# Federal Election platform



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

Of course, there's speculation that there will be a federal election this year. Maclean's has put together a website that lists the policies announced so far. I imagine it gets updated on a regular basis, and can be convenient if you are curious as to where certain parties stand.









2021 federal election platform guide: Where the parties stand on everything


A list of promises made by the Liberals, Conservatives, NDP and Greens to this point, updating as the information becomes available.




www.macleans.ca





One of the more interesting ones (for me), is the Conservative support for hydrogen vehicles. I guess it makes sense from the standpoint of moving away from refining oil into gas. But given the limited market, it seems like a dead end. Of course, they are also supporting EV as well.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

Just keep in mind the politician’s credo. Never ruin a good political promise or commitment by actually delivering on it.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

ian said:


> Just keep in mind the politician’s credo. Never ruin a good political promise or commitment by actually delivering on it.


While I agree, I think there's a case to be made to pick a party that promises something rather than a party than promises the opposite or doesn't promise it. At least choosing the former means there's a chance, while choosing the latter means no chance.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

I rather like the time honoured favourites like:

-we support family values (never saying whose family or whose values of course) as if they are the only party that does
-working to reduce taxes for the middle class (as if-more like the old shell game)
-our seniors (insert also veterans) deserve better
-we will reduce child poverty (or senior's poverty depending on the crowd)
-balance the budget in X number of years
-create millions and millions of jobs and end youth unemployment/underemployment.
-bring instant wealth and jobs to economically disadvantaged areas
-create affordable housing (as if).

When I hear any candidate pull out those gems, and a few more, it turns me right off. 

Reminds me of the life insurance agent who asks you if you love your wife and children.....sign here please.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Although some didn't like the policies, I think it fair to say the Liberals did introduce a lot of changes in accordance with their election pledges in the past 2 elections.

Lowering OAS back to 65, expand the CPP, restructure and increase child benefits, legalize marijuana, eliminate mandatory sentencing, and quite a number of other initiatives were election pledges they ticked off the list.

Looking forward, much of the items mentioned on the linked website, such as the OAS increase, are already costed out in the 2020 budget, so they likely will be implemented as well, barring some catastrophic financial disaster that suddenly diverts all the spending.

The NDP and Conservative policies are quite sparse thus far, but I expect they will fill them in during the election campaign.....perhaps slowly one whistle stop at a time. Certainly they have a lot of blank white space to fill as the Liberals pledges are pretty long and detailed in the 2020 budget.

It will be interesting to see what the NDP and Conservatives propose.


----------



## NewbieInvestor88 (Feb 21, 2021)

The Conservatives have to think of something else then "Trudeau bad, Conservative good" - it hasn't worked yet...


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I agree and I think they need some "knock it out of the park" kind of new ideas.

It is kind of difficult to think up something new while pledging to balance the budget in a few years at the same time.

I doubt it would involve new taxes or spending.......so that doesn't leave much left.


----------



## NewbieInvestor88 (Feb 21, 2021)

sags said:


> I agree and I think they need some "knock it out of the park" kind of new ideas.
> 
> It is kind of difficult to think up something new while pledging to balance the budget in a few years at the same time.
> 
> I doubt it would involve new taxes or spending.......so that doesn't leave much left.


They have to drop the social conservative policies (abortion/gay marriage/foreigners/etc), outside of Alberta, Canada is socially liberal and will always be that way. All they have to do is appear centric/slightly right of centre with some reasonable fiscal policies and pick a leader who isn't a stooge. The Conservatives could have won any of the past elections but they kept shooting themselves in the foot. 

The new Republican/Trump type of party will never fly in Canada.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

They desperately need to pay attention to the polls, to urban voters, and to solid policy positions rather than focussing on internal politics. 

And they need to figure out how to re engage former party election workers/soldiers who became disaffected and disenchanted under the failed leadership of Andrew Scheer. O’Toole has not been able to get them back into active party participation.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

NewbieInvestor88 said:


> They have to drop the social conservative policies (abortion/gay marriage/foreigners/etc), outside of Alberta, Canada is socially liberal and will always be that way. All they have to do is appear centric/slightly right of centre with some reasonable fiscal policies and pick a leader who isn't a stooge. The Conservatives could have won any of the past elections but they kept shooting themselves in the foot.


I'll just point out that "officially", they aren't pushing those priorities; however, they did have backbenchers propose Bill C-233 to ban abortion based on sex preferences. I think one of their policies that's going to really alienate most of Canada is going to be equalization. I guess it is nice if they wrap up 90% of Albertan votes, but that's not going to win a federal election.



ian said:


> And they need to figure out how to re engage former party election workers/soldiers who became disaffected and disenchanted under the failed leadership of Andrew Scheer. O’Toole has not been able to get them back into active party participation.


Scheer was viewed as a placeholder for Mackay, but with Trudeau being vulnerable last election, they went for it. It didn't work out. It's looking like O'Toole is being the placeholder for the a more socially conservative candidate.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

It is hard to imagine Scheer as a placeholder for anyone given that he did not cross the line until after the 8th ballot! That in itself is indicative of where the party was at that time and indeed where it is today.

Just think, over 60 Conservative MP's recently voted against the third reading of the Conversion Therapy bill C6. What is more telling is if you take a look at where those votes came from by riding. It paints a good picture of the current make up of the Conservative caucus and it illustrates the geographic chasm in the Party.

You can even map the most recent poll results with the ridings based on that vote. Very telling. The Conservative Party IMHO, has become a western Canada rump party with support from some specific social conservative ridings in southern Ontario and BC.

Anything can happen during an election. Just look at JT's first win over Stephen Harper. That certainly was not in the game plan. Even the last election where it was reported that Scheer was actually told by his political advisors (and he believed it) a few days before the election that he would form a minority Gov't with a margin of 20 seats. Apparently he only had one speech prepared for the Canadian public on election night. It was the wrong one! They had to scramble to write one for him.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

ian said:


> It is hard to imagine Scheer as a placeholder for anyone given that he did not cross the line until after the 8th ballot! That in itself is indicative of where the party was at that time and indeed where it is today.
> 
> Just think, over 60 Conservative MP's recently voted against the third reading of the Conversion Therapy bill C6. What is more telling is if you take a look at where those votes came from by riding. It paints a good picture of the current make up of the Conservative caucus and it illustrates the geographic chasm in the Party.
> 
> You can even map the most recent poll results with the ridings based on that vote. Very telling. The Conservative Party IMHO, has become a western Canada rump party with support from some specific social conservative ridings in southern Ontario and BC.


Not surprising really. It is the Reform party cloaked with the PC history... I still remember their first combined party name... Canadian Conservative Reform Alliance Party... I think starting off on that foot was pretty much a harbringer of things to come. As time has gone on, most of the red conservatives have been leaving the party shifting it more towards the Reform status.

I wonder if Scheer and O'Toole are the textbook examples of ranked ballot voting results. Implemented at a federal level, does that mean the NDP would win?


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

bgc_fan said:


> Not surprising really. It is the Reform party cloaked with the PC history... I still remember their first combined party name... Canadian Conservative Reform Alliance Party... I think starting off on that foot was pretty much a harbringer of things to come. As time has gone on, most of the red conservatives have been leaving the party shifting it more towards the Reform status.
> 
> I wonder if Scheer and O'Toole are the textbook examples of ranked ballot voting results. Implemented at a federal level, does that mean the NDP would win?


Dunno.

One thing for certain. It appears to me that social conservatism has overtaken fiscal conservatism as a focus inside the Party for a long while now. Most Canadians are close to the centre.

O'Toole and friends took far too much time to bounce Derek Sloan. Not to mention former Conservative leadership contender Maxime Bernier's new Peoples Party and platform. Both speak volumes about the state of the Conservative Party.

Too far right or too far left does not get you elected dog catcher in Canada. Thankfully. You only have to look to the south to see what can happen.

Unless of course there is a juicy scandal close to the election that overshadows all else.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> I agree and I think they need some "knock it out of the park" kind of new ideas.
> 
> It is kind of difficult to think up something new while pledging to balance the budget in a few years at the same time.
> 
> I doubt it would involve new taxes or spending.......so that doesn't leave much left.


That's the problem, nobody wants a simple responsible government.
They want some grand big money idea we can't afford.


----------



## nathan79 (Feb 21, 2011)

ian said:


> *-create affordable housing (as if).*
> 
> When I hear any candidate pull out those gems, and a few more, it turns me right off.
> 
> Reminds me of the life insurance agent who asks you if you love your wife and children.....sign here please.


Affordable housing has to be the biggest lie these guys keep spouting.

What they really mean is affordable subsidized rentals for the working poor, and helping millennials with gifted downpayments get into a 1-bedroom condo.

If you don't fall into either of those camps, and you're a regular person making an average wage of 50-70K per year, better just get used to spending half of your take-home pay on rent. They couldn't give less of a crap about you. In fact, the government and BOC implicitly supports high housing prices through their fiscal and monetary policies. They don't want prices to come down, and will actively work to prevent any correction.

It makes no difference which of these clowns get into power, because they all use the same playbook once they're in office. You can't trust what they say, so why even bother pretending your vote matters.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

ian said:


> Dunno.
> 
> One thing for certain. It appears to me that social conservatism has overtaken fiscal conservatism as a focus inside the Party for a long while now. Most Canadians are close to the centre.
> 
> ...


I think the fact that Bernier was the leader for the first 12 rounds of the leadership race is pretty telling... The same one that O'Toole came third. There was the blackface and SNC lavelin, but neither really got much traction.

Perhaps concentrating on policies that the majority of the Canadians would accept would be a novel approach instead of Trudeau bad... a strategy they tried twice in losing campaigns.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

nathan79 said:


> Affordable housing has to be the biggest lie these guys keep spouting.


To make affordable housing, they have to incentivize someone to build and maintain it.

The problem is they've effectively legislated away private landlords, leaving affordable housing to governments.
Then the governments spend a fortune maintaining this stuff, because the tenants don't care.

For the construction that IS happening, it's all Condos.
Why, because they can have better rules for those in shared accomodations.
Condos can actually have rules that restrict the owners that would normally be illegal to impose on renters.
Want to guess why there is very limited rental housing?

Ontario has banned damage deposits for decades... Guess who loses?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Lots of affordable rental housing is built by non-profits and beautifully maintained, but it isn't enough and needs to be ramped up.

The government can purchase and develop land without third party builders and landlords. They can build their own "for profit" properties.

It is simple.....buy land, service land, hire builders to build small homes, sell affordable small homes through a paid sales staff and contracted lawyers.

Eliminating all the "outstretched hands" between the bare land and the finished home will save 50% of the cost of a home.

Eliminating the "for profit" landlords will save money for renters.

The landlords and real estate lobby hate the idea because it eliminates the need for them.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Unfortunately, I don't see any of the political parties addressing the unaffordability of homes in any credible way.

So, I give a policy gift to the Conservatives. They should seize the opportunity and run with it.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> Lots of affordable rental housing is built by non-profits and beautifully maintained, but it isn't enough and needs to be ramped up.
> 
> The government can purchase and develop land without third party builders and landlords. They can build their own "for profit" properties.
> 
> ...


Except some renters trash the place and don't pay.
Look at any city run low income housing, it's all horribly expensive for the city, and there isn't enough.

What they need to do is.
1. Hold renters accountable. You don't pay, you're out. You trash the place, you pay to fix it and you're out.
- Security deposits, and prompt evictions would help.
2. Allow building of more housing. If someone tries to develop an area, you can almost guarantee some NIMBY group of residents will launch a petition to stop the development. We need more approvals and less red tape.

I seriously considered getting a rental property, but too many horror stories to consider it. Glad I did.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

These comments about holding renters accountable are easy to say. They roll off the tongue.

A one month security deposit does not cut it when the tenant is behind three months in the rent and/ or has done thousands of dollars worth of damage to the rental unit. Plus the legal fees to get them evicted. Really, how do you hold someone financially responsible if they have no assets or financial resources to speak of. You can't.

The reality is far, far different. And different in each province. Not a federal issue. Getting rid of a deadbeat renter, one who damages the property, or behaves in such a way to cause other tenants problems is very, very difficult-time consuming and potentially expensive.

Building permits are a municipal concern. Forget about Federal or Provincial interference there.

However, the Federal Gov't could start a program like the old MURB program. Would not be surprised if some version of this is in the platform of all three parties. It has some sex appeal on both sides of center.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The Conservatives have been digging into the awarding of contracts by the Liberals.........and then this drops into the news.

_Erin O’Toole’s office gave nearly *$240,000 worth of taxpayer-funded contracts to Conservative insiders in his first six months on the job*, Global News has learned, even while O’Toole and many of his MPs were hammering the Trudeau Liberals for sending taxpayer-funded contracts to Liberal-connected firms. _









O’Toole gave supporters and other party insiders taxpayer-funded contracts | Globalnews.ca


Individuals and entities connected with O'Toole's leadership campaign won $237,00 worth of taxpayer-funded contracts from O'Toole's office during his first six months in office.




globalnews.ca





As Yogi Berra once quipped........it's deja vu all over again.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

O'Toole has released a little bit of a plan on Twitter.

Basically it is a list absent any detail but the 2nd on the list (accountability) is kind of humorous.......considering the latest revelations.

_Toughen the Conflict of Interest Act and impose higher penalties._
_Toughen the Lobbying Act to end abuse by Liberal insiders._
_Increase transparency to end Liberal cover-ups._









Conservative Party of Canada


Today’s Conservative Party is a vibrant national organization with strong grassroots support from coast to coast to coast. The Party, its caucus, and its members upholding the proud Canadian Conservative tradition.




www.conservative.ca


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

sags said:


> O'Toole has released a little bit of a plan on Twitter.
> 
> Basically it is a list absent any detail but the 2nd on the list (accountability) is kind of humorous.......considering the latest revelations.
> 
> ...


Does that mean, if elected, O'Toole wlll allow abuse by Conservative insiders? It will be business as usual in Ottawa. Just some new faces and a help wanted sign at a few Party 'friendly' consulting firms.

This is not a plan or a policy It is a template that all political parties use.

The important bit that is missing....exactly how do the plan to implement them. Regulations, legislations. What exactly are they?

Is this just above or just below the statement than the Party stands for family values and for law and order?


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

Yeah. Liberals ran in 2015 on transparency   
Ethics are all empty words coming from politicians from all parties


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

ian said:


> These comments about holding renters accountable are easy to say. They roll off the tongue.
> 
> A one month security deposit does not cut it when the tenant is behind three months in the rent and/ or has done thousands of dollars worth of damage to the rental unit. Plus the legal fees to get them evicted. Really, how do you hold someone financially responsible if they have no assets or financial resources to speak of. You can't.
> 
> ...


Well the Federal government loves to "solve" problems that aren't their responsibility.
I don't even think they understand the role of governments.
The rental laws need to be fixed so that tenants are evicted the second they're late on rent, and they have to be held accountable for damage.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

You need to talk to Doug Ford about fixing the rental laws.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

Really, as people are pointing out, there isn't a lot the federal government can do to deal with some of the root problems of affordable housing, as the jurisdictions are primarily on the municipal and provincial levels. Generally speaking it's a supply issue, which is related to municipal zoning and building permits.

It's also worth defining what affordable housing is, as it pretty much comes out the same as the middle class definition, everyone has a different definition and that gets to problems when trying to address. Does affordable housing mean that you can afford a 1 bedroom apartment for less than 30% of your salary? Does that take into consideration that a family could be a single person, vs a family of four? Does affordable housing mean that you can purchase a house/condo? Or is the fact that you can rent one mean that its affordable?

When you look at what the federal government can or has done, they contribute to the rising prices by increasing the amount of purchasing power: lower interest rates, RRSP first buyers program etc.

Otherwise, all they can really do is provide funds to build subsidized housing: Budget 2021 investments will create more affordable housing for Canadians - Canada.ca


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> You need to talk to Doug Ford about fixing the rental laws.


He can't, Toronto voters are too important.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

Restoring the old MURB (multi unit residential building) program that provided tax incentives in the form of faster write offs, etc. Could be a start to increasing rental housing stock in some locations. Or conversion of existing office/commercial to residential. 

It could be tied to jobs, new immigrant/refugee employment programs, and to trades apprenticeship programs in some manner, etc. Lots of possibilities for a creative administration that can devise programs that cross several ministries. Need to get those tax dollars going around in a circle for 3 or 4 times.

There are lots of smart people inside and outside of Government that could help put some bookends around programs with high impact and fast payback.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

ian said:


> Restoring the old MURB (multi unit residential building) program that provided tax incentives in the form of faster write offs, etc. Could be a start to increasing rental housing stock in some locations. Or conversion of existing office/commercial to residential.


Like I said, is it the lack of rental units that people find problematic, or single family homes? If it's the latter, adding more rental units isn't going to necessarily going to solve the problem. Apparently 3% vacancy is considered a good vacancy rate. When you look at StatsCan stats, there are a few spots that are much lower than 3%, and others much higher. So there may be a few locations, but then 2020 seems like an outlier for some cities. If people are asking for more single family homes, providing more rentals doesn't seem to be the correct response.

Unless you want to move into the business of government housing, then I would say tackle the demand side of the equation. For example, limit the amount of single home investment properties. I know people justify it, by saying that they are increasing rental supply, but what they are really doing is reducing home supplies for those who want to purchase. They also increase the prices as they have the deeper pockets to outbid those who want to buy their own home.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The Canadian government has successfully built or accommodated the building of homes in the past.

Perhaps the most noticeable in many cities is the "strawberry box" or "cape cod" style of home located in many Canadian cities.

My parents owned one and raised 5 kids in it. They finished the basement for additional space.

My wife and I have owned 2 similar homes when we first got married. My favorite home was a 1 1/2 storey home, although we owned larger homes later.

There were 2 bedrooms on the main floor and the entire top floor was a master bedroom with a huge "living room" type window at one end.

We had a great view of the lights, rain, snowing........with the vertical window blinds open.

With a fully finished basement......family room, laundry room, bathroom, computer room, bar, fireplace and hot tub......the home was plenty for a family.









Strawberry box houses - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

London was a training base during WWII and the government built a whole subdivision of the above types of homes to house military personel.

Years ago they sold them all off through a lottery. The homes were reasonably priced and popular. They sold out quickly.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

sags said:


> The Canadian government has successfully built or accommodated the building of homes in the past.
> 
> Perhaps the most noticeable in many cities is the "strawberry box" or "cape cod" style of home located in many Canadian cities.
> 
> My parents owned one and raised 5 kids in it. They finished the basement for additional space.


If we're talking about government housing, then I would say that would be the type to go with. The other part of the equation would be finding the land for the housing. But, I suspect most solutions for government housing is going to be the condo/apartment style that other countries have.




__





30 of the World’s Most Impressive Social Housing Projects – Best MSW Programs







www.bestmswprograms.com












Comparing Social Housing: 30 Projects from Countries Around the World


We compare the architecture and organizational structure of social housing around the world in Belgium, Chile, The Netherlands, Mexico, Spain, and the USA.




www.archdaily.com





And the federal government has recently supported such projects: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/prince-edward-island/pei-ironwood-estates-federal-loan-1.6108032

So the question is, what problem are we trying to address? Making sure homeless people have a home? In which case, high density housing projects subsidized by the federal government makes sense. Or is it to provide the "American dream", to make it possible that a family move out from their parents' house and buy their own family home?


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

Address it? They are literally creating the problem.
Printing unlimited amount of money, keeping interest rates low, running sky-high inflation.
The government is the problem.
There was an interview with one liberal MP and there was a question about a housing.
He said that even 10% drop would be catastrophic to economy, and that is right after 20% rise in a year.....
Over half of Canadian GDP growth is housing market transactions.
Commissions to real estate agents are higher than entire spending on R&D in the ENTIRE country.

There are four relatively easy ways to solve issue with unaffordable housing

phase out CMHC
make re-zoning significantly easier and cheaper
faster processing of building permits
more flexibility given to investors when it comes to cost amortization.

But as you can see by the interview with liberal MP - there is zero interest in affordable housing. They know that the king is naked and rapidly rising housing prices is the only thing covering it up.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

damian13ster said:


> Address it? They are literally creating the problem.
> Printing unlimited amount of money, keeping interest rates low, running sky-high inflation.
> The government is the problem.
> There was an interview with one liberal MP and there was a question about a housing.
> ...


Rezoning and faster processing of building permits have nothing to do with the Federal Government. Or the Provincial for that matter.

Fine to phase out CMHC as long as there is competitive lender/insurer for high ratio residential mortgages.


----------



## nathan79 (Feb 21, 2011)

bgc_fan said:


> So the question is, what problem are we trying to address? Making sure homeless people have a home? In which case, high density housing projects subsidized by the federal government makes sense. Or is it to provide the "American dream", to make it possible that a family move out from their parents' house and buy their own family home?


Most would agree we're trying to address both groups, but politicians (at least based on their actions) are mainly concerned with the first group even while they pretend to care about the second. Of course, it's easy to say you care about the middle class when you can set the goalposts for "middle class" anywhere you want. Based on my observations, if you're within 80 km of Vancouver or Toronto you pretty much need two six-figure incomes to be middle class in the traditional sense of the word, whereas in the past a single income was often enough.

This situation seems completely ridiculous to me. I know so many friends and family who are impacted by this, including couples where both partners have well-paying jobs. Should it be unrealistic for someone who works full-time at higher than minimum wage to buy 1-bed condo in the suburbs? Should a couple with dual incomes not be able to afford a townhome or a detached home? Is that really healthy for the country?

People also like to bring up Europe where the majority of people rent apartments, but then what sets Canada apart? Culture? (What culture? Our own PM says we have none.) What are we offering that you can't get elsewhere? In the past, it was affordability and wide open spaces offering a sense of freedom, but if you live in the city you have neither of those anymore. If you're a renter in the city, almost everything else is better in Europe... transit, healthcare, food, etc.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

ian said:


> Rezoning and faster processing of building permits have nothing to do with the Federal Government. Or the Provincial for that matter.
> 
> Fine to phase out CMHC as long as there is competitive lender/insurer for high ratio residential mortgages.


If there isn't a competitive lender/insurer for high ratio residential mortgages, then that means the risk of such transactions is simply too high and it will naturally cool down the housing market.
That is literally the point. CMHC is overheating housing market, and it privatizes profit while socializing risk.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

nathan79 said:


> Most would agree we're trying to address both groups, but politicians (at least based on their actions) are mainly concerned with the first group even while they pretend to care about the second. Of course, it's easy to say you care about the middle class when you can set the goalposts for "middle class" anywhere you want. Based on my observations, if you're within 80 km of Vancouver or Toronto you pretty much need two six-figure incomes to be middle class in the traditional sense of the word, whereas in the past a single income was often enough.
> 
> This situation seems completely ridiculous to me. I know so many friends and family who are impacted by this, including couples where both partners have well-paying jobs. Should it be unrealistic for someone who works full-time at higher than minimum wage to buy 1-bed condo in the suburbs? Should a couple with dual incomes not be able to afford a townhome or a detached home? Is that really healthy for the country?
> 
> People also like to bring up Europe where the majority of people rent apartments, but then what sets Canada apart? Culture? (What culture? Our own PM says we have none.) What are we offering that you can't get elsewhere? In the past, it was affordability and wide open spaces offering a sense of freedom, but if you live in the city you have neither of those anymore. If you're a renter in the city, almost everything else is better in Europe... transit, healthcare, food, etc.


The problem is defining middle class. Once you get that settled, then you can actually start looking at measures to target, particularly if you define middle class is owning your own house. That definition will slide all over the place. In the east coast, you can definitely find decent homes with property in the $200k range. So if you situate it to define middle class, owning your own house in Vancouver, or Toronto, that's obviously a different story. Vancouver has been a bull market for 40 years now isn't it? I can't really see how it is expect that the federal government can really turn it around on a dime with the limited tools that it has. Maybe raise interest rates to double digits as they were in the 80s? I'm sure that'll definitely crash the house prices, but I'm also sure that there would be so many underwater mortgages that people are going default. Vancouver is pretty much limited by space isn't it? I imagine there isn't a lot of land to actually build new detached homes in Vancouver. The same can be said for Toronto proper. You also have to add in the population growth. Sure, they may not be the densest cities in the world, but they are 2 of the top densest Canadian cities. 


















Maybe we have to look at the countries that have the highest home ownership rates for guidance?










Romania96.12019[2]







Hungary91.32020[2]







Slovakia90.92019[2]







Singapore87.92020[3]







Cuba902014[4]







Vietnam902020[5]







Lithuania90.32019[2]







Croatia89.72019[6]







China89.682018[7]







Mauritius892011[8]







North Macedonia88.72017[9]


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

damian13ster said:


> If there isn't a competitive lender/insurer for high ratio residential mortgages, then that means the risk of such transactions is simply too high and it will naturally cool down the housing market.
> That is literally the point. CMHC is overheating housing market, and it privatizes profit while socializing risk.


Perhaps it is a supply problem in some areas


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

ian said:


> Perhaps it is a supply problem in some areas


It is both. 
You skyrocket inflation, make half of your economy reliant on housing, you tell the banks that taxpayers will cover all defaults, and you put up miles of red tape - and you have Canadian housing market


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

bgc_fan said:


> Like I said, is it the lack of rental units that people find problematic, or single family homes? If it's the latter, adding more rental units isn't going to necessarily going to solve the problem. Apparently 3% vacancy is considered a good vacancy rate. When you look at StatsCan stats, there are a few spots that are much lower than 3%, and others much higher. So there may be a few locations, but then 2020 seems like an outlier for some cities. If people are asking for more single family homes, providing more rentals doesn't seem to be the correct response.
> 
> Unless you want to move into the business of government housing, then I would say tackle the demand side of the equation. For example, limit the amount of single home investment properties. I know people justify it, by saying that they are increasing rental supply, but what they are really doing is reducing home supplies for those who want to purchase. They also increase the prices as they have the deeper pockets to outbid those who want to buy their own home.


In Ontario the province requires building a certain number of high density housing units to go with the single family homes.
I think that basic shelter is a need, and something should be done to ensure an adequate supply of safe housing.
However not everyone is entitled to a single family home. In highly desirable areas it's simply not physically possible.

I think charging reasonable property tax would help, increasing Toronto Property tax to 1%, would help.








Ontario Property Tax Rates: Lowest and Highest Cities


Zoocasa ranked the property tax rates of 35 Ontario cities and municipalities to see who had the lowest and highest property tax rates.




www.zoocasa.com




Does it surprise anyone that the highest property values are where tax rates are lowest?
Plus doubling property tax would pay for a lot of those fancy programs Toronto likes to spend money on.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

MrMatt said:


> Does it surprise anyone that the highest property values are where tax rates are lowest?
> Plus doubling property tax would pay for a lot of those fancy programs Toronto likes to spend money on.


They always adjust the mill rate so that property taxes generally don't jump with the rising home prices, so that stabilizes the city income. 

Instead of adjusting property taxes, maybe we should adjust the purchase tax on homes to finance subsidized housing like in Singapore:


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Well it really matters what the goals are.
If the government doesn't want high property values, tax them, and the value will drop.

The issue is that people and the government doesn't actually want to acknowledge the trade offs to achieve the various goals.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

I think we are about to enter the 'promises land'

Election is around the corner and already promises are the order of the day. If the polls keep narrowing I suspect the promises will increase proportionally. There will be lots of Pinocchio noses in all Parties by the time ballots are cast. Lots of entertainment.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

We didn't get much of anything from all the stimulus and CERB spending, so maybe it our turn now.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> We didn't get much of anything from all the stimulus and CERB spending, so maybe it our turn now.


Sure we did, massive increase in government debt,inflated real estate prices, huge inflation pressure.

Generational debt from a single crisis, and a government with no plan to make things better. Then voters who just want more handouts.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

None of that affects us.

We await the election pledges to choose which party is best for us.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

sags said:


> None of that affects us.
> 
> We await the election pledges to choose which party is best for us.


You don't eat? You don't use fuel? You don't use water, gas, electricity, services? 
Unless you reply 'yes' to all of those questions then yes, inflation does affect you.
Devaluation of Canadian dollar also does affect you.

Your post ideally demonstrates the problem of what lack of financial education means for political system in Canada


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> None of that affects us.
> 
> We await the election pledges to choose which party is best for us.


Who is that, it's defininately not Trudeau, he's been horrible for Canada.
Singh wants everyone on drugs
O'Toole doesn't have a platform beyond "not as bad as the Liberals"


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

damian13ster said:


> You don't eat? You don't use fuel? You don't use water, gas, electricity, services?
> Unless you reply 'yes' to all of those questions then yes, inflation does affect you.
> Devaluation of Canadian dollar also does affect you.
> 
> Your post ideally demonstrates the problem of what lack of financial education means for political system in Canada


We rent and pay only hydro. The rent increases are capped. Groceries are cheap with all the surrounding competition. Everyone has discounts and deals.

We drive less than 10,000 Kms a year. Fuel inflation is negligible. We don't need to buy much of anything for the home or personal.

We receive more in cost of living increases on our income than the increase in inflation actually costs us, so I don't mind cost of living raising our incomes.

You assume that everyone faces the same inflationary pressures as you do. For a lot of people.......inflation can be controlled by their choices.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> Who is that, it's defininately not Trudeau, he's been horrible for Canada.
> Singh wants everyone on drugs
> O'Toole doesn't have a platform beyond "not as bad as the Liberals"


You keep throwing out these boogeymen, but people are going to vote for somebody.

You can stay home and not vote.......but then don't complain about the results.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

sags said:


> We rent and pay only hydro. The rent increases are capped. Groceries are cheap with all the surrounding competition. Everyone has discounts and deals.
> 
> We drive less than 10,000 Kms a year. Fuel inflation is negligible. We don't need to buy much of anything for the home or personal.
> 
> ...











Canada's Food Price Report 2021







www.dal.ca




If you eat, you face inflationary pressure.





__





Canada Gasoline Prices - September 2022 Data - 1992-2021 Historical - October Forecast


Gasoline Prices in Canada decreased to 1.18 USD/Liter in September from 1.26 USD/Liter in August of 2022. Gasoline Prices in Canada averaged 0.97 USD/Liter from 1992 until 2022, reaching an all time high of 1.59 USD/Liter in June of 2022 and a record low of 0.41 USD/Liter in December of 1998...




tradingeconomics.com




For your 10,000km you face crazy inflationary pressure.

Just because you choose to ignore inflation, doesn't mean it isn't there, and others might not be so lucky to be able to ignore it.
I never made any assumption. I asked a question, and you answered that yes, you do eat, and yes, you do consume fuel. Therefore you are affected by high inflation.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The top issues on Canadian's minds as we head into an election.

1. Healthcare

2. Cost of living

3. Climate Change - Tied with Economy

4. Economy - Tied with Climate Change

5. Covid pandemic

_Ipsos polling done exclusively for Global News, health care tops the list of issues Canadians want addressed in the coming election at 31 per cent. Cost of living comes next at 25 per cent, climate change and the economy are tied at 24 per cent and the COVID-19 pandemic is at 20 per cent. When it comes next to who is best to tackle these challenges, the Liberals have the edge on health care and COVID-19, the NDP are trusted most on affordability issues and the Conservatives on the economy. The Liberals and Green Party are in a virtual tie on climate change. 









What issues top Canadian voters’ minds? | Watch News Videos Online


Watch What issues top Canadian voters’ minds? Video Online, on GlobalNews.ca




globalnews.ca




_


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> The top issues on Canadian's minds as we head into an election.
> 
> 1. Healthcare
> 
> ...


for me 
The top 2 are Ethics and finances.
The current PM is unethical and lies to Canadians, I do not trust him to do his job with integrity. 
We need finances/economy to pay for health care and all the other things.
Cost of living, a healthy and efficient economy will do a better job at providing a higher quality of life, at lower cost.

Health care doesn't exist without the economy to run it. 

Really, without ethics & proper financial management & a strong economy, the rest of your wishlist simply doesn't happen in a sustainable way.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

Looks like Derek Sloan is trying to split the right again like Maxime Bernier: Independent MP Derek Sloan announces plans to start new political party | Globalnews.ca


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The more right wing parties the better


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

IF you want a really good laugh and see the musings of a right wing political party that appears not to not even comprehend the BNA act or our Charter of Rights and Freedom....take a gander at the CHP website. They claim to have a solution to everything from world hunger to the climate crisis.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

ian said:


> IF you want a really good laugh and see the musings of a right wing political party that appears not to not even comprehend the BNA act or our Charter of Rights and Freedom....take a gander at the CHP website. They claim to have a solution to everything from world hunger to the climate crisis.











CHP Canada | About CHP Canada







www.chp.ca





Well I took a look, I don't see what you're looking at.
They seem to be far more concerned with Human rights than the current Liberal party.

Also I like the idea of instant runoff elections with more parties.
Maybe then we could get some more representative MPs.


----------



## gardner (Feb 13, 2014)

MrMatt said:


> The current PM is unethical and lies to Canadians, I do not trust him to do his job with integrity.


While I feel the same way, I find I do not trust politicians in general and I am not confident I like the alternatives any better. Politicians CAN and many times DO actually run things effectively despite being personally crooked, so that is not of itself a clear determinant for me, who would be the best for the job. I would like clearly spelled out goals and policies to advise my choices and right now I don't see a lot from the Conservatives. Maybe they can win on a platform of not being Justin Trudeau -- Ford did -- but it won't be a slam dunk.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I wonder if the Greens will hang around past this year, since one member went over to the Liberals, they are squabbling internally, and are almost broke.

People aren't going to donate to a party that is spending the money on internal party politics. If the Greens fold......those votes go to NDP or Liberal mostly.

In close races, that could make a difference.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I haven't heard anything from O'Toole about the scandal brewing regarding the award of contracts to his pals. 

There have been some stories about Conservative insiders who aren't happy about the optics it created.

I would put it down as an unforced error by O'Toole.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Trudeau seems to be rolling along with a solid plan of sprinkling cash across Canada.

He just gave billions to NFLD for the Muskrat project. Earlier he was in BC doling out some cash and talking up child care.

The prairies are in severe drought conditions and the crops are not in good shape. I expect Trudeau to pop up in Saskatchewan with a new farm benefit.

Maybe it will convince farmers to say..._.that Trudeau fella is all right and I am going to vote for him._ The Liberals would love to win a couple seats there.

I haven't heard much from the NDP these days, and O'Toole has been kind of quiet except on Twitter.

Maybe too early for them to get going........but Trudeau is already on the road crisscrossing the country with cash falling out of his pockets.

The other parties should remember.......it is the early bird who gets the worm.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

Official campaign hasn't started so technically you aren't allowed to spend money on it.
Since Liberals have access to unlimited funds from taxpayers they don't give a ****.
Other parties can't just raid taxpayer pockets to fund their campaign so they have to wait for official announcement.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> Trudeau seems to be rolling along with a solid plan of sprinkling cash across Canada.


You realize that's exactly the problem with his leadership?
It consists of little more than bribing us with our own money.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

The Newfoundland bailout was big news. I haven't seen much coverage of this but that was enormous federal help.

It would have been disastrous if NL was left on its own financially as the province could have defaulted in that situation. They were on the brink.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

james4beach said:


> The Newfoundland bailout was big news. I haven't seen much coverage of this but that was enormous federal help.
> 
> It would have been disastrous if NL was left on its own financially as the province could have defaulted in that situation. They were on the brink.


And they should have been pushed over. Maybe it would be a wake-up call to other provinces and to federal government when it comes to financial responsibility.
Who is going to bail out federal government when the time comes?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

damian13ster said:


> And they should have been pushed over. Maybe it would be a wake-up call to other provinces and to federal government when it comes to financial responsibility.
> Who is going to bail out federal government when the time comes?


Don't worry, budgets balance themselves!


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Maybe the prudent action for the Conservatives would be to wait until after the election to reveal the changes they want to make.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> Don't worry, budgets balance themselves!


Exactly.........set the debt aside and let economic growth take care of it.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> Exactly.........set the debt aside and let economic growth take care of it.


The fact that you didn't get the sarcasm is the problem.

Our debt is growing faster than our GDP, that's the problem.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

james4beach said:


> The Newfoundland bailout was big news. I haven't seen much coverage of this but that was enormous federal help.
> 
> It would have been disastrous if NL was left on its own financially as the province could have defaulted in that situation. They were on the brink.


it is a good long term bet for Canada. NFLD will export energy for many decades and Ottawa will share in the rewards.

Clean, renewable energy sources.......is the ultimate goal.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

Wasn't transparency in federal election platform?









Want emails? Wait five years, Public Health Agency of Canada tells access requestor - National | Globalnews.ca


The Access to Information request was prompted by curiosity about Iain Stewart's refusal to provide a committee with unredacted documents about the firing of two scientists.




globalnews.ca


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

bgc_fan said:


> Of course, there's speculation that there will be a federal election this year. Maclean's has put together a website that lists the policies announced so far. I imagine it gets updated on a regular basis, and can be convenient if you are curious as to where certain parties stand.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Predictably, supporting hydrogen is a sop to O&G industry while pretending to be green. I assume they are supporting hydrogen from natural gas. Hydrogen is a silly technology in most applications.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

damian13ster said:


> Wasn't transparency in federal election platform?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If you refer to the Liberals, I think they meant "transcendency".

It could have been a typo or maybe the spell checker messed up.

_An existence or experience beyond the normal or physical level or the possibility of spiritual transcendence in the modern world"_

Remember that Trudeau is deeply spiritual which gives him insight well beyond normal.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

sags said:


> We didn't get much of anything from all the stimulus and CERB spending, so maybe it our turn now.


Your greed knows no bounds!


----------



## NewbieInvestor88 (Feb 21, 2021)

MrMatt said:


> The fact that you didn't get the sarcasm is the problem.
> 
> Our debt is growing faster than our GDP, that's the problem.


The budget will balance itself, right?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

andrewf said:


> Your greed knows no bounds!


Pretty well everyone votes on what politicians will do for them.

Or they don't vote for politicians who want to do things that negatively affect them.

In reality........everyone is "greedy".


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> Pretty well everyone votes on what politicians will do for them.
> 
> Or they don't vote for politicians who want to do things that negatively affect them.
> 
> In reality........everyone is "greedy".


That's a pretty selfish view.
As someone who does volunteer work, and I have for decades, as a teen, and more recently helping to run organizations, many people see putting themselves out for a larger purpose as good.

You can argue it's selfish that I feel so good about seeing the hundreds of lives I've positively impacted, and I'm okay with that.
The only thing I got paid for my hundreds of volunteer hours is the thanks from people, and some great experiences.


I want politicians to do what's right for the country, because big picture what's good for the country is good for the individual in many cases.
You're right, I won't vote for Trudeau, because he's racist, and yes racism negatively affects me, but more importantly it negatively effects the the country.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The NDP is the political party most aligned with helping others, so you should be voting for them.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> The NDP is the political party most aligned with helping others, so you should be voting for them.


That's not what I've seen.

The policies they are pushing seem to be horribly destructive and harmful.

I see that their goals are typically good, but their actual plans in many cases are counterproductive to achieving them.
For example, they support things like drug abuse, and UBI. How can anyone get behind those policies?


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

sags said:


> The NDP is the political party most aligned with helping others, so you should be voting for them.


Hell is paved with good intentions.
Just because one wants to help others or wants to appear like they want to help others, doesn't mean their actions are actually helpful.

I will vote for NDP only if I want my children to move out of the country, will convert every single cent I have to foreign currency, and want Canada to become Greece 2.0.
Of course some people are willing to have the entire country go to **** for couple of years of handouts, after which they will simply move to a place with better situation, but I try to be slightly more considerate than that.
There are also people who simply don't understand long-term consequences of short-term actions, but that is different topic and no point in returning to it.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

damian13ster said:


> Hell is paved with good intentions.


The saying is "The road to hell is paved with good intentions".
But really they should know better. At a certain point it shifts from being naive ignorance to simply being malicious.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> The saying is "The road to hell is paved with good intentions".
> But really they should know better. At a certain point it shifts from being naive ignorance to simply being malicious.


It sounds like your idea of support is offering financial investment advice to people with no money.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

sags said:


> It sounds like your idea of support is offering financial investment advice to people with no money.


Would your advice to those people is 'lever yourself up to the ears with unsecured loans and spend them on negative ROI assets'?
Because that is exactly what you are voting for.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> It sounds like your idea of support is offering financial investment advice to people with no money.


Where did you get that idea?
I think basic financial literacy is a good idea, don't you?

I think if people were financially literate, their financial situation might improve.
Just like being computer literate, or literate in general.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The poor can't eat brochures on financial literacy.

Feed the body.......then feed the soul.

Conservatives go to extreme lengths to justify their animosity towards the disadvantaged.

The only people they fool is themselves.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

sags said:


> The poor can't eat brochures on financial literacy.
> 
> Feed the body.......then feed the soul.
> 
> Conservatives go to extreme lengths to justify their animosity towards the disadvantaged.


It is the old fish vs fishing rod analogy.
The smart thing is to give someone a fishing rod and teach them.
The stupid way is to give someone a fish.
Current governments way:
Steal the fishing rod from everyone


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

You got it backwards.

The government wants to give the people fishing equipment.

Some want to give the people brochures on the different species of fish.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Do you know why the message of "the poor need to help themselves" doesn't resonate with a lot of Canadians ?

Maybe it is because many of us came from hard working families that struggled day to day for the basics of life.

We know the struggles and never had it easy until we well into our careers. We know the pain and desperation.

If we can provide a hand up to make someone else's life easier........that is what we want to do.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

sags said:


> You got it backwards.
> 
> The government wants to give the people fishing equipment.
> 
> Some want to give the people brochures on the different species of fish.


You can't just make a statement without any body of proof and expect others to treat it anything other than useless drivel.
The message isn't "poor need to help themselves". The message is "poor need to be taught and given resources to be self-sustainable"
'
Closing businesses, killing small business, taxing companies, resources, services is not giving people fishing equipment.
CERB, CRB, etc. isn't giving people fishing equipment.

Literally entire economical growth has been a rise of price in housing.
More money spent on real estate agent fees than R&D in entire country - this is not how you create self-sustainability of citizens.
Self-sustainable citizens are harder to control though. Citizens relying on government assistance is the dream of those in power.
You are not giving people a hand by making it harder for them to reach self-sustainability and making them reliant on assistance. You are enslaving them

There are no more fishing rods, and those who still try to create something are getting hunted down, squeezed, and their life is as hard as possible.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

It isn't that complicated.

Provide the basics of life, education, support for the working class........and they will find their way.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> Do you know why the message of "the poor need to help themselves" doesn't resonate with a lot of Canadians ?
> 
> Maybe it is because many of us came from hard working families that struggled day to day for the basics of life.
> 
> ...


Exactly, which is precisely why I disapprove of the poverty traps the NDP and Liberals are proposing.

What we need to do is give people a hand up, not push their heads underwater.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

sags said:


> It isn't that complicated.
> 
> Provide the basics of life, education, support for the working class........and they will find their way.


No, they won't. Not if you make it hard for them to find a job or create a job.
Government throughout last years did everything possible to make finding employment or creating small business as hard as possible.
This is the root cause of the problem, and this is why current government got Canada to the terrible fiscal and economic position it is now. This is why they need to go if you don't want your children to be forced to emigrate to lead a decent life.

If you want your children to be forced to emigrate just so you can get a couple extra years of handouts - by all means, continue voting like you do.
That is an understandable motivation to vote Liberal/NDP, although not a one I would praise or personally choose. It is incredibly selfish and shortsighted


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

Rare interview by Joe Lonsdale with Stephen Harper on all sorts of topics including the pandemic. Well worth the listen. Sometimes I forget what a smart guy Harper is. I compare him to our present leader and wonder how he would tackle these topics. 

_"The adolescent egos of the woke university crowd is not an alternative governing philosophy for any society."_







ltr


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

Smart - yes.
Terrible at branding - yes.


----------



## Fain (Oct 11, 2009)

Debt to GDP ratio was declining under Trudeau until the Pandemic, And he kept many promises. . .Unless Conservatives or NDP give me an enticing platform I will vote again for Trudeau.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Did Harper actually say that he would have stockpiled covid vaccine before there was covid ?

Umm.....how do you stockpile a vaccine that isn't invented yet because there is no covid ?

He wants to "get tough" on China but later says we have to work with them ?

He says we spent too much on covid relief but offers no alternative ?

I don't think Harper appears all that smart from this video. At best he sounds confused.


----------



## Fain (Oct 11, 2009)

He didn't add much substance to the interview. He didn't add Manufacturing capacity for pharma but neither did Trudeau when this pandemic happening. 

having Vaccines for 10,20,30 year old viruses is much different than the Covid outbreak.

Conservatives should back a major a major infrastructure plan and soften their mandatory minimum drug sentencing proposals if they want to win. That might help them win ridings.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Fain said:


> Debt to GDP ratio was declining under Trudeau until the Pandemic, And he kept many promises. . .Unless Conservatives or NDP give me an enticing platform I will vote again for Trudeau.


Care to support this, it looked like it went from 51.9% debt to GDP in 2015, then went up to 52.7% for 2019, and is now well past 70%.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Fain is correct.

The debt to GDP fell from 2016-2019, but then rose due to the combination of a weaker economy and covid spending. The Liberals had brought the ratio to below that of the Harper years.

Most economists discard 2020 as a one off situation due to the covid.

The GDP is expected to grow by 5-6% and the debt to gdp ratio will return to a downward trend.

The government also restructured the debt at historically low long term interest rates and the cost to service the debt is lower than it was prior to pandemic spending.

Canada is in fine shape heading into the future.





__





Canada Government Gross Debt to GDP - 2022 Data - 2023 Forecast - 1980-2021 Historical


Canada recorded a Government Debt to GDP of 112.80 percent of the country's Gross Domestic Product in 2021. Government Debt to GDP in Canada averaged 80.20 percent of GDP from 1980 until 2021, reaching an all time high of 117.80 percent of GDP in 2020 and a record low of 44.90 percent of GDP in...




tradingeconomics.com


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

sags said:


> Fain is correct.
> 
> The debt to GDP fell from 2016-2019, but then rose due to the combination of a weaker economy and covid spending. The Liberals had brought the ratio to below that of the Harper years.
> 
> ...


So you are looking at single biggest boom this entire world has seen, and look at numbers without comparing them to the peers?
We had worst unemployment in all G7 economies.
We had worst deficit in all G7 economies.
Over half of GDP growth was transaction fees on housing market.

Also,
You can't just discard a year.

Canada did literally single worst job in the entire world during this year.

Highest debt growth in developed countries.
4th highest deficit in the world (highest in developed countries) behind Aruba, Maldives, and Libya
Second highest unemployment growth in the entire developed world.
One of the longest lockdowns in the entire world.
In short - we spent the most money and got the least for it - this should be the election slogan of current government. 


Government literally did the shittiest job possible by every known objective metric and set the entire country back by 30 years in two year period.
You have a monkey run the show and it would do a better job than Mr. Blackface did.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I disregard all the covid related statistics, as I think they are irrelevant over the long run.

The bottom line is the Liberals were lowering the debt to GDP since they were elected until the pandemic hit. I remember a couple of years they experienced higher revenue than expected.

I have confidence they will resume the trend once the pandemic is over.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

sags said:


> I disregard all the covid related statistics, as I think they are irrelevant over the long run.
> 
> The bottom line is the Liberals were lowering the debt to GDP since they were elected until the pandemic hit. I remember a couple of years they experienced higher revenue than expected.
> 
> I have confidence they will resume the trend once the pandemic is over.


yeah, it is not like our kids and grandkids were screwed over by the government for next 30 years - no biggie

You disregard the fact that they did the worst job in entire world during the pandemic.
You disregard the fact that they had worst economic performance in entire G7 before the pandemic
You disregard the fact that our Prime Minister is blatantly racist.

We know where you stand. Disregarding the facts


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

On the contrary, Canada has received international accolades for the handling of the pandemic.

Canadians show wide support for the Liberals handling of the pandemic in the polls.

I have no idea what you base your opinions on.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

sags said:


> On the contrary, Canada has received international accolades for the handling of the pandemic.
> 
> Canadians show wide support for the Liberals handling of the pandemic in the polls.
> 
> I have no idea what you base your opinions on.


Data. Solid, quantifiable data.
The GDP drop is objective
The unemployment is objective
the deficits are objective.
You can check those for both 2015-2019
And you can check those for 2020-2021.
In both scenarios, you are looking at objectively terrible results.
Again, this is not an opinion - those are solid, verifiable, objective numbers.

And objectively racist as well. How else do you describe someone wearing a black face, mocking foreign cultures, and introducing racist legislations?
I would love to see your reaction if O'Toole was seen with a black paint on his face 😅


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

PC Mulroney created deficits and increased debt.

Liberal Chretien created surpluses and paid off debt.

PC Harper increased the debt to GDP ratio.

Liberal Trudeau decreased the debt to GDP ratio until the pandemic hit.

I see a trend developing here.......


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

sags said:


> PC Mulroney created deficits and increased debt.
> 
> Liberal Chretien created surpluses and paid off debt.
> 
> ...


So you choose to disregard single worst performance in entire world during a crisis under Liberal government
And you choose to disregard top 3 performance in entire world during a crisis under Harper government?

Look at crisis response in 2020 vs crisis response in 2008 and you will see a difference between a leader who although not savvy in branding is relatively intelligent vs a leader who has trouble finding two functioning brain cells


of course, Harper is imho smarter than O'Toole.

My objective truth about Trudeau being a historical disaster in leadership position is not an endorsement of O'Toole.
So don't try to make it us vs them again.
It is solely a comment on liberal government, which by objective quantifiable metrics is historically bad.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Canada wasn't hit hard like the US in 2008. Every country was hit hard in the pandemic.

I remember Harper telling everyone it was a good time to invest just before the crash.

Other than that.......I don't remember anything he did that was noteworthy, except the TFSA.

If he had done such a great job, I doubt Canadians would have ditched him in 2015.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

sags said:


> Canada wasn't hit hard like the US in 2008.
> 
> The only thing I remember Harper doing was telling everyone it was a good time to invest.


And you don't question why we weren't hit as hard in 2008? Nothing to do with leadership, right?
And you don't question why we are doing the worst in entire developed world in 2015-2020? Nothing to do with leadership, right?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Right.......it had to do with subprime lending and financial derivatives around the world.

The financial collapse started in a small bank in Iceland that had involved itself into derivatives.

Mortgages were used as the underlying security for a myriad of sketchy financial instruments.

It wasn't Stephen Harper who got called to a meeting in the middle of the night in New York.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

sags said:


> Right.......it had to do with subprime lending and financial derivatives around the world.
> 
> The financial collapse started in a small bank in Iceland that had involved itself into derivatives.
> 
> ...


Financial collapse didn't start in Canada.
We were able to minimize the impact of it.

Coronavirus didn't start in Canada
We made sure it will impact Canada hardest in the developed world.

You are also looking at wrong metric in GDP/debt of fed.
It is very easy for Fed to save money. For example Mr. Blackface did it by not increasing health transfers to provinces during health pandemic. So that money went into provincial debt.

One needs to look at TOTAL debt in Canada to GDP to get more wholesome view.
It is not a coincidence that two Canadian provinces on verge of bankruptcy were both led by Mr.Blackface's colleagues

Good resource:


http://www.rbc.com/economics/economic-reports/pdf/canadian-fiscal/prov_fiscal.pdf


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The Federal government did increase health care funding, but the transfer payments are not the place to do it. It was the Harper government.....and notably Alberta Premier Kenny who set it up.

Now you are shifting to moving the debt to ALL of Canada.

Fair enough......now complete the other side of the ledger to balance out the accounting.

Compare total debt to total assets.........just as a lender does to approve loans.

I am confident you will find that Canada is in great financial shape and the envy of the world.

We are a country the size of Europe with 38 million people compared to their 780 million people.

The per-capital value of Canada's natural resources are incalculable.

Compared to the US we are downright frugal including a fully funded CPP pension fund.

You should worry more about what O'Toole and company are doing to win an election, instead of worrying about minor stumbles by Trudeau.

Maybe you could send Mr. O'Toole an email and give him some ideas.

I think he could use some fresh input.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

sags said:


> The Federal government did increase health care funding, but the transfer payments are not the place to do it. It was the Harper government.....and notably Alberta Premier Kenny who set it up.
> 
> Now you are shifting to moving the debt to ALL of Canada.
> 
> ...


You should learn how to read.
I stated multiple times. I don;t endorese O'Toole. I don't believe he is a good candidate.
I am simply providing facts about historically terrible performance of the current government.

Read the RBC report. 


http://www.rbc.com/economics/economic-reports/pdf/canadian-fiscal/prov_fiscal.pdf


It has everything in there, including the metrics that you were asking for it, expenses, revenues, net debt, debt/GDP, and projections for future 5 years.
Read it. Preferably with comprehension this time
Then you will get more wholesome view of Mr. Blackface's performance


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

That's it then. You have discovered the secret sauce to a Conservative election victory.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

I certainly would not call the next election. Tories are down, down. I suspect that the NDP may be the biggest threat to the Liberals inasmuch as they may suck votes away.

Bottom line...ANYTHING can happen in an election. Remember 2015? Conservative majority at the start, then Conservative minority. Then panic at Conservative election central. Bring in the Aussie dog whistle specialist. Then comes the infamous 'barbaric cultural practices hotline' and voila that minority turns into a Liberal minority. 

Just like that. One stupid move by the current polling leader can change things overnight. Think back to Scheer's first French language media in depth interview at the start of the last election. It was an unmitigated disaster that set the tone for the rest of his campaign from hell. 

All it takes is one really bad piece of political advice from the tin hat crew and it is a game over. Could happen to Trudeau, could happen to O'Toole. Though...based on performance so far I suspect that O'Toole is more likely to suck up terrible political/election advice.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> Liberal Trudeau decreased the debt to GDP ratio until the pandemic hit.


That's simply not true, and you know it.
Trudeau increased debt to GDP before COVID19 hit, I even posted the numbers... but clearly facts aren't a problem.

sags, you've got a serious problem with lying and spreading false information.
These are real hard numbers, and you simply ignore them.





__





Canada Government Debt: % of GDP, 1962 – 2022 | CEIC Data


Canada Government debt accounted for 71.8 % of the country's Nominal GDP in Mar 2022, compared with the ratio of 73.9 % in the previous year.




www.ceicdata.com


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I already posted the data that showed the decline in debt to GDP during the Trudeau years.

The debt rose sharply for the pandemic but that was totally expected.

I guess you don't believe the government should have supported Canadians.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

During the pandemic, the Conservatives sat around and refused to participate in the spending bills.

Now they are all coming out of the woodwork complaining about the spending.

Pierre Poilivere, Stephen Harper, the CD Howe Institute.........I see a trend just before an election.

Of course the debt to GDP ratio went up.

The spending increased to pay people not to work so the GDP went down.

The unemployment numbers went up because the government made it easier to claim EI.

Most voters will understand how it worked and are happy with it.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Prior to the pandemic, the Liberal government received higher than expected revenues, and could have paid down the debt.

They chose instead to invest in building the economy for the future, after the Harper years.

I agree with that decision.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

sags said:


> I guess you don't believe the government should have supported Canadians.


Within reason. That's not what happened.

ltr


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

Sadly, the debt to GDP ratio has never been a huge election issue. I mean really...look at the worst example in Canada. It is Newfoundland. Never seemed to have been an issue in their elections until the most recent Government started to cut back spending and until they could no longer find buyers for their Provincial bond issues. Feds just bailed them out so my guess is they will go back to the same old spend, spend and spend some more in no time. Happy days are here again!

In the last Ontario Provincial election people seem far more concerned, and focused on , the sex education program in schools than they were in the Provincial debt to GDP ratio. Go figure. And look what program was put in place after the Ford Conservatives won.....almost word for word, line by line of the one that was proposed by the previous Gov't. Ford and team played those social conservative voters like a penny whistle!

Oh, if I still have cheques left in my book or if at least one of my credit cards still works everything must be hunky dory!


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

ian said:


> Sadly, the debt to GDP ratio has never been a huge election issue. I mean really...look at the worst example in Canada. It is Newfoundland. Never seemed to have been an issue in their elections until the most recent Government started to cut back spending and until they could no longer find buyers for their Provincial bond issues. Feds just bailed them out so my guess is they will go back to the same old spend, spend and spend some more in no time. Happy days are here again!
> 
> In the last Ontario Provincial election people seem far more concerned, and focused on , the sex education program in schools than they were in the Provincial debt to GDP ratio. Go figure. And look what program was put in place after the Ford Conservatives won.....almost word for word, line by line of the one that was proposed by the previous Gov't. Ford and team played those social conservative voters like a penny whistle!
> 
> Oh, if I still have cheques left in my book or if at least one of my credit cards still works everything must be hunky dory!


Few points on the sex ed program.
It was "almost" word for word. The almost is important.

But he did a few things that he promised to do, firstly TALK TO PARENTS. 
While there were and still issues with the content, the biggest issue is that they just one day turned around and said "oh by the way here's a new curriculum". 

Then when people questioned teaching grade schoolers about anal sex, they said "but we spoke to experts". Which was the exact wrong answer.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

like_to_retire said:


> Within reason. That's not what happened.
> 
> ltr


Also, it should be done in a smart way. It wasn't.

Spending 300bln effectively and in a smart way -- all for it.
Spending 300bln like dumbasses with worst results in the world - hell no.

Unfortunately with current government we got the latter.

I am not completely against deficits and debt. There is such thing as smart debt.
Of course not after this government - now we really need to tighten the belt, and this is the issue. If someone smart gets elected - they will have to stop with reckless spending making them unpopular, resulting in another dumbass like Mr. Blackface being elected. 
It is a vicious cycle seen all over the world and unfortunately pretty much impossible to stop until 75% of population is financially literate.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

How much of that $300 billion will flow back to the government ?

The choice is to spend the money now at historic low interest rates to repair and replace crumbling infrastructure and prepare Canada for the future, or put it off until we are forced to do it at higher interest rates in the future.

For too many years past governments created an infrastructure deficit that needs attention.

I think the government is wise to spend the money now when the economy also needs a boost.

Very wise decision from PM Trudeau and FM Freeland.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The Liberals maintain a 6% lead over the Conservatives in the national polls, and are on the cusp of a majority government.

The Conservatives need to come out with some "blockbuster" new ideas to change the outcome.

If there will be a fall election, it likely will be announced this month.

It would be nice if we could vote online.

_The Liberals are straddling the 170-seat mark needed for a majority government and their likely range of seats puts them comfortably ahead of the Conservatives, who look likely to lose seats — potentially a dozen or more if an election were held today. The Bloc is in a good position to retain the seats they won last time, while the New Democrats could win enough seats to make them the third largest party in the House of Commons, ahead of the Bloc. 



https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/elections/poll-tracker/canada/


_


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

sags said:


> How much of that $300 billion will flow back to the government ?
> 
> The choice is to spend the money now at historic low interest rates to repair and replace crumbling infrastructure and prepare Canada for the future, or put it off until we are forced to do it at higher interest rates in the future.
> 
> ...


Not much, precisely because they spent it in a stupid, non-productive way.
The amount of people with 150k+ income in 2020 who got CERB is immense.
I personally know multiple of such people and I don't really hang out with high-rollers.
The amount of companies with billions in profit who got 75% of their wage costs paid by government was insane. Also, multiple examples I personally know.
Spending 4x the amount necessary for vaccines is insane.

All of those are pure waste.

Money well spent = good debt
Money spent like Liberals did = bad debt.

They set us back by more than 30 years.
The problem is that smart people who need to come and fix it will be unpopular right away and not get reelected.
Smart people tend to be extremely unpopular in governments unfortunately.
Unintelligent people who do nothing but bribe people with their own money are very popular.
That explains why Liberals lead in polls


Getting financial literacy up to 75%+ is the only way we will ever have sustainably smart people in the government.
The problem is that those in power have little motivation to do so, especially since they are themselves illiterate in the subject.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

If they don't know how to get elected they must not be that smart.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

sags said:


> If they don't know how to get elected they must not be that smart.


I will say it for 50th time since 49 times you read it clearly wasn't enough.

Stating that current government is the single worst one Canada had in recent history is not an endorsement of an opposition.

Do you really want to live in a country where the only goal is to get power and stay in power at all cost, without any regard for country's future?

As much as I am not a huge Morneau fan, at least he had some principles and refused to cross certain lines.
None of the current government has any spine. Only goal is to stay in power and the only way is to bribe people with their own money, with complete disregard to the effect it has on the country itself. It is really sad, but it is also very effective.
The above is the exact reason why they are racist, why they set country back by 30 years, and why they continue path of destruction - for one reason and one reason only - to stay in power.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Rumours on Parliament Hill are that Liberal staff are preparing the writ drop for August 8 or 15.

The election would be then be held on September 13 or 20.

The Liberals won't wait until October when quite a number of MPs qualify for a life time pension.

_For the 142 MPs elected for the first time on October 19, 2015, defeat in an election taking place before October 19, 2021 would deprive them of access to an MP's pension. _

It looks like the Liberals are confident their MPs will win re-election.

_


https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mps-lose-pension-early-election-1.6042861


_


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> Care to support this, it looked like it went from 51.9% debt to GDP in 2015, then went up to 52.7% for 2019, and is now well past 70%.


This is total government debt to GDP, not federal debt to GDP. The ratio was rising due to borrowing at the provincial level.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

damian13ster said:


> And you don't question why we weren't hit as hard in 2008? Nothing to do with leadership, right?
> And you don't question why we are doing the worst in entire developed world in 2015-2020? Nothing to do with leadership, right?


Keeping the housing bubble inflated, perhaps? Previous governments resisting lobbying for financial deregulation and laxening of lending standards?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

There has never been a better time to rebuild and expand for the future of Canada.

Canadians are smart voters and understand the spending is necessary and the goals worthwhile.

The Liberals are keen on turning the pandemic lemon into lemonade.

I will be interested to see which direction the other parties wish to lead Canada towards.

With the pandemic rearing it's ugly head......the Liberals could still delay the election.

Timely good news for the incumbent Liberals though......a $3.2 billion trade surplus.



https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/june-trade-balance-1.6130567


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

Thank the oilfield!

Energy led the way with exports rising by 22 per cent to $11.3 billion. That's the largest amount since March of 2019.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Canada strong like Angus bull.

We should ditch the beaver and go with the bull.

Why do we have a bucktooth rodent as a symbol of Canada anyways ?


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

Well, the Maverick party is starting get some candidates: 27 candidates and counting for Maverick Party. I can't imagine it having much impact, if it is concentrated in the West. It's not likely to bleed much support from the Conservatives to change election results. The candidates will just be added to the list of losers to the Conservative winners.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

bgc_fan said:


> Well, the Maverick party is starting get some candidates: 27 candidates and counting for Maverick Party. I can't imagine it having much impact, if it is concentrated in the West. It's not likely to bleed much support from the Conservatives to change election results. The candidates will just be added to the list of losers to the Conservative winners.


If Canada would have democratic election system based on PR list, I'd vote for Maverick


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

gibor365 said:


> If Canada would have democratic election system based on PR list, I'd vote for Maverick


If they did instant runoff to give the power back to the MPs, instead of unelected party insiders I'd be happy.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

gibor365 said:


> If Canada would have democratic election system based on PR list, I'd vote for Maverick


I'm not a big fan of PR, because I still like the idea of voting for a specific MP. Though the end results probably don't matter. 

Regardless, if it were a PR system, I'd bet we'd see Liberal-NDP coalition governments (with small 3rd party participation like Green) until the system changes back to FPtP, since it is unlikely either the NDP nor the Liberals would form a coalition with the Conservatives. Since most of the new parties are essentially right-winged parties, all they do is take percentage away from the total right-wing, not add it.

2019 -* L (33.12%)* C (34.34%) N (15.98%)
2015 - *L (39.47%)* C (31.89%) N (19.71%)
2011 - L (18.91%) *C (39.62%)* N (30.63%)
2008 - L (26.26%) *C (37.65%)* N (18.18%)
2006 - L (30.23%) *C (36.29%)* N (17.48%)


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

bgc_fan said:


> I'm not a big fan of PR, because I still like the idea of voting for a specific MP. Though the end results probably don't matter.
> 
> Regardless, if it were a PR system, I'd bet we'd see Liberal-NDP coalition governments (with small 3rd party participation like Green) until the system changes back to FPtP, since it is unlikely either the NDP nor the Liberals would form a coalition with the Conservatives. Since most of the new parties are essentially right-winged parties, all they do is take percentage away from the total right-wing, not add it.
> 
> ...


Nobody knows, because change to PR system is going to change how people are voting....
New right-wing parties are taking " percentage away from the total right-wing" with current FPTP system, with PR list system, they will get some seats, imho, I'd assume that also Liberals can split up as some of them don't like Trudeau at all.... so, coalition with Cons, Maverick, PPC, BQ, some independent parties and even Greens is very possible...
P.S. Just during last elections Cons lost 7 seats because of PPC


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

gibor365 said:


> Nobody knows, because change to PR system is going to change how people are voting....
> New right-wing parties are taking " percentage away from the total right-wing" with current FPTP system, with PR list system, they will get some seats, imho, I'd assume that also Liberals can split up as some of them don't like Trudeau at all.... so, coalition with Cons, Maverick, PPC, BQ, some independent parties and even Greens is very possible...
> P.S. Just during last elections Cons lost 7 seats because of PPC


That's what everyone says, but when the rubber hits the road, I'm sure people will revert to their normal voting tendencies. Any new parties will just splinter existing parties and when it comes to coalition, they are more likely to side with the party that they came from, in exchange for concessions. It's unlikely BQ would have anything to do with the Conservatives even though it was a splinter from the original PCs, at least formally considering that the Conservatives are starting to look more like the original Reform party. 

Based on wikipedia, it doesn't look like the Cons lost more than 2 seats due to the PPC, based on the win margin, one to NDP, one to Liberals: Results of the 2019 Canadian federal election - Wikipedia.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

bgc_fan said:


> That's what everyone says, but when the rubber hits the road, I'm sure people will revert to their normal voting tendencies. Any new parties will just splinter existing parties and when it comes to coalition, they are more likely to side with the party that they came from, in exchange for concessions. It's unlikely BQ would have anything to do with the Conservatives even though it was a splinter from the original PCs, at least formally considering that the Conservatives are starting to look more like the original Reform party.
> 
> Based on wikipedia, it doesn't look like the Cons lost more than 2 seats due to the PPC, based on the win margin, one to NDP, one to Liberals: Results of the 2019 Canadian federal election - Wikipedia.


Just after election I crunched a real numbers and yes, 7 seats were lost because of PPC. 1 NDP and 7 Libs. It was also confirmed on many Facebook posts. BQ will go with any party to get into coalition... there are a lot of similarities between BA and Maverick... we always were voting Cons, but with PR system we’d vote party that more represents our values, maybe be PPC, Reform party or any new one. We don’t care about MP in our riding, as in any case we won’t see him/her... we care about party and it’s platform.
I lived for many years country with PR system and you won’t imagine who can be in coalition.. just look at current Israeli coalition! Ultra right, center, ultra left + Arab parties! Crazy, but fact


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Canadians understand and like the FPTP system. 

There is the philosophy that losers don't get to decide anything. Who remembers who finished second in a car race ? 

All our MPs are winners........and that is how we like it.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

bgc_fan said:


> I'm not a big fan of PR, because I still like the idea of voting for a specific MP. Though the end results probably don't matter.
> 
> Regardless, if it were a PR system, I'd bet we'd see Liberal-NDP coalition governments (with small 3rd party participation like Green) until the system changes back to FPtP, since it is unlikely either the NDP nor the Liberals would form a coalition with the Conservatives. Since most of the new parties are essentially right-winged parties, all they do is take percentage away from the total right-wing, not add it.
> 
> ...


I think under PR, a lot of people who currently vote Liberal Strategically would swing NDP. Then the Liberals would have to adjust to pick up seats. They really benefit from the fact that people don't really consider the NDP a viable option.

Also I think there are a lot of Liberals who would actually jump at a real liberal party.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> If they did instant runoff to give the power back to the MPs, instead of unelected party insiders I'd be happy.


The problem is that party leaders control nominations.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

sags said:


> Canadians understand and like the FPTP system.
> 
> There is the philosophy that losers don't get to decide anything. Who remembers who finished second in a car race ?
> 
> All our MPs are winners........and that is how we like it.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

LOL....but it is true.

The candidate with the most votes is declared the winner and that be the end of it....... as far as most people are concerned.


----------



## nathan79 (Feb 21, 2011)

I have never understood the FPTP system. It leads to a ton of wasted votes, since any vote for a losing candidate doesn't count toward the final result. This creates voter apathy, because unless your local candidate has a shot at winning, there's basically no point in even voting. Why bother voting when your vote doesn't translate to any power at the federal level? I'd wager 50% of the population doesn't care who their MP is, and probably can't even name them. What's the incentive to even care? We only get one vote, so most people will just vote for the party they want to lead the country.

A better solution would be a two-vote system, with one vote to select your MP and the other for the party at the federal level. They could be from the same party or not. I see no problem with having some extra party-list MPs to keep things proportional.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

gibor365 said:


> Just after election I crunched a real numbers and yes, 7 seats were lost because of PPC. 1 NDP and 7 Libs. It was also confirmed on many Facebook posts. BQ will go with any party to get into coalition... there are a lot of similarities between BA and Maverick... we always were voting Cons, but with PR system we’d vote party that more represents our values, maybe be PPC, Reform party or any new one. We don’t care about MP in our riding, as in any case we won’t see him/her... we care about party and it’s platform.
> I lived for many years country with PR system and you won’t imagine who can be in coalition.. just look at current Israeli coalition! Ultra right, center, ultra left + Arab parties! Crazy, but fact


That would be what this article states: PPC votes appear to have cost the CPC some seats, but former Tory strategist isn't sure - iPolitics however, some of the PPC votes were protest votes, so not all would have necessarily translated to the Conservatives. In fact, the second most popular choice for the PPC was the Green party: People’s Party may have cost the Tories 6 ridings on election night - National | Globalnews.ca. So yes, there may be some difference in voting should there have been PR. 

As for the current Israeli coalition, I think it is more of a protest against Netanyahu more than anything else. I doubt you would normally see this type of coalition.



MrMatt said:


> I think under PR, a lot of people who currently vote Liberal Strategically would swing NDP. Then the Liberals would have to adjust to pick up seats. They really benefit from the fact that people don't really consider the NDP a viable option.


Which is why NDP is always pushing PR as their preferred option. The Liberals do not have that strong 30%-40% base that the Conservatives have, so they have to get their support from NDP supporters. It is the same reason why Liberals prefer the instant run-off, and Conservatives prefer the status quo: they have a chance to get power. NDP would probably never get an outright majority under any system, but if they get more seats than the Liberals in a PR, they'll be able to drive the government with a coalition. Liberals prefer instant run-off as the thinking is that they would be the second choice, or at least preferred choice by Conservatives over the NDP, and vice versa for the NDP. I doubt Conservatives can work with any of the parties, other than on a case by case basis, so their best shot is the FPtP due to their strong base and the fact that you can get a majority government with less than 40% of the votes, assuming they aren't concentrated in one region.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

bgc_fan said:


> That would be what this article states: PPC votes appear to have cost the CPC some seats, but former Tory strategist isn't sure - iPolitics however, some of the PPC votes were protest votes, so not all would have necessarily translated to the Conservatives. In fact, the second most popular choice for the PPC was the Green party: People’s Party may have cost the Tories 6 ridings on election night - National | Globalnews.ca. So yes, there may be some difference in voting should there have been PR.
> 
> As for the current Israeli coalition, I think it is more of a protest against Netanyahu more than anything else. I doubt you would normally see this type of coalition.
> 
> ...


Just after election there was a big discussion about results of the election and was published with numbers in which ridings PPC prevented Cons from winning, AFAIR there wre 7 ridings.... Probably some PPC voters would elect Green, idk...but every PPC voter I know (and I almost became PPC member) were previously voting for Cons.
in any case , PR system would change political map... Generally, if you live in Liberal riding, there is no point to go to election with current system at all...
I agree with your remark regarding Israeli election, but in Canada (with PR list system) same could'v be done to remove Trudeau , as many from Liberal party don't want him to be PM (just remember 2 amazing females who was kicked out by Trudeau from the caucus).


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

gibor365 said:


> I agree with your remark regarding Israeli election, but in Canada (with PR list system) same could'v be done to remove Trudeau , as many from Liberal party don't want him to be PM (just remember 2 amazing females who was kicked out by Trudeau from the caucus).


Could have, assuming the Conservatives and NDP agree to work together and not with the Liberals.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> The problem is that party leaders control nominations.


Which is why party leaders and the establishment don't really like instant runoff.

Imagine the party elite kick out an excellent local candidate to parachute in a party insider.
Under instant runoff you could vote #1 excellent local candidate, and #2 party insider. Supporting the excellent non-party guy woulnd't be a vote for the other party.

It wasn't as huge a factor in the last election, but a LOT of Liberal power comes from ABC (Anything But Conservative)


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The NDP dropped some of their election platform. Some goodies in the grocery basket. Not a lot for us poor seniors to munch on though.


$10-a-day child care.
Reintroducing 30-year terms to Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation insured mortgages on entry-level homes for first-time home buyers.
Creating at least half a million units of affordable housing in the next 10 years.
Guaranteed livable income for all Canadians.
A price cap on cell phone bills.
Continuing wage and rent subsidies for small businesses as the pandemic continues.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

sags said:


> The NDP dropped some of their election platform. Some goodies in the grocery basket. Not a lot for us poor seniors to munch on though.
> 
> 
> $10-a-day child care.
> ...


Are you poor senior?! Maybe you should've work harder?!
NDP platform is even much more communist than platform of current Communist party of Russia!
Let win NDP and Canada finally will split apart....


----------



## TomB16 (Jun 8, 2014)

NewbieInvestor88 said:


> The Conservatives have to think of something else then "Trudeau bad, Conservative good" - it hasn't worked yet...


Pretty sure, "Vote for us or Canada will be overrun by communism and AIDS." Would energize the Conservative base.

Does anyone recall when John Cretien ran on the Red Book? Instead of lies and smears, they outlined a detailed platform. Even if you didnt like the policies, it was easy to respect the positive message.

I wish they would all do that, instead of making it up as they go.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

They pretty much did.
There was a conservative platform revealed, and they were first among federal parties to do so.
Personally, after reading through it, there were certainly issues I agreed on and that I disagreed on, but after going through entire platform I had a good idea of what the plan for the future is.
You read the program and felt differently?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

TomB16 said:


> Pretty sure, "Vote for us or Canada will be overrun by communism and AIDS." Would energize the Conservative base.
> 
> Does anyone recall when John Cretien ran on the Red Book? Instead of lies and smears, they outlined a detailed platform. Even if you didnt like the policies, it was easy to respect the positive message.
> 
> I wish they would all do that, instead of making it up as they go.


That would be nice, but last time I voted Liberal on a platform (that was on balance acceptable), they went to break promises at an astonishing rate.

Dalton McGuinty laid out a very detailed and pretty good platform, then immediately started breaking his promises.
The speed at which they went from election promise to breaking them suggested that they never intended to keep those promises
Then, despite being the biggest promise breaker in my lifetime, he was re-elected.

That's when the Liberals realized they don't need a platform, nor do they need to govern according to their promises.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

TomB16 said:


> Does anyone recall when John Cretien ran on the Red Book? Instead of lies and smears, they outlined a detailed platform. Even if you didnt like the policies, it was easy to respect the positive message.
> 
> I wish they would all do that, instead of making it up as they go.


Positivity and optimism _are so_ 1990s






Red Book (Liberal Party of Canada) - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> Positivity and optimism _are so_ 1990s


Unfortunately true.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Jean Charest about to announce his candidacy for the Conservative party. Maybe a few more jumping in.

Things got real for Pierre P. It might not be a coronation after all.

It will be interesting to watch the Conservatives attack each other.

I think the Liberal transition of power will be much smoother sailing.

It looks like Justin retires and Chrystia takes over as PM and gives him any ambassadorship he wants.

A couple years later it is a nice Senate appointment for JT.

Life is good in Liberal land.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Wow, Charest.

Now there's an interesting contender. Probably much closer to my own values, someone I likely could vote for... that's assuming the Reform/Alliance guys support him.

This would be an interesting shift towards the more "old school" PC party, which I'd love to see, but I just don't know if the "Republican" types in the party want that.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

sags said:


> Jean Charest about to announce his candidacy for the Conservative party. Maybe a few more jumping in.
> 
> Things got real for Pierre P. It might not be a coronation after all.
> 
> ...


I am always stunned by your rosy coloured glasses. 

The LPC will have a leadership race, like always. I doubt Freeland will win unopposed.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Maybe.........but Trudeau was appointed as the leader in 2013.

The Liberals haven't had a leadership contest since 2009.

They prefer to sort things out behind the scenes rather than a messy leadership campaign.

Freeland's education, fluent bilingualism, and experience as trade negotiator, Finance Minister and assistant PM make her a lock for the appointment.

_The *2013 Liberal Party of Canada leadership election* was triggered by Michael Ignatieff's announcement on May 3, 2011, of his intention to resign as leader following the party's defeat in the 2011 federal election. On May 25, 2011, Bob Rae was appointed by Liberal caucus as interim leader. The party announced Justin Trudeau as its new leader on April 14, 2013, in Ottawa, Ontario.[1][2]_



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Liberal_Party_of_Canada_leadership_election


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Speaking of leadership contests...I read that Lewis isn't bilingual. I don't know about Brown or the other candidates, but that is a big problem for anyone who wants to be PM.

I think the CPC contest comes down to Charest and Pierre P....centrist versus right wing. 

I wonder if Charest wins how he could possibly do any better than O'Toole.

Charest represents policies that don't align with the official CPC policies and that will be a big problem for him.

The truth is the CPC party is fractured and needs to split up. A new PC party needs to evolve so they aren't accountable to reformers.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> The Liberals haven't had a leadership contest since 2009.
> 
> They prefer to sort things out behind the scenes rather than a messy leadership campaign.


You think back room dealings is better than a free vote by the party membership?

I prefer the democratic approach.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The last time the members chose a leader (Ignatieff), the party lost the election.

Liberals learn from their mistakes, while Conservatives keep making the same ones over and over. (Scheer, O'Toole)


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Leadership campaigns are popularity contests consisting of factions scheming against each other and have nothing to do with electing the best leader.

If the Russians voted immediately after Putin invaded Ukraine......he had overwhelming support.

If they took a vote in the deep South before the Civil War.......slavery would never have been abolished.

Democratic voting isn't always the best way to make decisions.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

MrMatt said:


> You think back room dealings is better than a free vote by the party membership?
> 
> I prefer the democratic approach.


Liberals don't do democracy. The body of proof of that was evident for past decade


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> If the Russians voted immediately after Putin invaded Ukraine......he had overwhelming support.


I don't think that would be the case if they had freedom of expression/a free press and free elections.



> If they took a vote in the deep South before the Civil War.......slavery would never have been abolished.


Never said democracy was perfect, just that it's better than the alternatives.



> Democratic voting isn't always the best way to make decisions.


I completely agree, but it is the best check on power we've come up with so far.

But it's nice of you to be honest in that you really don't support democratic principles.
But I guess you like Trudeau admire the "basic dictatorship" of repressive regimes.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

sags said:


> The last time the members chose a leader (Ignatieff), the party lost the election.
> 
> Liberals learn from their mistakes, while Conservatives keep making the same ones over and over. (Scheer, O'Toole)


There was a leadership race in 2013, which Trudeau won.






Liberal Party of Canada leadership elections - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org





I don't know where you get your alternative facts from.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

You are right......I didn't remember people ran against Trudeau. He won with over 70% on the first ballot anyways.

Likely someone will run against Freeland for their own reasons of public exposure or resume building, but I think the results will be similar to Trudeau's.

Trudeau recognized Freeland's background and talent and elevated her to "next in line" position. Even today, she is in Europe holding private talks.

Last night, she was having dinner with the German Finance Minister about the current situation.

If she wants the PM job, I can't think of anyone in the party who would be as qualified and preferred over her.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Interesting the media commentary that leadership campaigns are decided by how many new members each candidate can sign up to vote for them.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I don't think it is healthy to fawn over politicians. You'll notice I don't do it. They are fallible human beings. Freeland is impressive in many ways. I think she will be held back by her awkward mannerisms. It's not fair, but that's how it is.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

sags said:


> Interesting the media commentary that leadership campaigns are decided by how many new members each candidate can sign up to vote for them.


Yes, I don't think party leadership races are the pinnacle of democracy. It's a matter of selling memberships in a defined window to a very small number of people.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

andrewf said:


> I don't think it is healthy to fawn over politicians. You'll notice I don't do it. They are fallible human beings. Freeland is impressive in many ways. I think she will be held back by her awkward mannerisms. It's not fair, but that's how it is.


I don't know. Harper did pretty well even though people thought he was a bit robotic and unemotional, which can be off-putting for some. Then again, he didn't have much in the way of competition for some of his wins.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> I don't think it is healthy to fawn over politicians. You'll notice I don't do it. They are fallible human beings. Freeland is impressive in many ways. I think she will be held back by her awkward mannerisms. It's not fair, but that's how it is.


Maybe, but I think she's much better than Trudeau.

Chretien had that facial issue, and Canadians were upset when they launched election ads on it.

I'd like to see Lewis take a stronger position, but I don't think she's really ready for the top job.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The political attacks started as soon as Charest announced he was running.

Pierre P supporters immediately put out a prepared video attacking Charest accusing him of being.....dare I say it......"liberal".

It is going to be a nasty campaign.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1502072233115664392


----------



## Mortgage u/w (Feb 6, 2014)

I could see Charest taking over the party and wouldn't be surprised if he ends up PM.

Politics is truly a popularity contest. Charest was indeed Liberal at the provincial level back in the day. So, he steps in at the right place and right time.

On a side note, weren't they talking about grooming Caroline Mulroney to be the next party leader? Or did I misunderstand?


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

Mortgage u/w said:


> I could see Charest taking over the party and wouldn't be surprised if he ends up PM.
> 
> Politics is truly a popularity contest. Charest was indeed Liberal at the provincial level back in the day. So, he steps in at the right place and right time.
> 
> On a side note, weren't they talking about grooming Caroline Mulroney to be the next party leader? Or did I misunderstand?


There's a significant difference between provincial and federal Liberals. The Conservative party doesn't exist in Quebec at the provincial level. Just like the BC Liberal party is really a Conservative party when it comes to policies.

I thought it was going to be Mark Mulroney whose name was thrown around last time: John Ivison: So who is running for the Conservative leadership? Not Mark Mulroney.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Mortgage u/w said:


> I could see Charest taking over the party and wouldn't be surprised if he ends up PM.
> 
> Politics is truly a popularity contest. Charest was indeed Liberal at the provincial level back in the day. So, he steps in at the right place and right time.


Back when the Liberals were centrist.



> On a side note, weren't they talking about grooming Caroline Mulroney to be the next party leader? Or did I misunderstand?


I'm not sure her Ontario experience will be seen as beneficial. But she is well spoken and comes off very well.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I still expect PP to win.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I do as well.

PP appears to have the "angry" anti-Trudeau Conservatives well in hand, the meme social media younger adults interested, and is now chasing the immigration vote.

Winning a general election will be more difficult as the CPC leader will be facing some tough questions and debates about policy on foreign affairs, immigration, guns, abortion, military spending, daycare costs, health transfers to Provinces etc.



https://twitter.com/PierrePoilievre?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> I do as well.
> 
> PP appears to have the "angry" anti-Trudeau Conservatives well in hand, the meme social media younger adults interested, and is now chasing the immigration vote.
> 
> ...


I expect PP to win as well, but I'd be happy with Lewis if some of the old guard stick around to support her.
FA it would be hard to do worse than Trudeau.
Immigration, non issue we simply have to ensure that we actually follow our immigration policy
Guns, no issue here, just enforce the law, and stop banning hunting rifles and harrassing law abiding gun opwners.
Abortion, no change here, women who want to kill their children would make bad parents anyway.
Military spending, way more, we need a real navy and real air defence, everyone knows this.

We need new jets, arctic patrol ships and at least 2 ice capable subs.
We also need to upgrade our land force AA capability.
Daycare, provincial responsibility, Feds should stay out of it, they have enough to deal with.

Health transfers to provinces, Personally I say slash them to get rid of the federal strings, and let the provinces tax and support their own systems. The only benefit to using federal dollars is that they get to attach restrictions to something that isn't even their responsibility.


----------



## fstamand (Mar 24, 2015)

james4beach said:


> Wow, Charest.
> 
> Now there's an interesting contender. Probably much closer to my own values, someone I likely could vote for... that's assuming the Reform/Alliance guys support him.
> 
> This would be an interesting shift towards the more "old school" PC party, which I'd love to see, but I just don't know if the "Republican" types in the party want that.


Yes, a contender that both the West (hates Québec) and Québec itself wouldn't vote for to save their lives.

I don't have high hopes for this fake conservative.

Can't wait for Poilievre to crash and burn !


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

andrewf said:


> I still expect PP to win.


He definitely seems much closer to the populist / Reform Party style that's very fashionable in this new, cynical world.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> He definitely seems much closer to the populist / Reform Party style that's very fashionable in this new, cynical world.


PP is very good at pointing out Trudeaus flaws, and while that may make PP supporters happy, it isn't going to win over swing voters. Anyone who was going to vote against Trudeau because he's awful already has, it isn't like whipping them up more is going to get more votes.

Swing voters don't really seem to care how bad Trudeau is, they're the cynical ones who think politicians are pretty much all the same. To win them you have to show how you're better.

Trudeau loyalists.. nothing is going to change their minds.
Trudeau is arguably one of the worst leaders in modern history, with more scandals, obvious mistakes, and outright stupid behaviour, yet he seems to skate through it without a worry.
His antics have single handedly isolated Canada on the world stage.. but he's still there.


----------

