraced defeat already. Now it's a show from my comfy seat.


I'm not thinking victory just yet. I'm still unsure if the LPC can get a majority. Although I'm fine if they don't.


Jarnhamar said:


> In any case political promises are trash and Canadians are raccoons.


Also true. There are a few gems in every trash can though, the raccoons know this.


----------



## Haggis (11 Aug 2021)

A Chinese intermediate court has sentenced Michael Spavor to 11 years in prison for spying. The court also ordered that 50,000 Yuan (roughly $9650 CAD) of personal assets would be seized and he will be deported.  When the deportation would happen is unclear.  Foreign Affairs Minister Marc Garneau says Canada condemns this "in the strongest possible terms".


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Aug 2021)

If trudeau can give the convicted terrorist khadar $10.5 mil for being tortured and imprisoned, they should do the same for the two Michaels.


----------



## MilEME09 (11 Aug 2021)

Fishbone Jones said:


> If trudeau can give the convicted terrorist khadar $10.5 mil for being tortured and imprisoned, they should do the same for the two Michaels.


I'd say more in their case because they actually didn't do anything, where as khadar deserved a .35 cent bullet


----------



## OldSolduer (11 Aug 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> I'd say more in their case because they actually didn't do anything, where as khadar deserved a .35 cent bullet


I second the motion.


----------



## suffolkowner (11 Aug 2021)

Hopefully they get convicted and deported relatively quickly and we get them home. I hope they're not stuck there until this Ms Huawei runs it's course, because that could be another year or two


----------



## Colin Parkinson (11 Aug 2021)

Fishbone Jones said:


> That is exactly what I was wondering. The socialist construct. Once dependent on government, they decide. Like housing, food and medicine. Once funded, you no longer have a choice where you live, what you eat or how you're  treated. Ottawa will decide.


Hey it worked for the First Nations and Iniut who's lives were controlled by the State, right.....?


----------



## Altair (11 Aug 2021)

Colin Parkinson said:


> Hey it worked for the First Nations and Iniut who's lives were controlled by the State, right.....?


I hope everyone here is just as opposed to public hospitals, public schools, public transit....


----------



## suffolkowner (11 Aug 2021)

Altair said:


> I hope everyone here is just as opposed to public hospitals, public schools, public transit....


I'm just not convinced of the public value of subsidized daycare yet whereas I am on public healthcare, schools and transit. It's a vote getter for sure though. Now all they need to do is find the actual daycare spots to subsidize


----------



## Haggis (11 Aug 2021)

suffolkowner said:


> Hopefully they get convicted and deported relatively quickly and we get them home. I hope they're not stuck there until this Ms Huawei runs it's course, because that could be another year or two


Spavor's Chinese lawyer said the deportation would likely take place after his sentence is served.  Under exceptional circumstances (e.g. Canada halting the extradition of Meng Wanzhou and releasing her) he could be deported earlier.


----------



## suffolkowner (11 Aug 2021)

Haggis said:


> Spavor's Chinese lawyer said the deportation would likely take place after his sentence is served.  Under exceptional circumstances (e.g. Canada halting the extradition of Meng Wanzhou and releasing her) he could be deported earlier.


Well that sucks as I was assuming they had gone back to their normal mode of operation where they convict and deport instead of serving the sentence in China. I'm also assumming that the two Michaels aren't actual spies and that Robert Schellenberg was an actual drug smuggler.


----------



## QV (11 Aug 2021)

Altair said:


> I hope everyone here is just as opposed to public hospitals, public schools, public transit....


~raises hand~
I'd prefer to see less public and more a combination of public/private, and private.


----------



## suffolkowner (11 Aug 2021)

QV said:


> ~raises hand~
> I'd prefer to see less public and more a combination of public/private, and private.


God no! Unless I'm the private partner in a public/private venture I want no part of it. They have to on the whole like 90% some of the biggest wastes and abuses of public money and trust that I've seen in the last 35 years. Almost always the public takes all the risk and the private part of the venture gets all the reward.


----------



## Altair (11 Aug 2021)

QV said:


> ~raises hand~
> I'd prefer to see less public and more a combination of public/private, and private.


Yet, when there is only the private sector, in this case daycare, and no public option, in this case daycare, you don't seem to mind. 

At least you haven't said anything about the status quo. And when there is the chance here to add a public option, all I hear is the great horrors of the public taking away the private option.

Private daycare is not going to disappear. There are private daycares in Quebec, the model of this program. Not every kid will get into a a 10 dollars a day daycare spot. So I wish people would stop the bellyaching. 

If people want their kids in private daycare, they can still do so. The only thing that is going to change is that people who want their kid in public daycare at 10 dollars a day will have that option, finally.

Since when is more choice a bad thing?


----------



## suffolkowner (11 Aug 2021)

Altair said:


> Not every kid will get into a a 10 dollars a day daycare spot.
> 
> Since when is more choice a bad thing?


How are people/kids selected for the daycare spots?


----------



## Altair (11 Aug 2021)

suffolkowner said:


> How are people/kids selected for the daycare spots?


Every province will have its own program, but in Quebec , IIRC, its you apply for a spot, are up on a wait list and grab a spot when another kid ages out of it.


----------



## Altair (11 Aug 2021)

Quebec to convert 3,500 private daycare spots into subsidized ones by 2022 - Montreal | Globalnews.ca
					

Funds will be granted to daycares in areas where there is a lack of subsidized spots, including Pierrefonds, Côte-des-Neiges and Saint-Leonard in Montreal.




					globalnews.ca
				






> The province is making access to child care more affordable in certain areas.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



76 percent is the average in Quebec, which means, if my math is correct, 24 percent of daycare spots are private. 

Again, if someone wants a private daycare spot, 1 out of 4 is still private. If you want to spend 30-60 dollars a day on daycare, the option is still available.


----------



## Remius (11 Aug 2021)

My son goes to private school.  A choice we made.  I suspect daycare will be similar.


----------



## Altair (11 Aug 2021)

Remius said:


> My son goes to private school.  A choice we made.  I suspect daycare will be similar.


Exactly. 

You get a choice. Everyone will get a choice. 

If the system in place before the LPC put forward subsidized daycare was used in schools, the "choice" would be 

1) Afford private school. 

2) Home school until the kid was done school at 17-18 years old. 

How many people would be out of the workforce under a system like that? 

Yet thats the exact system that was in place for daycare. And now that the government is looking to fix that, people are bellyaching, wanting what, the status quo?

I don't get it.


----------



## YZT580 (11 Aug 2021)

Altair said:


> Exactly.
> 
> You get a choice. Everyone will get a choice.
> 
> ...


Because money spent on subsidized daycare is money that isn't available for actually governing the country like building transportation infrastructure to the north country, water treatment plants, a third JSS, proper ventilation systems for senior's residences (yes I know its provincial but Quebec's subsidy system spends money the same way) and so on.  There are still people out there who believe that parents are responsible for raising their own children.  There are also people who believe that the state makes a very poor parent which is what has been occurring.


----------



## Altair (12 Aug 2021)

YZT580 said:


> Because money spent on subsidized daycare is money that isn't available for actually governing the country


Neither is public schools, public healthcare, public transit, but we as a society have decided to pay and support those. 


YZT580 said:


> like building transportation infrastructure to the north country, water treatment plants, a third JSS, proper ventilation systems for senior's residences (yes I know its provincial but Quebec's subsidy system spends money the same way) and so on.


One can walk and chew gum.


YZT580 said:


> There are still people out there who believe that parents are responsible for raising their own children.


That's fine. Those people can go raise their own children. Nobody and nothing is stopping them. 


YZT580 said:


> There are also people who believe that the state makes a very poor parent which is what has been occurring.


Those who believe the state is a very poor parent can

1) Raise those kids at home. 

2) Choose private daycare.

What you and others seem to want to do is limit choice. Limit the public option.  You do not want people to be able to CHOOSE to send their kids to public daycare. Why limit their choice?


----------



## mariomike (12 Aug 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> I'd say more in their case because they actually didn't do anything, where as khadar deserved a .35 cent bullet


My understanding from this 122-page thread devoted to him, 



Haggis said:


> Optics aside, we got off cheap financially and legally.


Good luck to the two Michael's.


----------



## QV (12 Aug 2021)

Altair said:


> Yet, when there is only the private sector, in this case daycare, and no public option, in this case daycare, you don't seem to mind.
> 
> At least you haven't said anything about the status quo. And when there is the chance here to add a public option, all I hear is the great horrors of the public taking away the private option.
> 
> ...


I support public options for critical essential services such as hospitals, utilities. With the option to access private services as well. Everyone needs utilities and access to hospitals. 

I don't consider daycare a critical service and think billions of public dollars on that is quite wasteful.  Not everyone needs daycare so this could be provided by the private sector and supply and demand will dictate the need.


----------



## Altair (12 Aug 2021)

QV said:


> I support public options for critical essential services such as hospitals, utilities. With the option to access private services as well. Everyone needs utilities and access to hospitals.
> 
> I don't consider daycare a critical service and think billions of public dollars on that is quite wasteful.  Not everyone needs daycare so this could be provided by the private sector and supply and demand will dictate the need.


Well, thankfully most parties in parliament feel otherwise. Even the CPC has been asking for ways to increase female participation in the workforce, so I doubt they oppose this.

It's a fait accompli, so I really don't care if you all like it or not.


----------



## QV (12 Aug 2021)

As of 2019 woman represented about half of the work force. Without publicly funded childcare nationwide. What's the goal then, 70%, 80% of the workforce?


----------



## YZT580 (12 Aug 2021)

Altair said:


> Neither is public schools, public healthcare, public transit, but we as a society have decided to pay and support those.
> 
> One can walk and chew gum.
> 
> ...


Having people accept responsibility for raising their own children is not limiting their choice.  If anything government run programmes will.  The risk exists that a more institutional environment will be created.  Industry will now find in advantageous to enter the market in a big way which can be translated in the lowest quality product that they feel they can get away with along with the greatest number of children per facility.  As anecdotal proof examine the private government funded seniors system here in Ontario.  Labour costs will go up which means the cost on the tax payer will go up.  Currently it is a market driven system.  Private will become elite and beyond the reach of most people.  Proof in the fees charged for private schools.


----------



## Jarnhamar (12 Aug 2021)

Altair said:


> It's a fait accompli, so I really don't care if you all like it or not.



You should stop taking everything here so personally. It really seems to affect you.


----------



## Altair (12 Aug 2021)

Jarnhamar said:


> You should stop taking everything here so personally. It really seems to affect you.


I really don't care about this discussion.

It was budgeted for in April, we discussed it then, Manitoba made the 6th provincial agreement since April, it got brought up here, and now for some weird reason it's being discussed.

Its happening. I won't get any use out of the program. It doesn't effect me personally. No party will toss out the program. I doubt it's an election issue beyond the LPC strutting around saying they introduced it. So at the end of the day, I don't really care what the naysayers are saying.

This isn't something like the carbon tax that could be repealed or fought in court, this is as I said earlier, a fait accompli.


----------



## Altair (12 Aug 2021)

YZT580 said:


> Having people accept responsibility for raising their own children is not limiting their choice.  If anything government run programmes will.  The risk exists that a more institutional environment will be created.  Industry will now find in advantageous to enter the market in a big way which can be translated in the lowest quality product that they feel they can get away with along with the greatest number of children per facility.  As anecdotal proof examine the private government funded seniors system here in Ontario.  Labour costs will go up which means the cost on the tax payer will go up.  Currently it is a market driven system.  Private will become elite and beyond the reach of most people.  Proof in the fees charged for private schools.


So....Quebec has some of the lowest quality daycare?

Because this program has been run for decades in Quebec, so that should be the end result, correct?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (12 Aug 2021)

Altair said:


> It's a fait accompli, so I really don't care if you all like it or not.


Your posts suggest otherwise.


----------



## Altair (12 Aug 2021)

Fishbone Jones said:


> Your posts suggest otherwise.


I was willing to give it a honest chance to discuss the program and its faults and merits, but at the end of the day, I don't really care about it beyond a intellectual meeting of minds. 

It's happening regardless.


----------



## Quirky (12 Aug 2021)

QV said:


> As of 2019 woman represented about half of the work force. Without publicly funded childcare nationwide. What's the goal then, 70%, 80% of the workforce?



Just don't be a white dude and you'll get hired, companies need to meet their diversity quota even if it means a candidate isn't suitable. Just look at the CAF's hiring priorities - women and indigenous. Hiring the best candidate, regardless of sex or ethnicity, who walks through the door is no longer a thing.


----------



## mariomike (12 Aug 2021)

Quirky said:


> Just look at the CAF's hiring priorities - women and indigenous.


See also,









						Employment Equity in the CAF ( merged )
					

>We ALL know that much more aggregious and unethical things  The ethics modules I received on my (reserve) courses never taught that unethical behaviour was excused if I could point to some unethical behaviour elsewhere.  The proper and liberal COA has already been identified: explain to...




					www.milnet.ca
				



14 pages.


----------



## Brad Sallows (12 Aug 2021)

> If the system in place before the LPC put forward subsidized daycare was used in schools



Not a useful comparison.  Public schools were created to educate children, not to get them out of mom and dad's hair so they could work the family farm without the child labour underfoot.  Obviously, since schools have custody of children for only about 6 hours a day schools were never meant as pseudo-daycare, although parents undeniably sometimes treat schools as such.  Even 7 or 8 years of formal education involved a cost commitment not within the means of most people; the time commitment alone was a burden (consider earlier days, when dropping out to work in a family enterprise, or just start working, was more common).  The proposition that early childhood education (ECE) will help kids is not well-supported; what is observed is a few years of advancement until kids hit their natural aptitude limits (usually by late elementary school age).  People who truly mean to help kids achieve full potential should be shoveling money at Gr 11/12 programs, but instead some are gutting anything that might promote excellence.  I suppose that to the leading classes who want what they have for their own children and are paying for private schools and lessons in this/that/the other, that serves a purpose by lessening competition for limited positions on the ladder rungs to high achievement in life.

The idea that there's no "choice" if a public option isn't available is vacuous.  There are many things in life for which no public option is available.

Most people who want to work have managed to make their arrangements.  More public funding for child care will help a few people at the margins (eg. single parents), but mostly it's a vote buyer: people already paying for child care are hoping to pay less for it.  They are mostly middle class people, and the middle class is where the votes are.   The middle class is also where the tax revenues mostly are.  It's the political happy space: buying votes with people's own money.  This isn't going to be a free lunch, although as with social security in the early years, there will be some immediate "winners" (people with children) and "losers" (people who already paid their own way).   There will continue to be a slight transfer of wealth away people with no or fewer children to people with more.  The transfer will, unfortunately, be regressive.  There will be people with plenty of money who benefit at the expense of people who choose to care for their children at home.

It will all become more costly.  Parents already believe (almost uniformly) that child care is too expensive.  It is reasonable to guess that if the solutions mean more publicly run daycare instead of just cheques to parents, compensation will creep up and there will be more administrative overhead.


----------



## MilEME09 (12 Aug 2021)

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau plans to call election for Sept. 20: sources - National | Globalnews.ca
					

Trudeau aides have said for months that the ruling Liberals would push for a vote before the end of 2021, two years ahead of schedule.




					globalnews.ca
				




So it will finally begin! Not that the campaign hasn't been unofficially on for months now


----------



## Altair (12 Aug 2021)

Brad Sallows said:


> Not a useful comparison.  Public schools were created to educate children, not to get them out of mom and dad's hair so they could work the family farm without the child labour underfoot.  Obviously, since schools have custody of children for only about 6 hours a day schools were never meant as pseudo-daycare, although parents undeniably sometimes treat schools as such.


How many people have kids, and then one parent stays home until the kid goes to school? With things like after school programs, it makes working feasible.



Brad Sallows said:


> Even 7 or 8 years of formal education involved a cost commitment not within the means of most people; the time commitment alone was a burden (consider earlier days, when dropping out to work in a family enterprise, or just start working, was more common).  The proposition that early childhood education (ECE) will help kids is not well-supported; what is observed is a few years of advancement until kids hit their natural aptitude limits (usually by late elementary school age).  People who truly mean to help kids achieve full potential should be shoveling money at Gr 11/12 programs, but instead some are gutting anything that might promote excellence.


I don't disagree,  it's up to the provinces to want to do that though.


Brad Sallows said:


> I suppose that to the leading classes who want what they have for their own children and are paying for private schools and lessons in this/that/the other, that serves a purpose by lessening competition for limited positions on the ladder rungs to high achievement in life.


for schools? Sure. But let us be frank, the daycare a kid goes to does not determine where they end up in life.

So private orpublic doesn't factor in here at all.


Brad Sallows said:


> The idea that there's no "choice" if a public option isn't available is vacuous.  There are many things in life for which no public option is available.


Correct. And I would say that things without a public option in life is one less choice for people in life.


Brad Sallows said:


> Most people who want to work have managed to make their arrangements.  More public funding for child care will help a few people at the margins (eg. single parents),



data in Quebec  shows a whopping 19 percent female work participation rate  increase from 1996 compared to 4 percent in Ontario.

that's not a few, that's not at the margins, that's hundreds of thousands of people in Quebec, and millions across Canada. And assuming a lot of these people couldn't afford 30-60 dollars a day for childcare because they didn't earn enough to make it worthwhile, that's a lot of lower and middle income individuals as well.

Not to mention all the tax dollars from these people earning money and being productive in the economy.

I disagree wholeheartedly with this assessment of yours, the data doesn't back that up.


Brad Sallows said:


> but mostly it's a vote buyer: people already paying for child care are hoping to pay less for it.  They are mostly middle class people, and the middle class is where the votes are.   The middle class is also where the tax revenues mostly are.  It's the political happy space: buying votes with people's own money.  This isn't going to be a free lunch, although as with social security in the early years, there will be some immediate "winners" (people with children) and "losers" (people who already paid their own way).   There will continue to be a slight transfer of wealth away people with no or fewer children to people with more.  The transfer will, unfortunately, be regressive.  There will be people with plenty of money who benefit at the expense of people who choose to care for their children at home.


The data disagrees with this.


Brad Sallows said:


> It will all become more costly.  Parents already believe (almost uniformly) that child care is too expensive.  It is reasonable to guess that if the solutions mean more publicly run daycare instead of just cheques to parents, compensation will creep up and there will be more administrative overhead.


Costs have not skyrocketed in Quebec.

Everyone is acting like this is a brand new program and it's effects are unknown.

It's not brand new, Quebec has been running this for 25 years now, the effects are known.


----------



## Altair (12 Aug 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> Prime Minister Justin Trudeau plans to call election for Sept. 20: sources - National | Globalnews.ca
> 
> 
> Trudeau aides have said for months that the ruling Liberals would push for a vote before the end of 2021, two years ahead of schedule.
> ...


Thank goodness. Maybe there will be more things to talk about than Round 2 of omg, public daycare.


----------



## QV (12 Aug 2021)

Altair said:


> Costs have not skyrocketed in Quebec.


No, not when you're the biggest recipient of equalization payments. But that money doesn't grow on trees.


----------



## Brad Sallows (12 Aug 2021)

> data in Quebec  shows a whopping 19 percent female work participation rate  increase from 1996 compared to 4 percent in Ontario.



I can guess that's from the same data that show a similarly large increase in the female work force participation rate in Atlantic Canada over the same period, without the draw of subsidized daycare.  As I wrote above, advocates must stop cherry-picking numbers and learn that the cause-effect "facts" they think prove their case, do not.  (Another policy change that coincided with that run-up was EI reform.)

"The data disagrees".   OK, what data, and what specifically does it disagree with?


----------



## MilEME09 (12 Aug 2021)

NDP unveils campaign platform ahead of expected election call
					

NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh is promising to tax the 'super rich,' improve accessibility for mental health care, create one million 'good jobs' and set up a Crown corporation for vaccine production, if his party was to form government.




					www.ctvnews.ca
				












						Ready for Better: New Democrats’ Commitments to You
					

Ready for Better is our vision for what we believe is possible. And it is our commitment to the real results that we’re going to deliver for Canadians.




					www.ndp.ca
				




NDP release their platform, well,  most of it, absent is anything related to foreign affairs or national defense


----------



## Altair (12 Aug 2021)

Brad Sallows said:


> I can guess that's from the same data that show a similarly large increase in the female work force participation rate in Atlantic Canada over the same period, without the draw of subsidized daycare.


I would love to see data showing this. Do you have it handy?


Brad Sallows said:


> As I wrote above, advocates must stop cherry-picking numbers and learn that the cause-effect "facts" they think prove their case, do not.  (Another policy change that coincided with that run-up was EI reform.)
> 
> "The data disagrees".   OK, what data, and what specifically does it disagree with?








						Fertility rates and labour force participation among women in Quebec and Ontario
					

Using data from the Canadian Vital Statistics Birth Database and from the Labour Force Survey (LFS), this study examines the relationship between fertility rates and labour force participation among women aged 15 to 44 in Ontario and in Quebec between 1996 and 2016, two provinces that followed...




					www150.statcan.gc.ca


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (12 Aug 2021)

Isn't the GGs first task to ask the opposition  if they can form a Govt. since there was no vote of non-confidence?


----------



## Altair (12 Aug 2021)

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> Isn't the GGs first task to ask the opposition  if they can form a Govt. since there was no vote of non-confidence?


No.





__





						King-Byng Affair
					

The King-Byng Affair was a 1926 Canadian constitutional crisis pitting the powers of a prime minister against the powers of a governor general....




					www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca
				




"The King-Byng Affair was a 1926 Canadian constitutional crisis pitting the powers of a prime minister against the powers of a governor general. It began when Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King asked Governor General Lord Julian Byng of Vimy to dissolve Parliament and call fresh elections. Byng refused. It ended with King winning an eventual election, and no governor general ever again publicly refusing the advice of a prime minister."


----------



## dapaterson (12 Aug 2021)

By custom, with nearly two years since the last election, the GG would be bound to accept the PM's request.


----------



## Mick (12 Aug 2021)

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> Isn't the GGs first task to ask the opposition  if they can form a Govt. since there was no vote of non-confidence?


I think you're describing what _would _happen if there _was _a successful vote of no confidence.


----------



## Remius (12 Aug 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> Prime Minister Justin Trudeau plans to call election for Sept. 20: sources - National | Globalnews.ca
> 
> 
> Trudeau aides have said for months that the ruling Liberals would push for a vote before the end of 2021, two years ahead of schedule.
> ...


Realistically, I think we are looking if the LPC will get a majority or minority.


----------



## Altair (12 Aug 2021)

Remius said:


> Realistically, I think we are looking if the LPC will get a majority or minority.


I'm more curious if O'Toole falls on his sword if the CPC doesn't win.


----------



## Halifax Tar (12 Aug 2021)

Altair said:


> I'm more curious if O'Toole falls on his sword if the CPC doesn't win.


From where I sit he has too.  But I'm just part of the unwashed masses.


----------



## Altair (12 Aug 2021)

Halifax Tar said:


> From where I sit he has too.  But I'm just part of the unwashed masses.


Harper didn't win his first election, I wonder where the tradition of waiting for a leader to grow into their role has gone.


----------



## Altair (12 Aug 2021)

Also curious if Maxime gets to participate in the debates. I don't think he meets the criteria, but they bent the rules the last time to allow him to go.


----------



## MilEME09 (12 Aug 2021)

Altair said:


> Also curious if Maxime gets to participate in the debates. I don't think he meets the criteria, but they bent the rules the last time to allow him to go.


I'd love more if they made a separate debate for the non major parties  that way they can get their voice out.


----------



## Altair (12 Aug 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> I'd love more if they made a separate debate for the non major parties  that way they can get their voice out.


Define non major?

LPC, CPC, BQ, NDP can all be defined as major.

So greens and below?


----------



## MilEME09 (12 Aug 2021)

Greens and below but there would need to be a minimum threshold, say more then 5k votes in the last election or something.


----------



## RangerRay (12 Aug 2021)

Altair said:


> Also curious if Maxime gets to participate in the debates. I don't think he meets the criteria, but they bent the rules the last time to allow him to go.


God I hope not. It was bad enough the media overinflated the Green’s popularity and let in future Senator, Elizabeth May.  Letting in Mad Max would turn it into even more of an unwatchable circus.


----------



## Altair (12 Aug 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> Greens and below but there would need to be a minimum threshold, say more then 5k votes in the last election or something.


That's actually really fair.

It would be Greens,PPC, Christian heritage,  libertarians, veterans coalition and the rhinoceros party.


----------



## Halifax Tar (12 Aug 2021)

Altair said:


> Harper didn't win his first election, I wonder where the tradition of waiting for a leader to grow into their role has gone.


Harper wasn't a dud.  O'Toole is dud.  Having said that the not sure there is much out there to offer an alternative.  

I predict easy Lib majority, Cons fall deeper into being just a prairies/wester party (maybe a break in the party ?), the NDP almost ceases to exist and the Bloc holds.


----------



## Brad Sallows (12 Aug 2021)

> I would love to see data showing this. Do you have it handy?



Go here; knock yourself out.  You'll need to crunch data if you want to look at relative measures.

Labour force participation in Canada was atypically low in the mid '90s (sub-65%), peaked around 2005 and remained at/above 67% until past the "2008" threshold some studies cite, and has trended down a little since then.  (Always look before and after the period the "social scientists" fixate on; ditto space as well as time.)

The obvious question is "why?"

Female labour force participation rates were lower in QC and Atlantic Canada.  Why?  What circumstances there depressed employment more than in other regions?

Trends observed everywhere require more sophisticated explanations than "cheap QC daycare".


----------



## Altair (12 Aug 2021)

Halifax Tar said:


> Harper wasn't a dud.  O'Toole is dud.  Having said that the not sure there is much out there to offer an alternative.
> 
> I predict easy Lib majority, Cons fall deeper into being just a prairies/wester party (maybe a break in the party ?), the NDP almost ceases to exist and the Bloc holds.


Rona Ambrose if she had the mind to.

She doesn't.


----------



## Halifax Tar (12 Aug 2021)

Altair said:


> Rona Ambrose if she had the mind to.
> 
> She doesn't.


Agreed.  

Lib Majority.  Well played JT and team.


----------



## dapaterson (12 Aug 2021)

Rona is too smart to don the lead filled PFD the current CPC gives its leaders before tossing them into the deep end.


----------



## Halifax Tar (12 Aug 2021)

dapaterson said:


> Rona is too smart to don the lead filled PFD the current CPC gives its leaders before tossing them into the deep end.


It's the CPC party voters who keep putting duds like Scheer and O'Toole at the helm.

Also think it's fair to, after a failed election, review the post mortem and see if changes are needed.  

I seem to remember the Liberals going through a couple 1 show ponies before JT took the con.


----------



## Altair (12 Aug 2021)

Halifax Tar said:


> It's the CPC party voters who keep putting duds like Scheer and O'Toole at the helm.
> 
> Also think it's fair to, after a failed election, review the post mortem and see if changes are needed.
> 
> I seem to remember the Liberals going through a couple 1 show ponies before JT took the con.


Dion=Scheer

Ignatieff=O'Toole

Trudeau=????


----------



## cavalryman (12 Aug 2021)

Altair said:


> Dion=Scheer
> 
> Ignatieff=O'Toole
> 
> Trudeau=????


Ambrose. Except she has better hair and a better personality than JT


----------



## Altair (12 Aug 2021)

cavalryman said:


> Ambrose. Except she has better hair and a better personality than JT


She does, but she has shown little interest in running before, and I doubt that changes in the future.


----------



## MilEME09 (12 Aug 2021)

cavalryman said:


> Ambrose. Except she has better hair and a better personality than JT


Or Pierre poilievre


----------



## Altair (12 Aug 2021)

Sask. hopeful to reach a deal with Ottawa on child care plan
					

Saskatchewan plans to reach an agreement with the federal government on child care funding this week.




					saskatoon.ctvnews.ca
				






> Saskatchewan plans to reach an agreement with the federal government on child care funding this week.
> 
> “It’s my expectation and I'm hopeful that we'll have an agreement by the end of this week,” Saskatchewan Education Minister Dustin Duncan told CTV News.



Hope I can post this without controversy.


----------



## OldSolduer (12 Aug 2021)

cavalryman said:


> Ambrose. Except she has better hair and a better personality than JT


And she's much smarter than JT.


----------



## Good2Golf (13 Aug 2021)

OldSolduer said:


> And she's much smarter than JT.


Nor does she sexually assault people, nor pretend to be black, nor grope women’s chests, nor culturally appropriate, nor repeatedly contravene ethics guidelines…etc…


----------



## Brad Sallows (13 Aug 2021)

> Hope I can post this without controversy.



No serious person thinks hope is a strategy.


----------



## Haggis (13 Aug 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> Nor does she sexually assault people, nor pretend to be black, nor grope women’s chests, nor culturally appropriate, nor repeatedly contravene ethics guidelines…etc…


All of which the electorate has forgiven him for. Twice.


----------



## Good2Golf (13 Aug 2021)

Haggis said:


> All of which the electorate has forgiven him for. Twice.


To be pedantic, only a plurality of the electorate.

_Edited to add_: And that doesn’t make his behaviour any more acceptable now than it wasn’t before.  If people want to know why things have been sliding regarding conduct, it should come as no surprise when many Canadians accept and reinforce it via conduct such as Justin Trudeau.


----------



## mariomike (13 Aug 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> Nor does she sexually assault people, nor pretend to be black, nor grope women’s chests, nor culturally appropriate, nor repeatedly contravene ethics guidelines…etc…



Someone more politically savvy than I put it this way...



brihard said:


> Against all that, the Conservatives must be doing something truly, dismally wrong.


----------



## Halifax Tar (13 Aug 2021)

mariomike said:


> Someone more politically savvy than I put it this way...


Not really.  They just cant figure out how to control their own narrative. 

They let the opposition dictate the tempo and message. 

It's simple rugby... Right now the cons are playing on their heels defensively; while liberals attack phase after phase, its exhausting defensively. 

The Cons need someone to take the ball carrier to ground and poach the ball.  Rona Ambrose is that person but she doesn't want to play anymore.


----------



## Altair (13 Aug 2021)

Halifax Tar said:


> Not really.  They just cant figure out how to control their own narrative.
> 
> They let the opposition dictate the tempo and message.
> 
> ...


The LPC ran into the same issue with Dion and Ignatieff.

The key is finding a leader with enough name recognition to be known by the public already , so any attacks on them ring hollow.

Rona Ambrose is known and well liked.

Peter Mackay is known, not sure if we'll liked.

Erin O'Toole was not well known and more and more people don't like him.

Pierre Poilievre isn't well known outside of Ottawa IMHO.


----------



## Halifax Tar (13 Aug 2021)

Altair said:


> The LPC ran into the same issue with Dion and Ignatieff.
> 
> The key is finding a leader with enough name recognition to be known by the public already , so any attacks on them ring hollow.
> 
> ...


Ambrose doesn't seem to be interested

MacKay from what I have heard is done with the whole thing 

O'Toole will fail and be sacrificed 

Pollievre I dunno, I don't see him as a guy who can capture the centre.


----------



## MilEME09 (13 Aug 2021)

Halifax Tar said:


> Pollievre I dunno, I don't see him as a guy who can capture the centre.


He is the guy who in my opinion should be in charge of their election strategy, he knows how to hit the libs and make them squirm.


----------



## Altair (13 Aug 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> He is the guy who in my opinion should be in charge of their election strategy, he knows how to hit the libs and make them squirm.


Didn't O'Toole sideline him?

Also watching Pierre Pollievre campaign ads (cannot watch youtube without getting one) and Erin O'Toole is conspicuously absent.

Not sure those two are on the same page.


----------



## dapaterson (13 Aug 2021)

He reminds me of Copps, Nunziata and Tobin - effective shit disturbers on the flanks, but not someone you'd put in charge of your main effort.

Harper's crushing of most potential leaders is a big part of the current problem.  Kenney is losing Alberta; Baird is fat, dumb and happy outside government; and the few other strong leaders have all left as well.


----------



## OldSolduer (13 Aug 2021)

He’s going to ask for more than we can give…


----------



## Blackadder1916 (13 Aug 2021)

It's not unexpected that politicians, parties and interest groups get a jump on the writ dropping, especially when speculation is that the PM will go to the GG on Sunday, so I shouldn't be surprised at having recently received political related communications.  Actually some of it did surprise me.  In the past two days, I've had one voice mail left on my home phone, two text messages on my cell (those three CPC related) and two mailings from anti-abortion groups.  The anti-abortion pamphlets were unaddressed admail (_one of them with very explicit photos, I'll probably complain to Canada Post about that one *_) and were the unexpected items, I had never received such before.  While I don't think it was a targeted campaign (being unaddressed mail), it seems more than coincidental that they showed up in home mail boxes so close to speculation that the call to election is likely only a few days away.

The abortion issue as a millstone around the neck of the Conservatives has been mentioned before on these means.  A common observation is that abortion is a settled issue and the CPC has no intent in its platform to re-visit the debate.  It probably won't help the Conservative narrative (even at the local/reginal level) if anti-abortion groups (whose membership are more likely to be supportive of the CPC than the other major parties) rev up their campaigns as the election approaches.



*  _I contacted Canada Post about the mailing which contained the photos that disturbed me.  Seems like they can't even accept a complaint about it.  They are not permitted to refuse mailings, regardless of the content, lest they be accused of censorship._


----------



## PuckChaser (13 Aug 2021)

Plot twist: The Liberal Party of Canada believes in a woman's right to choose what happens to her body, except for vaccinations. Meanwhile the Conservative Party of Canada state they're against forcing vaccinations because people deserve the liberty to choose what happens to their body.

Hilarious.


----------



## YZT580 (13 Aug 2021)

PuckChaser said:


> Plot twist: The Liberal Party of Canada believes in a woman's right to choose what happens to her body, except for vaccinations. Meanwhile the Conservative Party of Canada state they're against forcing vaccinations because people deserve the liberty to choose what happens to their body.
> 
> Hilarious.


Except a fetus isn't part of a woman's body.  It is also not an it.  It is a distinct human being upon which society has decreed a zero value until such time as he/she emerges at the end of nine months.


----------



## Remius (13 Aug 2021)

YZT580 said:


> Except a fetus isn't part of a woman's body.  It is also not an it.  It is a distinct human being upon which society has decreed a zero value until such time as he/she emerges at the end of nine months.


Pretty sure pregnancy has an effect on a woman’s body.  No need to consult any experts.  Just ask any woman who has ever been pregnant.


----------



## Altair (13 Aug 2021)

Only the libs bring up abortion....


----------



## Jarnhamar (13 Aug 2021)

YZT580 said:


> Except a fetus isn't part of a woman's body.  It is also not an it.  It is a distinct human being upon which society has decreed a zero value until such time as he/she emerges at the end of nine months.



We're already capable of partial ectogenesis. Soon we'll be able to grow a human completely outside of the womb. Then using the wonder of Science we can pick a desirable gender and desirable traits. Gets rid of that whole awkward gender-selective abortion issue.


----------



## Altair (13 Aug 2021)

Jarnhamar said:


> We're already capable of partial ectogenesis. Soon we'll be able to grow a human completely outside of the womb. Then using the wonder of Science we can pick a desirable gender and desirable traits. Gets rid of that whole awkward gender-selective abortion issue.


Damn those liberals bringing up abortion again.


----------



## Jarnhamar (13 Aug 2021)

Altair said:


> Damn those liberals bringing up abortion again.


LPC loves talking about science. What better science than the ability to custom-design humans?


----------



## Altair (13 Aug 2021)

Jarnhamar said:


> LPC loves talking about science. What better science than the ability to custom-design humans?


You're distracting me from my attempt to damn the LPC for bringing up abortion  in this thread again.


----------



## Jarnhamar (13 Aug 2021)

Altair said:


> You're distracting me from my attempt to damn the LPC for bringing up abortion  in this thread again.


Looking for a safe stance on abortion? Me neither.


----------



## Altair (13 Aug 2021)

Jarnhamar said:


> Looking for a safe stance on abortion? Me neither.


Dastardly libs.


----------



## Halifax Tar (14 Aug 2021)

'Recoil effect': New Nanos polling shows Liberals may be out of majority territory
					

Anticipation that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau will trigger an election on Sunday has resulted in a 'recoil effect' in the Liberals' ballot numbers, possibly moving them out of majority territory, according a survey conducted by Nanos Research.



					www.ctvnews.ca
				




I was wrong once before back in old '87


----------



## suffolkowner (14 Aug 2021)

Halifax Tar said:


> 'Recoil effect': New Nanos polling shows Liberals may be out of majority territory
> 
> 
> Anticipation that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau will trigger an election on Sunday has resulted in a 'recoil effect' in the Liberals' ballot numbers, possibly moving them out of majority territory, according a survey conducted by Nanos Research.
> ...


What happened in 87?

I think its still a Liberal minority government when all is said in done. Surprised to see the Greens up with all their problems. The NDP down probably means that any increase in Conservative votes won't be enough to tip them into the lead. Even if the conservatives were to gain the most seats, it seems like the Liberals would still be able to form the government with NDP or Bloq support


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Aug 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> He is the guy who in my opinion should be in charge of their election strategy, he knows how to hit the libs and make them squirm.



_I think_ that Pierre Poilievre is best suited to be the next CD Howe ~ which I also _believe_ that Canada really needs in the next decade or two ~ to a popular _*liberal*_ (which, I keep repeating, in 21st century Canada means a Conservative) prime minister. Is O'Toole a_* liberal*_? Yes, _I think so_, but I also _think_ he has sold out his ingrained, personal _*liberal *_values to the *illiberals* in both Québec and in his own party's '*NeanderCon*' base.


----------



## Halifax Tar (14 Aug 2021)

suffolkowner said:


> What happened in 87?
> 
> I think its still a Liberal minority government when all is said in done. Surprised to see the Greens up with all their problems. The NDP down probably means that any increase in Conservative votes won't be enough to tip them into the lead. Even if the conservatives were to gain the most seats, it seems like the Liberals would still be able to form the government with NDP or Bloq support


Nothing I was just trying to be coy.  Lol I was 8 in 87 lol


----------



## Jarnhamar (14 Aug 2021)

Halifax Tar said:


> 'Recoil effect': New Nanos polling shows Liberals may be out of majority territory
> 
> 
> Anticipation that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau will trigger an election on Sunday has resulted in a 'recoil effect' in the Liberals' ballot numbers, possibly moving them out of majority territory, according a survey conducted by Nanos Research.
> ...


Oops.


----------



## PuckChaser (14 Aug 2021)

If Nik Nanos is sounding an alarm, that's bad news for Trudeau.


----------



## Good2Golf (14 Aug 2021)

PuckChaser said:


> If Nik Nanos is sounding an alarm, that's bad news for Trudeau.


Nik normally swing margins just with a tweet, let alone his polls.  Don’t underestimate the Cons ability to squander this opportunity as well…


----------



## Haggis (14 Aug 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> To be pedantic, only a plurality of the electorate.
> 
> _Edited to add_: And that doesn’t make his behaviour any more acceptable now than it wasn’t before.  If people want to know why things have been sliding regarding conduct, it should come as no surprise when many Canadians accept and reinforce it via conduct such as Justin Trudeau.


Except that he holds others to a higher standard than he holds himself.  Case-in-point is his comments regarding the CDS(s), Norman and the disappointing draft pick by Les Canadiens.


----------



## Good2Golf (14 Aug 2021)

Haggis said:


> Except that he holds others to a higher standard than he holds himself.  Case-in-point is his comments regarding the CDS(s), Norman and the disappointing draft pick by Les Canadiens.



Indeed.  

I don't know of any reasonable person who hand on heart can't acknowledge that Justin Trudeau is a hypocrite where issues of sexualized, racialized or ethical conduct are concerned.


----------



## suffolkowner (14 Aug 2021)

Halifax Tar said:


> Nothing I was just trying to be coy.  Lol I was 8 in 87 lol


over my head i guess i though it had something to do with Mulroney


Good2Golf said:


> Indeed.
> 
> I don't know of any reasonable person who hand on heart can't acknowledge that Justin Trudeau is a hypocrite where issues of sexualized, racialized or ethical conduct are concerned.


I have lots of Liberal family and friends and other than a few diehards none are impressed with him


----------



## Altair (14 Aug 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> Nik normally swing margins just with a tweet, let alone his polls.  Don’t underestimate the Cons ability to squander this opportunity as well…


I never get too excited about individual polls.



			https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/elections/poll-tracker/canada/
		


Amalgamation of polls though?

That's sexy stuff.


----------



## suffolkowner (14 Aug 2021)

The question is a Liberal majority worse for Canada than a Liberal minority propped up by the NDP and Bloq?


----------



## RangerRay (14 Aug 2021)

suffolkowner said:


> The question is a Liberal majority worse for Canada than a Liberal minority propped up by the NDP and Bloq?


Well, you can kiss the committee on Canada China relations good bye if the Liberals get a majority, for starters.


----------



## Altair (14 Aug 2021)

RangerRay said:


> Well, you can kiss the committee on Canada China relations good bye if the Liberals get a majority, for starters.


The bloc has been helping the Liberals shut down committees anyways.


----------



## Weinie (14 Aug 2021)

RangerRay said:


> Well, you can kiss the committee on Canada China relations good bye if the Liberals get a majority, for starters.


You can kiss a lot of things goodbye if the Liberals get a majority. This is Gerald Butt machinations.


----------



## OldSolduer (14 Aug 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> Indeed.
> 
> I don't know of any reasonable person who hand on heart can't acknowledge that Justin Trudeau is a hypocrite where issues of sexualized, racialized or ethical conduct are concerned.


Altair but he's not all that reasonable.


suffolkowner said:


> The question is a Liberal majority worse for Canada than a Liberal minority propped up by the NDP and Bloq?


Worse - now he can do anything he wants with impunity - much like he does now but it will be worse.


----------



## MilEME09 (14 Aug 2021)

While I doubt the cons will win, my best case scenario is tbe liberal minority is reduced even further, requiring them to actually need to listen to the cons, not just the bloq


----------



## RangerRay (14 Aug 2021)

In a perfect world, I would like to see a Liberal-Conservative coalition that had the best characteristics of both and none of the bad characteristics.

In any other country, the two main parties would form a “grand coalition” to keep separatists and extremists away from the levers of power. 

But that’s just fantasy in Canada.

Edited for context.


----------



## Altair (14 Aug 2021)

RangerRay said:


> In a perfect world, I would like to see a Liberal-Conservative coalition that had the best characteristics of both and none of the bad characteristics.
> 
> In any other country, the two main parties would form a “grand coalition” to keep separatists and extremists away from the levers of power.
> 
> ...


If proportional representation was implemented I could see this happening.

Neither the LPC nor the CPC would ever get enough popular support to rule outright again, so I could see there being a time when they both get tired of the NDP having the balance of power.

This would be after a generation of LPC-NDP coalitions though.


----------



## cavalryman (14 Aug 2021)

Altair said:


> This would be after a generation of LPC-NDP coalitions though.


If there's a country left.


----------



## Altair (14 Aug 2021)

cavalryman said:


> If there's a country left.


I suppose I have much more faith in my country than you do.


----------



## YZT580 (14 Aug 2021)

Altair said:


> I suppose I have much more faith in my country than you do.


faith in our country yes, faith in the leadership, not so much.


----------



## Altair (14 Aug 2021)

YZT580 said:


> faith in our country yes, faith in the leadership, not so much.


I have faith that our country, compatriots, to survive any leadership. 

Even a CPC one.


----------



## cavalryman (14 Aug 2021)

YZT580 said:


> faith in our country yes, faith in the leadership, not so much  *at all*.


Our current prime minister manages to be so much worse than his father, and I've always held PET in utter contempt. 
EDITED TO ADD: He was, before his son, the most divisive PM in living memory. And the most enamored of tyrannical regimes.


----------



## Altair (14 Aug 2021)

cavalryman said:


> Our current prime minister managed to be so much worse than his father, and I've always held PET in utter contempt.


Yet we are still here.

As a country.


----------



## YZT580 (14 Aug 2021)

cavalryman said:


> Our current prime minister manages to be so much worse than his father, and I've always held PET in utter contempt. He was, before his son, the most divisive PM in living memory. And the most enamored of tyrannical regimes.


I accept the amendment


----------



## cavalryman (14 Aug 2021)

Altair said:


> Yet we are still here.
> 
> As a country.


And we might not be in 10 or 20 years at this rate. Trudeau is doing his damnest to alienate anyone who disagrees with his views. Prime Ministers should be unifiers, not dividers and at this point the fact he'll be re-elected, even if not with a majority, tells me this country is broken.


----------



## YZT580 (14 Aug 2021)

Altair said:


> I have faith that our country, compatriots, to survive any leadership.
> 
> Even a CPC one.


what a pathetic commentary,but true


----------



## OldSolduer (14 Aug 2021)

cavalryman said:


> Our current prime minister manages to be so much worse than his father, and I've always held PET in utter contempt.
> EDITED TO ADD: He was, before his son, the most divisive PM in living memory. And the most enamored of tyrannical regimes.


I fully agree - he was a petty dictator.  And so is his son.

Here's a question:

What are the odds our Dear Leader changes his mind and decides to go on? According to a Nanos poll support for the LPC is declining.


----------



## Altair (14 Aug 2021)

cavalryman said:


> And we might not be in 10 or 20 years at this rate. Trudeau is doing his damnest to alienate anyone who disagrees with his views. Prime Ministers should be unifiers, not dividers and at this point the fact he'll be re-elected, even if not with a majority, tells me this country is broken.


Right....

Jean Chretien was known as a unifier.

Paul Martin was known as unifier.

Steven Harper was known as a unifier.

Right.


----------



## Altair (14 Aug 2021)

OldSolduer said:


> I fully agree - he was a petty dictator.  And so is his son.
> 
> Here's a question:
> 
> What are the odds our Dear Leader changes his mind and decides to go on? According to a Nanos poll support for the LPC is declining.


Most amalgamated polls say they are still on the cusp of a majority.

I think they are banking on the NDP always underperforming and being able to go toe to toe with the bloc.


----------



## Brad Sallows (14 Aug 2021)

We came pretty close to exploring a separation option once.  Canada is not naturally cohesive.

We do a pretty good job (so far) of being a federation, but the accumulation of moralizing authoritarians who want top-down solutions to all of their bugbears, and want them today, is accelerating.  There aren't many things off the table when you believe you're "on the right side of history" (whatever that is).


----------



## Altair (14 Aug 2021)

Brad Sallows said:


> We came pretty close to exploring a separation option once.  Canada is not naturally cohesive.


Yes, however separation is at generational low now. Even the bloc isn't running on separation,  they are running on just getting goodies for Quebec.

The separatist party in provincial politics in Quebec is continuing to lose support.

I don't think we can look at Justin Trudeaus time at the helm as being on  threatening to break apart our nation.


Brad Sallows said:


> We do a pretty good job (so far) of being a federation, but the accumulation of moralizing authoritarians who want top-down solutions to all of their bugbears, and want them today, is accelerating.  There aren't many things off the table when you believe you're "on the right side of history" (whatever that is).


I do like how Justin Trudeau is an authoritarian when he has been running the last two years in a minority parliament.

Nothing he has gotten done in the last two years was done without a dance partner.

Unless jagmeet singh is another moralizing authoritarian.


----------



## suffolkowner (14 Aug 2021)

cavalryman said:


> Our current prime minister manages to be so much worse than his father, and I've always held PET in utter contempt.
> EDITED TO ADD: He was, before his son, the most divisive PM in living memory. And the most enamored of tyrannical regimes.


more than Brian Mulroney who reduced the PC party to 2 seats?


cavalryman said:


> And we might not be in 10 or 20 years at this rate. Trudeau is doing his damnest to alienate anyone who disagrees with his views. Prime Ministers should be unifiers, not dividers and at this point the fact he'll be re-elected, even if not with a majority, tells me this country is broken.


I'm not sure that Prime Ministers are unifying in any way or ever have been, people have always wanted to take their ball and go home when they didn't get their way


Altair said:


> Yes, however separation is at generational low now. Even the bloc isn't running on separation,  they are running on just getting goodies for Quebec.
> 
> The separatist party in provincial politics in Quebec is continuing to lose support.
> 
> ...


I don't think he's talking about Quebec

Jagmeet Singh? The whole leftist post modernist movement is moralizing authoritarian


----------



## Altair (14 Aug 2021)

suffolkowner said:


> I don't think he's talking about Quebec


Hahaha


suffolkowner said:


> Jagmeet Singh? The whole leftist post modernist movement is moralizing authoritarian


Darn all those leftists working together in Parliament.

Clearly there is only one party which isn't moralizing authoritarian.


----------



## Jarnhamar (15 Aug 2021)

Justin Trudeau Liberals' top five promises broken


----------



## Brad Sallows (15 Aug 2021)

> I do like how Justin Trudeau is an authoritarian when he has been running the last two years in a minority parliament.



He is.  He's right comfortable in there with all the rest of the people who have things they want to either make forbidden or mandatory.  Example, no firearms.  Those people are a long, long way from classical liberalism and generally letting people live their own lives.


----------



## Altair (15 Aug 2021)

Jarnhamar said:


> Justin Trudeau Liberals' top five promises broken











						Polimeter
					

Polimeter is an independent initiative developed by political scientists that tracks whether politicians keep the promises they make.




					www.polimeter.org
				




39% Kept

21% In Progress

21 % Not yet rated

14% Partially Kept

5% Broken

Nice try though.


----------



## Altair (15 Aug 2021)

Brad Sallows said:


> He is.  He's right comfortable in there with all the rest of the people who have things they want to either make forbidden or mandatory.  Example, no firearms.  Those people are a long, long way from classical liberalism and generally letting people live their own lives.


Okay.

Except I cannot think of any classically liberal party on offer. 

So if none of the parties are classically liberal, why bother use that as a benchmark?


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Aug 2021)

Altair said:


> Okay.
> 
> *Except I cannot think of any classically liberal party on offer.*
> 
> So if none of the parties are classically liberal, why bother use that as a benchmark?



I agree with you, none of Canada's political parties are liberal. The question is: where do they sit on the spectrum of of *illiberalism?*

My guess is about here: _Illiberal_ < BQ_Liberals__NDP______Greens**__**PPC*Maverick ________CPC______________> _Liberal

-----_

_* The Greens are centrist whenever Lizabeth May and her band of anti-Semites is removed_


----------



## Brad Sallows (15 Aug 2021)

> So if none of the parties are classically liberal, why bother use that as a benchmark?



I've never been able to vote for a party that sits atop the principles I favour.  But there is always a closest approximation.

Parenthetically, "what you want doesn't exist, why do you keep trying" is overused in public discourse.


----------



## PuckChaser (15 Aug 2021)

With the writs being drawn up after GG Simon accepted a request by PMJT to dissolve the 43rd Parliament, we officially have an end date for this thread.

Please feel free to continue the discussion here: Canadian Federal Election 44 - Sep 2021

-Milnet.ca Staff


----------

