2025 Federal Election - 28 Apr 25

[Remius]

What Pierre Poilievre’s visit to Saskatchewan stronghold may reveal

With just four days left before voters head to the polls, Pierre Poilievre made his first campaign visit to Saskatchewan in a province wrapped in Conservative blue.

www.ctvnews.ca

Some tea leaf reading into PPs visit to Saskatchewan at this juncture of the election.

 

[GR66]

Part of the issue with doing that though is the tick time bomb of demographics, 36% of our population is over 65. This is growing by roughly 3% a year. 13% are under 18, we don't have enough people entering the work force to replace those leaving.

Demographics will be a huge issue here in Canada as well as in most of the developed world. Well planned immigration is one part of the solution. Policies to encourage larger families are another part (but notoriously difficult to produce significant results) as is a major push to increase productivity and automation so that we can grow the economy with fewer workers.

 

[IKnowNothing]

Legitimate question- has anyone seen any kind of expanded detail into the CPC Canada First Reinvestment Tax Cut? From the official releases it's impossible to tell how it will be structured/ what it entails, which is extremely frustrating. If it's well crafted it could do great things in incentivizing primary investment by businesses and entrepreneurs, but if it's wide open it's essentially a 13 billion dollar gift to the wealthy that will likely further inflate housing prices.

What qualifies as "reinvestment" in Canada? Actual capital expenditures? Using the money for provable net new hires or other qualified growth expenses? M&A activity? Simply leaving or injecting funds into a business? Buying existing housing stock? Investing in the secondary market? GIC's at a Canadian financial institution?

 

[Halifax Tar]

Part of the issue with doing that though is the tick time bomb of demographics, 36% of our population is over 65. This is growing by roughly 3% a year. 13% are under 18, we don't have enough people entering the work force to replace those leaving.

I know I'm harsh when I say this, but if the most affluent generation hasn't prepared for their twilight years it shouldn't fall on the young'ins to support them.

 

[MilEME09]

I know I'm harsh when I say this, but if the most affluent generation hasn't prepared for their twilight years it shouldn't fall on the young'ins to support them.

I was more referring to economic output of the nation, if you lose 10 workers to retirement but only have 5 to replace them, it's an issue

 

[Remius]

I know I'm harsh when I say this, but if the most affluent generation hasn't prepared for their twilight years it shouldn't fall on the young'ins to support them.

Works both way though.

How many get loans from the bank of mom and dad?

How many coast in their parents basements.

How many stay in school into their 30s

That being said I do agree with you from a generational policy standpoint. On an individual basis though experiences will vary.

 

[MilEME09]

let the battle begin

https://twitter.com/x/status/1915741073596469750

 

[Halifax Tar]

let the battle begin

https://twitter.com/x/status/1915741073596469750

The NSPCs and CPC are not the same party.

PP can go fly a pound sand.

 

[Remius]

She really must have a book of grudges with names in there.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Works both way though.

How many get loans from the bank of mom and dad?

How many coast in their parents basements.

How many stay in school into their 30s

That being said I do agree with you from a generational policy standpoint. On an individual basis though experiences will vary.

Not really, the boomers and early gen X were able to afford the nuclear family on a single income with a job they got out of highchool.

GenX and early millenials were generally able to do the same with college/uni jobs at first, then shifted to needing dual incomes.

Now even people with a lot of training/schooling entering the market place are struggling to pay rent, and couples are breaking up but staying as roomates because they can't actually afford to live on their own. Varies of course, but when subordinates are paying more for rent in a 1 bedroom than I'm paying for my 10 year old mortgage (on a house I would struggle to pay the mortgage on if I bought it today) there is a pretty big downward shift in QoL and general frustration because the ability to hit that standard of living shifted from being achievable with some work to being aspirational.

Our parents entry level jobs paid well enough they were able to afford to be independent; now they aren't even up to the poverty line, so I think multigenerational family homes may become more and more common as the CoL continues to massively outpace incomes.

 

[Halifax Tar]

She really must have a book of grudges with names in there.

She's becoming the equivalent of Telford and Butts for the CPC.

 

[brihard]

She's becoming the equivalent of Telford and Butts for the CPC.

Has been for ages.

 

[Navy_Pete]

The NSPCs and CPC are not the same party.

PP can go fly a pound sand.

Threatening a premier is pretty wild, and a good way to alienate your potential voters. The level of arrogance is astounding.

When DOUG FORD is the reasonable person in the room you may want to reconsider your life choices. Some days it seems like their use of 'Conservative' is more 1984 than conservative.

 

[Remius]

Not really, the boomers and early gen X were able to afford the nuclear family on a single income with a job they got out of highchool.

This is part of the generational policy standpoint I agree with.

GenX and early millenials were generally able to do the same with college/uni jobs at first, then shifted to needing dual incomes.

Same as above and I am one of those.

Now even people with a lot of training/schooling entering the market place are struggling to pay rent, and couples are breaking up but staying as roomates because they can't actually afford to live on their own. Varies of course, but when subordinates are paying more for rent in a 1 bedroom than I'm paying for my 10 year old mortgage (on a house I would struggle to pay the mortgage on if I bought it today) there is a pretty big downward shift in QoL and general frustration because the ability to hit that standard of living shifted from being achievable with some work to being aspirational.

Agreed. As I stated above with the policy standpoint.

Our parents entry level jobs paid well enough they were able to afford to be independent; now they aren't even up to the poverty line, so I think multigenerational family homes may become more and more common as the CoL continues to massively outpace incomes.

They are indeed common place. This is the point where individual situations can vary. I don’t think it is much to ask younger types to help their older parents if said parents helped their younger children.

However from a wider generational policy standpoint younger generations should not be expected to cough up for an older generation that set the stage for where we find ourselves.

 

[Remius]

Threatening a premier is pretty wild, and a good way to alienate your potential voters. The level of arrogance is astounding.

When DOUG FORD is the reasonable person in the room you may want to reconsider your life choices. Some days it seems like their use of 'Conservative' is more 1984 than conservative.

If this election is lost by her, she won’t have much influence after it. She’ll be exiled for good after this.

 

[Quirky]

Part of the issue with doing that though is the tick time bomb of demographics, 36% of our population is over 65. This is growing by roughly 3% a year. 13% are under 18, we don't have enough people entering the work force to replace those leaving.

Small snippet but how can the Maritimes be bringing in TFWs when 10%~ of the population is unemployed.

 

[Remius]

Small snippet but how can the Maritimes be bringing in TFWs when 10%~ of the population is unemployed.

Like anything else, some people don’t want to do that work.

It’s why the tariff plan south of us will never work.

People don’t want to do certain jobs.

 

[MilEME09]

Small snippet but how can the Maritimes be bringing in TFWs when 10%~ of the population is unemployed.

Simple, the participation rate is around 60%, people who can work are choosing not to

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1410028703

 

[Lumber]

I don’t think his response was terribly clear, trying to be more conversational as opposed to informative.
So I don’t think it was necessarily a dodge, but was more of a passing the buck if things fail.

He correctly pointed out that it’s not simply a federal issue, but the province is first nations and all other interested parties while he might be correct in that to me, it came off as fairly weak statement When you say national interest it doesn’t necessarily say national priority.

The question was very straight forward. "You complain that PP's plan will divide the country, however, since you are refusing to repeal bill c-69 and 'allow' QC to 'veto' new energy products, are you not setting up a situation for a divided Canada?"

Answer, paraphrased: "No, in fact, the opposite. The federal government will NOT force/mandate major projects upon the provinces. Major projects, especially energy projects, which I'm a big proponent of, will be a combined effort between the feds, the provinces, corporations, and first nations. That is us coming together, not dividing us part. Specifically with respect to bill c-69, we've made it clear that provinces will be able to use their own impact assessments in lieu of federal government impact assessments".

I'm not sure how that's not a clear answer to the reporter's specific question.

The only part of the reporter's statement that he didn't specifically address was the point about "'allowing' QC to 'veto' new energy products", and it was good he didn't address it specifically, because it's a bullshit statement, and addressing it would have lent it credence.

Conservatives apparently want the federal government to stop "dividing the country" but also apparently want the federal government to ram energy projects down the throats of the provinces. How would that NOT just be more divisive? Ah, that's right: "rules for thee but not for me", one of the core populist mantras.

 

[KevinB]

The question was very straight forward. "You complain that PP's plan will divide the country, however, since you are refusing to repeal bill c-69 and 'allow' QC to 'veto' new energy products, are you not setting up a situation for a divided Canada?"

Answer, paraphrased: "No, in fact, the opposite. The federal government will NOT force/mandate major projects upon the provinces. Major projects, especially energy projects, which I'm a big proponent of, will be a combined effort between the feds, the provinces, corporations, and first nations. That is us coming together, not dividing us part. Specifically with respect to bill c-69, we've made it clear that provinces will be able to use their own impact assessments in lieu of federal government impact assessments".

I'm not sure how that's not a clear answer to the reporter's specific question.

I suspect that is solely based on the lens of the beholder.

The only part of the reporter's statement that he didn't specifically address was the point about "'allowing' QC to 'veto' new energy products", and it was good he didn't address it specifically, because it's a bullshit statement, and addressing it would have lent it credence.

Conservatives apparently want the federal government to stop "dividing the country" but also apparently want the federal government to ram energy projects down the throats of the provinces. How would that NOT just be more divisive? Ah, that's right: "rules for thee but not for me", one of the core populist mantras.

Quebec has time and time again opted for self interest over Canadian national interest.
Again how you read it is different than I or others.

I see Quebec's veto as divisional, and something that the Federal Government should overrule for the betterment of all Canadians.