# Election 2019



## sags

Writ gets dropped today...........game on.

_Now is the time for all good people to come to the aid of their party_

Nothing like an election to separate the wheat from the chaff.


----------



## kcowan

Here is hoping that many Canadians like me refuse to vote again for Trudeau in the hope that he would have the intelligence of his father. It appears that he only inherited his arrogance, and the bloody-minded desire to have his way at all costs to tax-paying Canadians.

Last time it was Anyone But Harper. This time, it is probably Green.


----------



## sags

Current Party seat count in Parliament (338 total........170 required for majority)

*Party Seats* 

Liberal 177	
Conservative 95	
New Democratic 39	
Bloc Québécois 10	
Green 2	
Co-operative Commonwealth Federation 1	
People's 1	
Independent 8	
Vacant 5	

Total 338


----------



## sags

To form a majority government :

The Liberals can only lose 7 seats.

The Conservatives must gain 75 seats.

None of the other parties have any realistic chance of gaining a majority government.


----------



## jargey3000

....*MCGA*.....


----------



## MrMatt

I just hope the Conservatives realize that they need to understand Liberal voters.
They don't care about facts or logic. 
They need to find a way to reach them if they are to win.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

And they  don't care about obstruction of justice either.


----------



## nobleea

I would guess a liberal minority with the greens picking up some seats and being their backstop. Probably not good for the resource industry. Replace greens with NDP and the same thing happens.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

Yes, I think that is a real possibility. 

A government in Ottawa elected by and governing for vote-rich Ont-Que.

15% of young men unemployed in other parts of the country, but all we hear still is 'sunny days'.


----------



## sags

The last poll of polls showed a 70% chance of a Liberal government (either majority or minority) and a 30% chance of a Conservative government.

The odds of a Conservative majority fall to 11%, which is a pretty low point to start from. The NDP has said they won't support a PC government.

A lot can happen during a campaign and all parties will be hoping there is no new "bad news" of a major kind.

The Liberals are digging up some videos of Andrew Scheer during the leadership contest. 

His reformer rhetoric helped him defeat social Conservatives, but is going to hinder him in this general election.

He is going to have to either disavow his previous statements to his supporters or live with the message and hope Canadians support it.


----------



## MrMatt

The thing is Conservatives need something other than the scandals and recent blocking of RCMP investigations.

I think they have to get a positive message out. It is likely the Liberals have a few more scandals, but I wouldn't bet the election on hoping they'll pop up in the next 30 days.


----------



## sags

MrMatt said:


> I just hope the Conservatives realize that they need to understand Liberal voters.
> They don't care about facts or logic.
> They need to find a way to reach them if they are to win.


The latest video of Andrew Scheer posted by the Liberals shows him telling a group of conservatives the way to cut social programs is to find a way to tell Canadians that is what they would do. 

I_n the video, Scheer says the party has an election to win and that some past Conservative governments have had a hard-edged tone to cuts. He also said that while cuts are important, the party has to be “very, very careful how we communicate that to people.”

“We can make the case for spending cuts, absolutely,” Scheer said, before the video cuts off.
_
He probably shouldn't have said that in public. It has gone viral on Twitter.

https://ipolitics.ca/2019/09/09/liberals-say-video-proves-scheer-plans-to-cut-government-services/


----------



## nobleea

MrMatt said:


> The thing is Conservatives need something other than the scandals and recent blocking of RCMP investigations.
> 
> I think they have to get a positive message out. It is likely the Liberals have a few more scandals, but I wouldn't bet the election on hoping they'll pop up in the next 30 days.


Yes, they need to show how good they are. Not how bad the other team is. People who already believe in why their team is good arent going to be swayed by that.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

Choose Forward? 
If you were driving, instead of being driven around, you'd know we can choose 'D' for drive and 'R' for reverse. There is no 'F' for forward.


----------



## sags

So I went down to the local Goodwill to have a browse around, and there were CBC trucks, CTV trucks and Global TV trucks all over.

Around back was the NDP campaign bus. It looks like they are going to open their campaign in London, Ontario.

Didn't see the Jagster though. I think he was on the bus because there were 3 people guarding the door.

Lots of activity but not a huge crowd yet. Maybe a dozen people sitting around the area.

I didn't hang around to meet him, but if it were JT, we would be sipping coffee while we talked about a feasibility study by the CPPIB to increase benefits.

Retirees have been left out the last few years.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

Not sure where you are coming from Sags, but CPP is a indexed DB pension - you get out what you put in. Then you layer OAS on top of it, and maybe GIS if you are still low income. What's the problem?
On the other hand, CPP premiums were increased and I know the CFIB feels that scheduled increases of +20% over the next few years are going to make payroll taxes increasingly onerous.


----------



## Prairie Guy

Imagine how many votes corrupt Trudeau would lose if CBC was unbiased.


----------



## sags

The CPP is well ahead of all their previous benchmarks. 

There is a lot more money in the fund than they have been projecting there would be for years. The benefits are based on those projections.

The money belongs to those who contributed to it, and they should benefit from any surplus. There is no reason for the CPPIB not to study the situation.


----------



## sags

DB pensions pay out a lot more than people contribute.

They also pay out investment returns earned on the contributions over decades.

My wife's HOOPP pension estimates that 80% of their benefit has been earned by investments.

Every HOOPP member (retired and active) has an average value of $225,000 in the fund. Of course the amount would vary individual to individual.

None of the HOOPP member contributed anywhere near that amount.

The CPPIB has not done a study on the feasibility of raising benefits because they say it is beyond their mandate. It is a political decision.

It wouldn't hurt to complete an in-depth feasibility study occasionally to see if benefits should be increased or lowered.


----------



## sags

People paying the increased CPP contributions will receive increased benefits.

People who already contributed and retired, and whose money is invested and building the fund for decades, received no increase.

A valid question is at what point is the CPP "overfunded" to pay current benefit levels ?

$400 billion......$500 billion.....$1 Trillion.......

It is something that should be studied since higher CPP benefits would mean lower GIS spending would be paid out of general revenues.


----------



## MrMatt

Prairie Guy said:


> Imagine how many votes corrupt Trudeau would lose if CBC was unbiased.


We can wish for a fair and unbiased media, an intelligent and properly educated electorate and all that, but that's not the game we're playing.


----------



## sags

MrMatt said:


> We can wish for a fair and unbiased media, an intelligent and properly educated electorate and all that, but that's not the game we're playing.


Unless you win. Then it's different.


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> MrMatt said:
> 
> 
> 
> We can wish for a fair and unbiased media, an intelligent and properly educated electorate and all that, but that's not the game we're playing.
> 
> 
> 
> Unless you win. Then it's different.
Click to expand...

?
I don't expect the media to suddenly become unbiased, or the voters to magically become informed and vote rationally no matter who wins.


My point is we have to be realistic about what is going on, and act accordingly.


----------



## james4beach

Talking about "what's going"... I think we already know, as seen from yesterday's Manitoba election results as well.
https://www.electionsmanitoba.ca/en/Results/ENR

Manitoba only has 1 big city, but I think the pattern has been shown time and again through Canada & US. City centers tend to vote more liberal/left, and suburbs and rural areas tend to vote more conservative/right.

Click around that map to see what I mean. I was actually very surprised by this, considering the strength of the PC win. And yet, just about all Winnipeg ridings are left-leaning. You have to start getting out to Fort White to start seeing PC votes. Those are areas skirting farmland, new developments in deep suburbs. There is still farm land out here... they are brand new housing developments.

And click anywhere in rural MB and it's PC, obviously. I realize these are provincial politics but I think it extends to federal.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

Yes it was an interesting polarity, Winnipeg proper plus the 4 northern ridings to Wab and the NDP, environs and the south to Pallister,
A strong majority with a healthy opposition to keep them 'honest'.


----------



## MrMatt

> Manitoba only has 1 big city, but I think the pattern has been shown time and again through Canada & US. City centers tend to vote more liberal/left, and suburbs and rural areas tend to vote more conservative/right.


It's a simple mindset/personality. 

If you live rural you tend to be self reliant and willing to be responsible for yourself. 
If you're in the city you can't be self reliant as you are reliant on others for everything, so you want the government to take care of you, and you vote leftie.


----------



## james4beach

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> Yes it was an interesting polarity, Winnipeg proper plus the 4 northern ridings to Wab and the NDP, environs and the south to Pallister


There is also a very strong correlation between type of vehicle and those political leanings. I know these areas of Winnipeg well, and in those PC ridings, everywhere you look it's SUVs and trucks.

Like they all got a memo or something.


----------



## Prairie Guy

MrMatt said:


> It's a simple mindset/personality.
> 
> If you live rural you tend to be self reliant and willing to be responsible for yourself.
> If you're in the city you can't be self reliant as you are reliant on others for everything, so you want the government to take care of you, and you vote leftie.


Exactly.


----------



## Prairie Guy

james4beach said:


> There is also a very strong correlation between type of vehicle and those political leanings. I know these areas of Winnipeg well, and in those PC ridings, everywhere you look it's SUVs and trucks.
> 
> Like they all got a memo or something.


It makes sense because SUV's and trucks are useful for self reliant people who get things done on their own. I owned a truck for years and it was very useful when I was doing major renos on my house. Lumber, drywall, doors and windows, etc.

On the other hand most people who take public transit vote left. They rely on someone else drive them around. They're also more likely to rent and let someone else buy the home or apartment and they just call them to fix things when they break. So, their landlord has a truck for runs to the home center. The renter has no need for a truck because they'll never buy lumber or drywall.


----------



## james4beach

Interesting ^ notes. That also can explain the stronger individualism and selfishness, lack of appreciation for the need to pay taxes and support your fellow man, and even lack of concern for environmental concerns.

For a person to have concern about the environment, they have to recognize that their own actions impact others, and can cause harm.

Suburban and rural lifestyles consume the highest fossil fuels by far, with massive carbon footprints. Compared to other citizens, these are people heavily contributing to pollution, carbon emissions and climate change, and very likely endangering the lives of future Canadian children. With an individual mindset however, and lack of concern for "society at large", these environmental concerns will not stop them from choosing this high-consumption lifestyle.

Reminds me of that rural Oregonian who pulled the shotgun on me when I stepped on his property. A guy like that doesn't care about the mutual benefits of people in society supporting each other with taxes & services, or that his high-consumption lifestyle is hurting future generations. All he's thinking is "get the hell off ma property and leave me alone!"

Then he hops in his truck to go buy some lumber, proud of his self reliance, as Prairie Guy explains.


----------



## Prairie Guy

When the left stops using air travel for vacations then they can criticize about the environment.

I drove a 4 cylinder truck and fixed my own house (a fixer in bad shape) rather than building a new one. I also lived 4 km from work (by choice) and drove an average of 6000 kms a year. I'm pretty sure that my carbon footprint over my life was far less than most people who claim to be environmentally conscious. I did sit beside someone at work who bragged about owning a Prius who had also just moved 50km outside the city.


----------



## sags

I think levels of education, diversity of population, employment opportunities, incomes,......and a host of other reasons are bigger factors.


----------



## james4beach

Prairie Guy said:


> I drove a 4 cylinder truck and fixed my own house (a fixer in bad shape) rather than building a new one. I also lived 4 km from work (by choice) and drove an average of 6000 kms a year. I'm pretty sure that my carbon footprint over my life was far less than most people who claim to be environmentally conscious. I did sit beside someone at work who bragged about owning a Prius who had also just moved 50km outside the city.


Good point, and your lifestyle sounds very efficient.

But I think the point about "mindset" still applies. As you point out, very suburban and rural people like to think of themselves as self-reliant. There is a certain amount of individualism that factors into people's views on taxation, government services, and just the role of government period.


----------



## Prairie Guy

james4beach said:


> Good point, and your lifestyle sounds very efficient.
> 
> But I think the point about "mindset" still applies. As you point out, very suburban and rural people like to think of themselves as self-reliant. There is a certain amount of individualism that factors into people's views on taxation, government services, and just the role of government period.


The self reliant people I know tend to prefer a limited government because they can (or think they can) do things better and more efficiently on their own. We all know that some taxes have to be paid for police, roads, schools, etc., but the government doesn't have to control everything. That tends to create a society of dependency.


----------



## sags

All four parties off to a start today.

The only "policy" agenda I heard was from the NDP.

Universal pharmacare, dental care and mental health care.

NDP 1 --------Libs, Tories, NDP, Green------0


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

james4beach said:


> ... Suburban and rural lifestyles consume the highest fossil fuels by far... these are people heavily contributing to pollution, carbon emissions and climate change, and *very likely endangering the lives of future Canadian children*...


Wow, can you explain how you reached that very likely conclusion.

Should we pack up all the rural folk and move them into the city where they can join the Dollarama and Costco shoppers. Let the fields go fallow and live on canned soup?


----------



## jargey3000

...dont tell me i gotta watch sophie pretentiously clasping her hands in prayer, or over her heart, for the next 40 days??


----------



## jargey3000

...and poor andrew sheer needs to dress a bit snapper, a bit sharper...needs a new fashion advisor...he always looks kinda frumpy to me...these things matter..
...get some socks...brown shoes...he's got decent hair, though (lol)- let it grow out a bit...loosen the tie, take off the jacket, roll up the sleeves...PRETEND you're workin', b'y....


----------



## MrMatt

james4beach said:


> Interesting ^ notes. That also can explain the stronger individualism and selfishness, lack of appreciation for the need to pay taxes and support your fellow man, and even lack of concern for environmental concerns.
> 
> For a person to have concern about the environment, they have to recognize that their own actions impact others, and can cause harm.
> 
> Suburban and rural lifestyles consume the highest fossil fuels by far, with massive carbon footprints. Compared to other citizens, these are people heavily contributing to pollution, carbon emissions and climate change, and very likely endangering the lives of future Canadian children. With an individual mindset however, and lack of concern for "society at large", these environmental concerns will not stop them from choosing this high-consumption lifestyle.
> 
> Reminds me of that rural Oregonian who pulled the shotgun on me when I stepped on his property. A guy like that doesn't care about the mutual benefits of people in society supporting each other with taxes & services, or that his high-consumption lifestyle is hurting future generations. All he's thinking is "get the hell off ma property and leave me alone!"
> 
> Then he hops in his truck to go buy some lumber, proud of his self reliance, as Prairie Guy explains.


Need to pay taxes?
Some of it, but a lot of tax money is wasted, and that's the problem.

Or it isn't fairly distributed.
There is no reason that vote rich Toronto has some of the lowest property tax rates in the country, yet gets billions in funding for municipal infrastructure.

But the system works for them, and they don't care about the rest of the country.


----------



## andrewf

MrMatt said:


> It's a simple mindset/personality.
> 
> If you live rural you tend to be self reliant and willing to be responsible for yourself.
> If you're in the city you can't be self reliant as you are reliant on others for everything, so you want the government to take care of you, and you vote leftie.


I think maybe it is more that living close together requires more collaboration and collective action. I mean, cities are where most wealth is generated. You can try to spin it as a bunch of lazy grifters, but you can also say that better educated people are more likely to be more liberal. I don't know if you really want to play this game--there are personality studies that identify unflattering characteristics that are predictive of conservative beliefs.


----------



## andrewf

Prairie Guy said:


> When the left stops using air travel for vacations then they can criticize about the environment.
> 
> I drove a 4 cylinder truck and fixed my own house (a fixer in bad shape) rather than building a new one. I also lived 4 km from work (by choice) and drove an average of 6000 kms a year. I'm pretty sure that my carbon footprint over my life was far less than most people who claim to be environmentally conscious. I did sit beside someone at work who bragged about owning a Prius who had also just moved 50km outside the city.


If you had a lower than average carbon footprint, why do you have such a hate on for a carbon tax & dividend approach? It would have made you better off, which should appeal to your self-serving sensibilities. (comment mostly made in jest)


----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> I think maybe it is more that living close together requires more collaboration and collective action. I mean, cities are where most wealth is generated. You can try to spin it as a bunch of lazy grifters, but you can also say that better educated people are more likely to be more liberal. I don't know if you really want to play this game--there are personality studies that identify unflattering characteristics that are predictive of conservative beliefs.


I'm aware of some of the research, but that wasn't my point.

Yes, living close requires collective action.
I'm not saying that they're lazy grifters, I'm saying that their very interdependancy is part of a feedback loop, encouraging less and less individual autonomy, and a corresponding lack of personal responsibility.
Even if you're naturally inclined to be an individual, if the government pays you, and provides your transportation, and housing, and food. You're going to support that system.

With regards to personality I see that part of the problem with those that want to restructure society is their lack of respect for the foundations of our society.
I think this is a serious concern as they're actively working to change these structures and not fully considering the impacts of these actions.
While not perfect, we have it really good, much better than most of the world, and far better than at any other time in history.

There are no solutions, only trade-offs.
Since different people in different circumstances consider the consequences differently, of course they'll come to different answers.


----------



## Eder

andrewf said:


> I mean, cities are where most wealth is generated. Y.


Sorry....in Canada most wealth is generated in Ft McMurray area...some $480 billion which has gone down the drain to numerous city folk...of course that may seem racist to some...heres to ya!


----------



## andrewf

Only $500 billion. Private wealth in Canada is upwards of $10 trillion.


----------



## james4beach

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> Wow, can you explain how you reached that very likely conclusion.
> 
> Should we pack up all the rural folk and move them into the city where they can join the Dollarama and Costco shoppers. Let the fields go fallow and live on canned soup?


There's higher fossil fuel consumption and carbon footprint in suburban and rural areas. Just higher usage of everything general, outside of densely packed cities. That includes fresh water consumption, energy use, and carbon emissions.

How much higher (suburban vs dense city) is a matter of debate and it seems to also depend a lot on the size of home. Suburban and rural people have larger homes, thus consuming more resources & emitting more in total. Dense cities with small dwelling like New York City and Toronto appear to be some of the most efficient.

Those consuming more fresh water and emitting more CO2 are contributing more than average to various environmental problems, including climate change.

People considering living in giant houses with giant pools, big gardens, and long commutes should seriously think about the impacts of their lifestyle choices.

It probably wasn't fair of me to say that "rural" people are contributing more to these problems. It's probably more accurate to say that "rich people with big houses" are the ones contributing the most to the problems. Rich people are also the ones flying the most, another big contributor.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

very likely endangering the lives of future Canadian children...


----------



## james4beach

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> very likely endangering the lives of future Canadian children...


Sadly, yes. Everything we are doing that contributes to climate change is probably harming future generations, and Canadian children.

I contribute to the problem as well. Though I have a small home and don't drive much, I also fly a lot, with big emissions from that.

You might say it's a small effect, but we are still contributing to long term harm. Canada and US have very high carbon emissions per person, about double that of both the UK and China. So yes, on a per-person basis, we absolutely are guilty of contributing to a global problem.

Where rich people with big houses and high-consumption lifestyles are causing the most harm, _far above_ global averages.


----------



## condor

I read the posts on this topic....the only thing that gives me peace of mind is that everybody lives a long life to finally see that this climate change is a hoax...simple silly hoax picked up by people who see themselves as a true progressive and being facilitated, encouraged by the social platforms.
I have read grown mature adults doing pentance for drving his car...feeling guilty for flying. Can you imagine a statement like that 15 years ago being made...well you know what the response would have been. This silliness is affecting society in ways nobody could ever imagined...woman not wanting to have children.......REALLY....school chilren struggling in school as they fear they have no future.....REALLY......intelligent men going foaming at the mouth if you are a denier......REALLY......extiniction society in the UK shutting down all gains of the 21 century.....REALLY....cities declaring a climate meltdown emergency.........REALLY.......enviromental groups trying to move us back to the horse buggy era....REALLY. What you have here is an infection of world wide hysteria....1 lemming jumps off the cliff and others jump not ever knowing why the first one went over tne cliff....they just follow like a plague of mindless zombies.
You will notice i dont quote any study from anybody or any organization....i just use.....dare i say...COMMON SENSE......a rare item these days...indeed.
I dont expect any common sense rebutals...again a very rare item
Live long and prosper.:smiley_simmons::smiley_simmons::smiley_simmons:

I


----------



## james4beach

See you at the election, condor. We all get to vote.

I'm a scientist and have reviewed enough material to convince me that climate change is a real problem.


----------



## condor

Jamie boyhead just proved my point...no intelligent rebutal forth coming....and what the hell does voting have to do with this issue...both major parties are infected.


----------



## james4beach

condor said:


> Jamie boyhead just proved my point...no intelligent rebutal forth coming....and what the hell does voting have to do with this issue...both major parties are infected.


Isn't there some wacko climate change denial, conspiracy theory party you can vote for? Or is everyone in Canadian politics "infected" with good sense?


----------



## Prairie Guy

andrewf said:


> If you had a lower than average carbon footprint, why do you have such a hate on for a carbon tax & dividend approach? It would have made you better off, which should appeal to your self-serving sensibilities. (comment mostly made in jest)


Because a carbon tax is just another tax. It has nothing to do with science or the climate.


----------



## MrMatt

james4beach said:


> See you at the election, condor. We all get to vote.
> 
> I'm a scientist and have reviewed enough material to convince me that climate change is a real problem.


Okay, I'm an educated professional and have reviewed enough material to know that the current climate change plan being implemented by the government does not have a good cost/benefit ratio.
Because it is a bad plan, I don't think we should implement it, and I think we should scrap it.


----------



## jargey3000

condor said:


> I read the posts on this topic....the only thing that gives me peace of mind is that everybody lives a long life to finally see that this climate change is a hoax...simple silly hoax picked up by people who see themselves as a true progressive and being facilitated, encouraged by the social platforms.
> I have read grown mature adults doing pentance for drving his car...feeling guilty for flying. Can you imagine a statement like that 15 years ago being made...well you know what the response would have been. This silliness is affecting society in ways nobody could ever imagined...woman not wanting to have children.......REALLY....school chilren struggling in school as they fear they have no future.....REALLY......intelligent men going foaming at the mouth if you are a denier......REALLY......extiniction society in the UK shutting down all gains of the 21 century.....REALLY....cities declaring a climate meltdown emergency.........REALLY.......enviromental groups trying to move us back to the horse buggy era....REALLY. What you have here is an infection of world wide hysteria....1 lemming jumps off the cliff and others jump not ever knowing why the first one went over tne cliff....they just follow like a plague of mindless zombies.
> You will notice i dont quote any study from anybody or any organization....i just use.....dare i say...COMMON SENSE......a rare item these days...indeed.
> I dont expect any common sense rebutals...again a very rare item
> Live long and prosper.:smiley_simmons::smiley_simmons::smiley_simmons:
> 
> I


well put condor.....exceptI would add my ongoing mantra that....OF COURSE the climate is changing....always has been, always will.....What's misguided and naive is the idea that something so insignificant as the human race can somehow exert changing influence over Mother Nature.....just ask the poor people of the Bahamas....
And before anyone chimes in & says "oh, you're going to see more of this or more of that as we destroy the universe with plastic straws etc." ...I say hogwash. Natural disasters have been happening forever! The only thing different now is that we have the means to witness, report and record these events as they happen, which didnt have in thr past, making them seem more regularly occurring & more intense. So please dont put me down as a "denier"...
If I'm wrong, would the climate-change crowd PLEASE tweak things a bit...to make the summers in NL a bit longer, a bit sunnier & a bit warmer.....our climate here NEVER seems to change....its pretty shi**y all the time!


----------



## james4beach

MrMatt said:


> Okay, I'm an educated professional and have reviewed enough material to know that the current climate change plan being implemented by the government does not have a good cost/benefit ratio.
> Because it is a bad plan, I don't think we should implement it, and I think we should scrap it.


Fair enough! I'm thankful that we live in a democracy.


----------



## Mechanic

The carbon tax drives me nuts. I understand there are concerns with climate change but Canada is a very small contributor to the worldwide emissions, that is partially contributing to climate changes. Meanwhile, Canadians are supposed to bear the brunt of more taxes to try and change this ? All I see happening is Canadian pockets being rifled to fill the trough of greedy, overpaid politicians.


----------



## Eder

andrewf said:


> Only $500 billion. Private wealth in Canada is upwards of $10 trillion.


I'm sure if you wanted to you could estimate the worth of our energy business including the spin off effect but I doubt you would want to view the results.


----------



## james4beach

Mechanic said:


> The carbon tax drives me nuts. I understand there are concerns with climate change but Canada is a very small contributor to the worldwide emissions


On a per capita basis, we are actually one of the largest CO2 emitters in the world. The only developed countries which exceed our levels per capita are Australia, USA, Luxembourg.

Everyone else, e.g. people in France, UK, have much lower CO2 emissions than us per capita.

Each of us individually in Canada are major contributors, so it's completely reasonable that we take efforts to push our emissions levels lower.


----------



## MrMatt

james4beach said:


> Everyone else, e.g. people in France, UK, have much lower CO2 emissions than us per capita.
> 
> Each of us individually in Canada are major contributors, so it's completely reasonable that we take efforts to push our emissions levels lower.


Yes, higher population density countries in warmer areas have lower emissions, that's not surprising.
Of course we should take reasonable measures, nobody disagrees with that. 
What is your point?


----------



## Mechanic

james4beach said:


> On a per capita basis, we are actually one of the largest CO2 emitters in the world. The only developed countries which exceed our levels per capita are Australia, USA, Luxembourg.
> 
> Everyone else, e.g. people in France, UK, have much lower CO2 emissions than us per capita.
> 
> Each of us individually in Canada are major contributors, so it's completely reasonable that we take efforts to push our emissions levels lower.


----------



## sags

A majority of the voters in almost all the electoral ridings support the carbon tax and say climate change is an important issue for them.

There are a few riding that are held by Conservatives.....Fort McMurray being one example, where the majority are against the carbon tax.

It would appear the other parties are more closely aligned with the voters than the Conservatives. 

The Conservatives may have to drop their policy of eliminating the carbon tax.


----------



## sags

Another "anti-abortion" video by a Conservative candidate in Ontario has surfaced. Andrew Scheer was forced to address this issue first thing today.

The candidate was very involved with the anti-abortion movement and said she would work to overturn the law.

Andrew Scheer has to categorically state he will not allow private member bills to change the law. His reluctance questions his credibility on the issue.


----------



## Mechanic

sags said:


> A majority of the voters in almost all the electoral ridings support the carbon tax and say climate change is an important issue for them.
> 
> There are a few riding that are held by Conservatives.....Fort McMurray being one example, where the majority are against the carbon tax.
> 
> It would appear the other parties are more closely aligned with the voters than the Conservatives.
> 
> The Conservatives may have to drop their policy of eliminating the carbon tax.


I am very surprised by this. I do not believe the majority of people support the carbon tax. I believe the majority of people realize the carbon tax is just another tax.


----------



## nobleea

The conservatives can drop the carbon tax if they wish, but I need to see a firm plan for meeting paris accord agreements before I vote for them.
I think a carbon tax is the best way to do it, but I don't think they're being aggressive enough. And eliminate almost all of the rebates except for those that qualify for GST rebates due to income.
Make $100/ton or more. Maybe rebate all of it back the first year, then prorate it down to nothing over 4 years.
Any tax money goes in to an innovation fund. Hold x-prize type competitions for CCS concepts, energy efficiency improvements, etc rather than this silly grant system.

I work in the O&G industry in AB and have for the past 20 years.

Compare our per capita GHG emmission to Norway for example. Theyre at 9.3 and we're at 15 something. Similar climate, density, they have a large O&G industry, probably larger than ours on a per capita basis.


----------



## james4beach

nobleea said:


> The conservatives can drop the carbon tax if they wish, but I need to see a firm plan for meeting paris accord agreements before I vote for them.
> I think a carbon tax is the best way to do it, but I don't think they're being aggressive enough.


I agree. Taxing carbon emissions is a solid approach, and will discourage high emissions behaviours (which is the point). And I also agree the current amounts are not aggressive enough. However, I think it was sensible of Trudeau to start with a palatable level, including the rebates. Carbon taxes should increase over time to really make a difference.



> I work in the O&G industry in AB and have for the past 20 years.
> 
> Compare our per capita GHG emmission to Norway for example. Theyre at 9.3 and we're at 15 something. Similar climate, density, they have a large O&G industry, probably larger than ours on a per capita basis.


Thanks for sharing.


----------



## MrMatt

The problem is that a carbon tax sufficient to change behaviour would be catastrophic to out countries economic competitiveness.
Look at how ineffective the TOU (time of use) electricity pricing was in shifting power consumption in Ontario. They will send out a very nice report if you ask. 

So I have a 3 point critique. 
1. The tax won't change behaviour at current levels. 
1b. At the sufficiently high rates to change behaviour it is economically disasterous. 
2. Even if Canada significantly cut emissions there would be no significant impact. 
3. Global warming is good for Canada.


Given those 3 points I see it as bad policy.


----------



## condor

Nobleea....great plan...now please give ....EXACT....details how this carbon TAX...will somehow by magic lower the carbon emissions.....which in self is not a problem.
Case ...man commutes to work...10km....now impose your magic carbon bullet...he still has to drive 10km to work...only thing that shows change 
is disposable money for survival has dropped.
How can Liberal carbon tax work...oh wait i see it...its the shell game...put carbon tax on....lunatics all happy...world saved......then give carbon tax money back...oops...maybe not really saved. Its hard to fathom the logic that Liberals just piss their pants on because they are truly the ones to bring us into the mind.


----------



## nobleea

MrMatt said:


> The problem is that a carbon tax sufficient to change behaviour would be catastrophic to out countries economic competitiveness.
> Look at how ineffective the TOU (time of use) electricity pricing was in shifting power consumption in Ontario. They will send out a very nice report if you ask.
> 
> So I have a 3 point critique.
> 1. The tax won't change behaviour at current levels.
> 1b. At the sufficiently high rates to change behaviour it is economically disasterous.
> 2. Even if Canada significantly cut emissions there would be no significant impact.
> 3. Global warming is good for Canada.
> 
> 
> Given those 3 points I see it as bad policy.


On the aggregate, yes climate change will likely be good for canadians. We'll have shorter winters and more growing season.
But balance that with far more and more aggressive natural disasters. More intense and larger forest fires making outdoor living impossible for many weeks, more variability in sun and rain amounts. A northern coast that will quickly be quite busy and for which we are unprepared. And most likely, many many climate refugees who will be looking for somewhere nice to move to. Maybe they come from flooded or stormed out areas, or maybe it's areas of war that got to a war zone through climate change. If you thought there were too many syrian refugees, just wait.

Many people are right, there's probably not much we can do about it. It's going to happen regardless if we do something or not.


----------



## nobleea

condor said:


> Nobleea....great plan...now please give ....EXACT....details how this carbon TAX...will somehow by magic lower the carbon emissions.....which in self is not a problem.
> Case ...man commutes to work...10km....now impose your magic carbon bullet...he still has to drive 10km to work...only thing that shows change
> is disposable money for survival has dropped.
> How can Liberal carbon tax work...oh wait i see it...its the shell game...put carbon tax on....lunatics all happy...world saved......then give carbon tax money back...oops...maybe not really saved. Its hard to fathom the logic that Liberals just piss their pants on because they are truly the ones to bring us into the mind.


I have an F150. I drive about 8km each way to work and back. If gas cost more due to carbon taxes, I absolutely would get an electric vehicle or a hybrid. We would probably install a solar PV system to take advantage of ABs abundant sunshine.

I agree that the rebates are pretty useless at achieving the objective. and as Mr MAtt points out, the level is too low currently to change behavior.


----------



## Eder

nobleea said:


> Compare our per capita GHG emmission to Norway for example. Theyre at 9.3 and we're at 15 something. Similar climate, density, they have a large O&G industry, probably larger than ours on a per capita basis.


Since you work in O&G you would realize the North Sea production of oil is not comparable to land based production of oil in Alberta.Different product. Why wouldn't you compare us with Nigeria,Venezuela, California or Mexico...those countries whose production will rise if ours subsides...


----------



## condor

Dose nobbe really believe we are that stupid to consider that gibberish..forest fires....climate refugees...as an argument to prove his point of carbon tax....go into the case of the guy driving 10km to work....when you explain that with how it will work.....THAT IS A REBUTAL...not that kind sillimess in your last post.


----------



## condor

So...let me see if i got this...buy an electric car...charge it up at a fence post??.....oh wait you need electricity...that comes from coal..natural gas or hydro power. Any savings of this carbon silliness is null and void considering .. useing .
.electricity 
Canada could shut down...every factory..home heating...cars...trucks...trains...airplane....everything...just go dark....the difference that it would make in the 1.6 we generate as a country...well it would be so small it would be hard to even measure the minisclue amount....has Canada gone completly rabid!!


----------



## nobleea

condor said:


> So...let me see if i got this...buy an electric car...charge it up at a fence post??.....oh wait you need electricity...that comes from coal..natural gas or hydro power. Any savings of this carbon silliness is null and void considering .. useing .
> .electricity


You seem to have an issue with reading comprehension.
I said I would get PV panels installed. Or switch to the green plan for our power provider. Most of the power providers around here now offer a green plan which comes from renewable sources. Costs a few cents more per kWh.
You'd need about a 1KW PV system to keep an EV charged up through the year, based on 20km round trip commute per day, which is what I do. That would cost about 2-3K installed with current rebates. Given a life of 10yrs, that's $300 a year cost for the panels. That'd be the equivalent of 40c/L gas. Doesnt take in to account that the EV is more expensive to begin with, so in the end, it's probably a wash.


----------



## like_to_retire

nobleea said:


> I have an F150.


I have a bicycle. I do have a little car, but it usually just sits unused in the driveway week after week and I take my bike or I walk to get my groceries.

Isn't an 6000 pound F150 a bit of a polluter?

I'm feeling a bit like when Leonardo DiCaprio lectures me on climate change from his yacht.

ltr


----------



## nobleea

like_to_retire said:


> I have a bicycle. I do have a little car, but it usually just sits unused in the driveway week after week and I take my bike or I walk to get my groceries.
> 
> Isn't an 6000 pound F150 a bit of a polluter?
> 
> I'm feeling a bit like when Leonardo DiCaprio lectures me on climate change from his yacht.
> 
> ltr


I get the same or better gas mileage than most minivans, which is what we'd need for a family of 3 kids. It has the small 2.7L EB engine in it, and I get 22-24mpg in the city and 28-30mpg on the hwy. However, I don't think the gas mileage matters as much as how often its used. WE choose to live central and very close to our works, thus we don't purchase much gas over the course of a year.


----------



## like_to_retire

nobleea said:


> I get the same or better gas mileage than most minivans, which is what we'd need for a family of 3 kids. It has the small 2.7L EB engine in it, and I get 22-24mpg in the city and 28-30mpg on the hwy. However, I don't think the gas mileage matters as much as how often its used. WE choose to live central and very close to our works, thus we don't purchase much gas over the course of a year.


OK Leonardo, shall we compare this monster to my bicycle? I'm glad you feel good about it.

ltr


----------



## nobleea

like_to_retire said:


> OK Leonardo, shall we compare this monster to my bicycle? I'm glad you feel good about it.
> 
> ltr


Let me know how many preschoolers you can fit on your bicycle. Is that with or without car seats?

I know you guys are all older, but they have colour tv's now. You're all looking in black and white. There's no middle ground.


----------



## like_to_retire

nobleea said:


> Let me know how many preschoolers you can fit on your bicycle.


Ahh OK, I see. You have so many preschoolers that you need a 6000 pound Ford F150 to get them to school each day.

Could this not be accomplished in a sensible compact car like the rest of us Conservative old men own?

ltr


----------



## nobleea

like_to_retire said:


> Ahh OK, I see. You have so many preschoolers that you need a 6000 pound Ford F150 to get them to school each day.
> 
> Could this not be accomplished in a sensible compact car like the rest of us Conservative old men own?
> 
> ltr


Sure, maybe I could get an Impreza or something like that. HAve to buy specialty car seats to fit three across, but I guess that's a one time expense. Can't really fit the double stroller in the back though. city mileage in an impreza is 9L/100km. The truck gets 10L/100km. Plus we can actually pack stuff in the truck bed to go camping.


----------



## like_to_retire

nobleea said:


> Sure, maybe I could get an Impreza or something like that. HAve to buy specialty car seats to fit three across, but I guess that's a one time expense. Can't really fit the double stroller in the back though. city mileage in an impreza is 9L/100km. The truck gets 10L/100km. Plus we can actually pack stuff in the truck bed to go camping.


OK, so now these are the justifications that you and Leo and all the polluters use. Nice....

ltr


----------



## condor

Oops...i openned pandoras box...all the lunatics are running around lighting their hair on fire...so i have a simple challenge to all out there to validate this simple well known fact.
The group that claims we only have...18 months...5 years...10 years to live have completed their studies and findings.....BUT.....this is the same group who have stated more than once...that Canada going dark will have little or no impact on that 1.6 index number.
Think about that for a minute....so some are going solar....planet saved....others getting electric truck....planet saved again.....others moving into a cave...planet saved for third time.....eat planet food.no meat...saved again...this is so delightful..........REALLY??

Give your head a shake


----------



## Prairie Guy

nobleea said:


> On the aggregate, yes climate change will likely be good for canadians. We'll have shorter winters and more growing season.
> But balance that with far more and more aggressive natural disasters. More intense and larger forest fires making outdoor living impossible for many weeks, more variability in sun and rain amounts. A northern coast that will quickly be quite busy and for which we are unprepared. And most likely, many many climate refugees who will be looking for somewhere nice to move to. Maybe they come from flooded or stormed out areas, or maybe it's areas of war that got to a war zone through climate change. If you thought there were too many syrian refugees, just wait.
> 
> Many people are right, there's probably not much we can do about it. It's going to happen regardless if we do something or not.


Yup...a war zone due to climate change. Your other claims have all been proven wrong (although a longer growing season wold be nice) but that was by far the best one   

And some people wonder why the alarmists have little to no credibility and why climate change came 20th in a list of 20 on a UN poll.

But keep it up. It's good for a laugh every now and then and reminds those of us who have valid questions that we're on the right track.


----------



## sags

People who think Canada will become a tropical paradise are dreaming in technicolor.

There will be severe negative consequences for agriculture, clean water tables, forest fires, air quality, invasive species, increased health problems........to name a few.

Invasive species of plants and insects are already a growing problem in southern Canada and biologists say it will only get worse.

BC salmon fisheries are suffering from climate change damage. Drinking water for the city of Edmonton is threatened by climate change.

The northern tundra is melting and releasing centuries of stored methane gas. Roads are suffering from climate change damage.

People need to educate themselves and then form an opinion.


----------



## condor

Well...even saggy wont take up the challenge and facts of Canada going dark...everybody keeps repeating the same mantra...just like JT...ask him a question on the weather and he responds its his duty to protect jobs.
Why in the hell doesnt anybody expand on the simple challenge i put out...with Canada going ...DARK...it will have no....FU...ing difference.


----------



## RBull

james4beach said:


> On a per capita basis, we are actually one of the largest CO2 emitters in the world. The only developed countries which exceed our levels per capita are Australia, USA, Luxembourg.
> 
> Everyone else, e.g. people in France, UK, have much lower CO2 emissions than us per capita.
> 
> Each of us individually in Canada are major contributors, so it's completely reasonable that we take efforts to push our emissions levels lower.


Close but not quite. There are 9 countries higher, all of them smaller in population to us other than the US. It has to be considered we are a very large resource based country, with a small population and a cold climate. On the flip side I wonder what the benefit of our vast forests is for the world?

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/all-the-worlds-carbon-emissions-in-one-chart/


----------



## RBull

Now back on topic I am looking forward to seeing the debate tonight that Mr. Trudeau for some unexplained reason thinks he should skip. The same guy who ridiculed Mr. Harper for trying to avoid them. Apparently some things never change.


----------



## jargey3000

RBull said:


> Now back on topic I am looking forward to seeing the debate tonight that Mr. Trudeau for some unexplained reason thinks he should skip. The same guy who ridiculed Mr. Harper for trying to avoid them. Apparently some things never change.


...unfortunately I wont see the debate...I've chosen to watch some paint dry.....


----------



## andrewf

Prairie Guy said:


> Because a carbon tax is just another tax. It has nothing to do with science or the climate.


Any more objectionable than an income tax, or property tax?

I mean, there is merit in taxing CO2 if nothing else in that it is correlated with noxious pollution that incontrovertibly kills humans by the boatload: smog, fine particulates, etc. I guess I don't understand why some people are so enamoured with the idea of keeping the age of fossil fuels going. If you had access to a different solution that provided more or less all the benefits of fossil fuels but didn't have the associated pollution, would you oppose it? I guess this leads me to question whether most of those who oppose measures to disincentivize fossil fuel consumption are motivated by more personal financial interest. 

At the end of the day, I think the opposition is at best a stalling tactic. It looks likely that renewables and electrification are going to eat the fossil fuel industry for breakfast. It is just a matter of time. All we are arguing about is whether we should accelerate the timeline or try to delay it slightly. I mean, good luck competing with 1 penny/kwh renewables, or batteries at $50 or $25/kwh. The first is already here, the latter is likely within the decade.


----------



## andrewf

condor said:


> So...let me see if i got this...buy an electric car...charge it up at a fence post??.....oh wait you need electricity...that comes from coal..natural gas or hydro power. Any savings of this carbon silliness is null and void considering .. useing .
> .electricity
> Canada could shut down...every factory..home heating...cars...trucks...trains...airplane....everything...just go dark....the difference that it would make in the 1.6 we generate as a country...well it would be so small it would be hard to even measure the minisclue amount....has Canada gone completly rabid!!


In Ontario & Quebec, where most Canadians live, almost all electricity generation is carbon-free. And electric cars would mostly be charged off-peak/at night, whilst most fossil fuel burning is by peaker plants during peak times.


----------



## andrewf

nobleea said:


> The conservatives can drop the carbon tax if they wish, but I need to see a firm plan for meeting paris accord agreements before I vote for them.
> I think a carbon tax is the best way to do it, but I don't think they're being aggressive enough. And eliminate almost all of the rebates except for those that qualify for GST rebates due to income.
> Make $100/ton or more. Maybe rebate all of it back the first year, then prorate it down to nothing over 4 years.
> Any tax money goes in to an innovation fund. Hold x-prize type competitions for CCS concepts, energy efficiency improvements, etc rather than this silly grant system.
> 
> I work in the O&G industry in AB and have for the past 20 years.
> 
> Compare our per capita GHG emmission to Norway for example. Theyre at 9.3 and we're at 15 something. Similar climate, density, they have a large O&G industry, probably larger than ours on a per capita basis.


I don't think we need to be putting into 'innovation fund' type projects. I'd rather return it to taxpayers by rebating or reducing other taxes. I think the tax creates the market for innovation. Not opposed to primary research, etc., but to say Canada should be funnelling tens of billions of dollars to 'innovation' seems unwise, and likely to be quite economically harmful.


----------



## Eder

andrewf said:


> In Ontario & Quebec, where most Canadians live, almost all electricity generation is carbon-free. And electric cars would mostly be charged off-peak/at night, whilst most fossil fuel burning is by peaker plants during peak times.


You are forgetting activists dont consider nuclear or hydro green power...only solar & wind....neither of which amount to anything in Canada.


----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> Any more objectionable than an income tax, or property tax?
> 
> I mean, there is merit in taxing CO2 if nothing else in that it is correlated with noxious pollution that incontrovertibly kills humans by the boatload: smog, fine particulates, etc. I guess I don't understand why some people are so enamoured with the idea of keeping the age of fossil fuels going. If you had access to a different solution that provided more or less all the benefits of fossil fuels but didn't have the associated pollution, would you oppose it? I guess this leads me to question whether most of those who oppose measures to disincentivize fossil fuel consumption are motivated by more personal financial interest.
> 
> At the end of the day, I think the opposition is at best a stalling tactic. It looks likely that renewables and electrification are going to eat the fossil fuel industry for breakfast. It is just a matter of time. All we are arguing about is whether we should accelerate the timeline or try to delay it slightly. I mean, good luck competing with 1 penny/kwh renewables, or batteries at $50 or $25/kwh. The first is already here, the latter is likely within the decade.


Natural gas emits virtually no smog or fine particulate.
It's cheap, safe, and low environmental impact.

I don't see how we'll get to $0.01/kWh renewables, that's still an order of magnitude less than where we are today.


----------



## like_to_retire

andrewf said:


> ......electric cars would mostly be charged off-peak/at night, whilst most fossil fuel burning is by peaker plants during peak times.


I've often wondered how long the cheap overnight rates would last once everyone has their electric car plugged in.

ltr


----------



## sags

Was the debate broadcast outside of Ontario ? I didn't know CITY Television in Toronto was available across Canada.

I think that was the major reason Trudeau didn't participate. The commentators said it was very local and wouldn't draw a big audience across Canada.

Trudeau also has a full time job as PM, along with his election campaigning. The other leaders don't have those responsibilities.


----------



## hboy54

MrMatt said:


> I don't see how we'll get to $0.01/kWh renewables, that's still an order of magnitude less than where we are today.


I have actually designed and built small scale renewable systems. Even with most generous assumptions of California insolation levels, one battery and 20 year life span, I can't get even to 20 cents. This doesn't include any incidentals like wiring and fusing, support structure, land, design, or installation. All costing would undoubtedly land around 40 cents.

Now larger scale, could drop costs quite a bit, (or boondoggle: see NL and BC power plants, Ontario nuclear or gas plants etc.) but come on 1 cent? I call BS.

If 1 cent were true, economic arguements would kill the oil industry with absolutely no help needed from government imtervention. No need to campaign for or against carbon taxes, TMPL etc. The oil and gas industry would bankrupt and the environmentalists would sing Hallelujah.


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> Was the debate broadcast outside of Ontario ? I didn't know CITY Television in Toronto was available across Canada.
> 
> I think that was the major reason Trudeau didn't participate. The commentators said it was very local and wouldn't draw a big audience across Canada.
> 
> Trudeau also has a full time job as PM, along with his election campaigning. The other leaders don't have those responsibilities.


Yes it was available nationally.
He was campaigning in Edmonton, not running the country. 

Honestly I think it's a good strategy to not be open to criticism. Trudeau becomes less electable every time he opens his mouth.


----------



## Prairie Guy

andrewf said:


> Any more objectionable than an income tax, or property tax?


Yes. Everyone understands why we need income tax but a carbon tax is built on a lie.



> I mean, there is merit in taxing CO2 if nothing else in that it is correlated with noxious pollution that incontrovertibly kills humans by the boatload: smog, fine particulates, etc.


CO2 isn't a toxin or pollution and is completely different than smog or particulates. No one in history has ever died or even become ill from the CO2 in the atmosphere. Ever. No one in history has died or become ill from 1000 ppm of CO2 either.

But I understand why the alarmists try to link CO2 to pollution or smog...facts are against them so they have to lie and mislead people to sell their agenda.

CO2 is a building block of life on Earth. It's not pollution and it's not a toxin.


----------



## sags

It is long past time the Federal government put a stop to the excessive telecom charges that Canadians are forced to pay.

Over the years there have been lots of promises from all the parties, but nothing has been done.

We had unlimited data package until Rogers decided they weren't offering that anymore and restricted it to 500 gigs a month. 

That is a ridiculously low rate when many popular games require 80 or more gigs to download. The overage fee is a complete ripoff of $3 a gig...........nuts.

So, today the NDP promised to do something again. Call me a cynic..........

The Conservatives are pledging to bring back the 15% transit tax credit. It is better than nothing but isn't a big deal for many people.

The Liberals...........not much today so far.


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> We had unlimited data package until Rogers decided they weren't offering that anymore and restricted it to 500 gigs a month.
> 
> That is a ridiculously low rate when many popular games require 80 or more gigs to download. The overage fee is a complete ripoff of $3 a gig...........nuts.
> 
> The Liberals...........not much today so far.


If you're still using Rogers for internet, that's your fault. The third party guys have better policies, better rates, and are actually fighting to get access to the network.


----------



## jargey3000

MrMatt said:


> If you're still using Rogers for internet, that's your fault. The third party guys have better policies, better rates, and are actually fighting to get access to the network.


which third-party guy(s) would you recommend matt?


----------



## RBull

like_to_retire said:


> I've often wondered how long the cheap overnight rates would last once everyone has their electric car plugged in.
> 
> ltr


Plus its probably wrong to assume off peak rates are available everywhere. I may be mistaken but I believe only Ontario and Nova Scotia (very limited use, must have ETS heating) have off peak rates.


----------



## Spidey

sags said:


> It is long past time the Federal government put a stop to the excessive telecom charges that Canadians are forced to pay.
> 
> Over the years there have been lots of promises from all the parties, but nothing has been done.
> 
> We had unlimited data package until Rogers decided they weren't offering that anymore and restricted it to 500 gigs a month.
> 
> That is a ridiculously low rate when many popular games require 80 or more gigs to download. The overage fee is a complete ripoff of $3 a gig...........nuts.
> 
> So, today the NDP promised to do something again. Call me a cynic..........
> 
> The Conservatives are pledging to bring back the 15% transit tax credit. It is better than nothing but isn't a big deal for many people.
> 
> The Liberals...........not much today so far.


Who is forcing you to pay telecom charges? When did they become an essential service? When did computer gaming become an essential service? Most people can't understand how I can possibly survive without a cellphone but I seem to do just fine. Replaced Rogers cable with an attic antennae and I get 13 channels (half are French). Pay for internet of course but it doesn't seem to break the bank. I find it amusing that capitalists are often the ones most able to live a simplistic lifestyle.


----------



## andrewf

MrMatt said:


> Natural gas emits virtually no smog or fine particulate.
> It's cheap, safe, and low environmental impact.
> 
> I don't see how we'll get to $0.01/kWh renewables, that's still an order of magnitude less than where we are today.


Unsubsidized power purchase agreements that have been signed recently. Just a couple examples I could find quickly. This is a common trend.

2.35 US cent PV solar in Saudi
https://www.pv-tech.org/news/acwa-power-secures-financing-for-300mw-saudi-arabia-solar-project

1.45 Eurocents per kwh in Portugal
https://renewablesnow.com/news/akuo-wins-370-mw-in-portugals-pv-tender-with-a-record-low-bid-664968/

Renewables keep on getting inexorably cheaper. It may take longer in Canada than in arid equatorial areas, but would you want to be on the defense side of this trend?

At these prices, we might start seeing aluminum smelting migrating to the equator for the cheap power.


----------



## andrewf

Prairie Guy said:


> Yes. Everyone understands why we need income tax but a carbon tax is built on a lie.


There is nothing magic about taxing income that says we have to tax it. There was a time we didn't. It is just a convenient thing to tax and is halfway efficient enough to support modern state spending.




> CO2 isn't a toxin or pollution and is completely different than smog or particulates. No one in history has ever died or even become ill from the CO2 in the atmosphere. Ever. No one in history has died or become ill from 1000 ppm of CO2 either.
> 
> But I understand why the alarmists try to link CO2 to pollution or smog...facts are against them so they have to lie and mislead people to sell their agenda.
> 
> CO2 is a building block of life on Earth. It's not pollution and it's not a toxin.


Cool. Notice I didn't say anything that you are disagreeing with. It is true that burning fossil fuels results in both CO2 and some degree of other pollutants and so they are correlated. Yes, natural gas is cleaner.


----------



## andrewf

RBull said:


> Plus its probably wrong to assume off peak rates are available everywhere. I may be mistaken but I believe only Ontario and Nova Scotia (very limited use, must have ETS heating) have off peak rates.


Time of Use pricing is a good idea and should be implemented everywhere. There are also places where people cook their dinners on dung-fired stoves.


----------



## MrMatt

jargey3000 said:


> which third-party guy(s) would you recommend matt?


Any of them, personally I like Teksavvy, since they're one of the ones really fighting for the lower rates.
But start is also good, and there are many others.


----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> Unsubsidized power purchase agreements that have been signed recently. Just a couple examples I could find quickly. This is a common trend.
> 
> 2.35 US cent PV solar in Saudi
> https://www.pv-tech.org/news/acwa-power-secures-financing-for-300mw-saudi-arabia-solar-project
> 
> 1.45 Eurocents per kwh in Portugal
> https://renewablesnow.com/news/akuo-wins-370-mw-in-portugals-pv-tender-with-a-record-low-bid-664968/
> 
> Renewables keep on getting inexorably cheaper. It may take longer in Canada than in arid equatorial areas, but would you want to be on the defense side of this trend?
> 
> At these prices, we might start seeing aluminum smelting migrating to the equator for the cheap power.


Those aren't the actual prices. It's part of the story, and makes a great headline, but the actual cost is higher than the auction headline suggests.


"It’s a risky bet. Wood Mackenzie analysis suggests the Portuguese auction bidders would need to get wholesale power prices averaging at least €30 ($34) per megawatt-hour to get a positive equity internal rate of return (IRR)."
https://www.greentechmedia.com/arti...-is-key-in-latest-record-solar-bids#gs.31e8kn


----------



## Prairie Guy

Spidey said:


> I find it amusing that capitalists are often the ones most able to live a simplistic lifestyle.


Most capitalists tend to be people who can fend for themselves so they keep it simple and uncomplicated. Socialists always require someone else to provide housing, transportation, etc., so they have plenty of free time to watch 200 channels on TV.


----------



## andrewf

MrMatt said:


> Those aren't the actual prices. It's part of the story, and makes a great headline, but the actual cost is higher than the auction headline suggests.
> 
> 
> "It’s a risky bet. Wood Mackenzie analysis suggests the Portuguese auction bidders would need to get wholesale power prices averaging at least €30 ($34) per megawatt-hour to get a positive equity internal rate of return (IRR)."
> https://www.greentechmedia.com/arti...-is-key-in-latest-record-solar-bids#gs.31e8kn


They are speculating on 15-30 year rates, but the rate for year 0-15 is locked in. The investors may be surprised if the cost of new capacity undercuts them in 15 years. Either way, it is bad news for fossil fuels, which can't compete with even 3 cents per kwh.


----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> They are speculating on 15-30 year rates, but the rate for year 0-15 is locked in. The investors may be surprised if the cost of new capacity undercuts them in 15 years. Either way, it is bad news for fossil fuels, which can't compete with even 3 cents per kwh.


My point is simply that the $0.01/kWh isn't the cost.
People with more knowledge think it's more than that.

If we're that close to $0.01/kWh, there is no reason to fight the oil industry, it will collapse on its own.


----------



## sags

Prairie Guy said:


> Most capitalists tend to be people who can fend for themselves so they keep it simple and uncomplicated. Socialists always require someone else to provide housing, transportation, etc., so they have plenty of free time to watch 200 channels on TV.


Yes, Wall Street banks still don't have telephones or computers.


----------



## sags

Deleted....posted in wrong thread.


----------



## Beaver101

To put this thread back on topic - I know there is still time to pick but I'm having a hard time picking between the main characters of Harry, Larry or Moe. :lemo::lemo::lemo:


----------



## RBull

jargey3000 said:


> ...unfortunately I wont see the debate...I've chosen to watch some paint dry.....


Hope you enjoyed that. The debate was a little more exciting but the gloves will come off more when the leader decides its important enough for his presence at another one.


----------



## RBull

andrewf said:


> Time of Use pricing is a good idea and should be implemented everywhere. There are also places where people cook their dinners on dung-fired stoves.


Not arguing that. I have it here and like it. My point was your statement wasn't accurate assuming everyone would charge at off peak rates. That's a big change to get the country on board. 

Not sure why the comment on dung fired stoves?


----------



## MrMatt

RBull said:


> Hope you enjoyed that. The debate was a little more exciting but the gloves will come off more when the leader decides its important enough for his presence at another one.


He's going to hide as much as he can.
He knows that if he shows, they'll tear apart his record from both sides.
Scheer knows the strategy is to be there, confident and Prime Ministerial, and put out a few good talking points.

Let the Greens and NDP get their hands dirty clawing for votes.


----------



## Prairie Guy

sags....the very same person who can't back up any of his accusations with facts is lecturing others on false beliefs :biggrin:


----------



## sags

Sorry PG.....I moved the thread over to the one on Alberta. You can skip on over and verbally crush me there.....:subdued:


----------



## sags

Conservatives can forget about Ontario.

The rampaging bull Doug Ford is the best spokesman the Liberals could ask for. He is handing Ontario to the Liberals all by himself.

After a flurry of other cuts....the latest of 3500 teachers laid off while there are 40 kids in classes with 2 teachers pretty much sealed the election for the Liberals.

Ford is so unpopular he avoids appearances at public events where he gets booed. Andrew Scheer has wisely avoided being seen with Ford, but it is too late.

If the Liberals dominate in Ontario the election is already over. I see the Liberals winning more seats now held by the NDP in Quebec.

The Sags Election Desk is now predicting a larger Liberal majority government.


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> Conservatives can forget about Ontario.
> 
> The rampaging bull Doug Ford is the best spokesman the Liberals could ask for. He is handing Ontario to the Liberals all by himself.
> 
> After a flurry of other cuts....the latest of 3500 teachers laid off while there are 40 kids in classes with 2 teachers pretty much sealed the election for the Liberals.
> 
> Ford is so unpopular he avoids appearances at public events where he gets booed. Andrew Scheer has wisely avoided being seen with Ford, but it is too late.
> 
> If the Liberals dominate in Ontario the election is already over. I see the Liberals winning more seats now held by the NDP in Quebec.
> 
> The Sags Election Desk is now predicting a larger Liberal majority government.


Yes, more misleading "facts" from the opposition. Care to support these claims?
Teachers who had a contract last year, and don't have one this year aren't "laid off"

The 40 kids per classroom is because the schools/schoolboard didn't split the classes properly.
This is likely due to a bunch of unexpected kids registering or just showing up at the very beginning of the school year.
This is just due to the schools not knowing having accurate information on the incoming students.

If you have registrations for 1200 kids, and 1800 kids show up within 3 weeks, it's going to cause chaos.

Also 2 teachers in a classroom for 40 kids, means a student teacher ratio of 20:1, which isn't anything to complain about.


----------



## sags

Layoff notices and "bumping" memos have already been sent out across Ontario school districts.

The cuts to teacher jobs was planned by the Ford government.

_“We have proposed an attrition-based approach to restoring balance and sustainability by not filling a total of 3,475 teacher vacancies that occur when teachers quit or retire,” Lisa Thompson said Friday.
_

https://www.thespec.com/news-story/...st-cutting-ontario-s-education-minister-says/

The school districts cite government budget cuts to education as the reason for the layoffs.

I don't think many parents would agree that a 20:1 student to teacher ratio is good for their child's education.

That many students per teacher leaves no time for individual assistance to students.

The cuts in education are only one aspect of the Ford cuts. Healthcare and Social Services have also had budget cuts.

The people are angry because Ford lied to them. He pledged he would balance the budget without any layoffs or cuts to social programs.

He claimed he would find the savings in wasted government spending.

Federal Leader Andrew Scheer is trying to make the same argument and Ontario voters aren't going to get suckered again. Ontario voters have seen this movie before under the PC Harris government and that is one of the main reasons the McGuinty/Wynne Liberals held power for so long after the PCs were defeated.

Personally I am fine with Andrew Scheer continuing down this path. It helps all the Liberal candidates in Ontario tremendously.

https://www.google.com/search?q=ont...i61j69i65l3.8331j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> Layoff notices and "bumping" memos have already been sent out across Ontario school districts.
> 
> The school districts cite government budget cuts to education as the reason for the layoffs.
> 
> I don't think many parents would agree that a 20:1 student to teacher ratio is good for their child's education.
> 
> That many students per teacher leaves no time for individual assistance to students.
> 
> The cuts in education are only one aspect of the Ford cuts. Healthcare and Social Services have also had budget cuts.
> 
> The people are angry because Ford lied to them. He pledged he would balance the budget without any layoffs or cuts to social programs.
> 
> He claimed he would find the savings in wasted government spending.
> 
> Federal Leader Andrew Scheer is trying to make the same argument and Ontario voters aren't going to get suckered again.
> 
> Personally I am fine with Andrew Scheer continuing down this path. It helps all the Liberal candidates in Ontario.
> 
> https://www.google.com/search?q=ont...i61j69i65l3.8331j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8


They send out layoff notices every year as part of reviewing for the new class sizes.
How many teachers were laid off? Care to support your previous claim?

Bumping, well that's a union problem. You can't blame the government for the actions of the union.

Healthcare budget was increased, from 59.3 to 61.3B from 2017-18 to 2018-2019. Not cut.

Where are the frontline healthcare layoffs? 
It's the admin/management that's getting cut.

People are angry because all the problems that existed before still exist, and they're blaming him because it's easy and there are so many people lying. 
Like come on, you're claiming the health care budget was cut, when it was increased. 
2 Billion dollars more is an INCREASE. 
No wonder teachers are scared of a math test.

I bet you won't retract it, or support your claim.

I'm not a big fan of Ford, he's not cutting like he should, but he is getting a lot done.


----------



## RBull

Sags, you're polluting your own thread with unrelated propoganda using the Ontario provincial government, as if it is the Federal Government. 

Smart people can see it for what it is. Classic Liberal playbook BS trying to associate the two. 

Better to whine to your own Provincial government or your chosen federal party.


----------



## MrMatt

RBull said:


> Sags, you're polluting your own thread with unrelated propoganda using the Ontario provincial government, as if it is the Federal Government.
> 
> Smart people can see it for what it is. Classic Liberal playbook BS trying to associate the two.
> 
> Better to whine to your own Provincial government or your chosen federal party.


The Liberal thinking is it is better to smear them all together.

In their heads they don't understand that the CPC and the PC's are 2 different political parties.


----------



## sags

Provincial politics are playing a much larger role in this election than it usually does.

In Ontario, the "Doug Ford factor" is hurting the Conservatives.

In Quebec, the SNC Lavalin affair and the pipeline issue is hurting the Conservatives.

In Ontario the voters are angry at the spending cuts and aren't interested in more cuts at the Federal level.

In Quebec, the majority of voters support Trudeau's lobbying for SNC Lavalin as they view it as Trudeau lobbying for jobs in Quebec. 

Anyone who thinks the Conservatives can win this election without a significant increase in support in Ontario and Quebec isn't paying attention.


----------



## sags

From the already linked Hamilton Spectator article:

_According to a leaked ministry of education memo first disclosed by the Star, 1,558 full-time teaching jobs will be gone by this fall, which goes up to 2,177 by 2020-21, 2,915 by 2021-22, rising to 3,475 by 2022-23._

The Toronto Star story is what set off the fire alarms for school boards and parents. 

The Ford government attempts to blame the unions for not willingly accepting the cuts.

The Ford government plans to eliminate full time teachers. They claim it is through attrition. How it happens is of no interest to parents.

How many times do the Conservatives have to get defeated before they understand voters do not and will not support these kinds of cuts........ever ?

I predict Andrew Scheer will continue to avoid being seen with Doug Ford at all costs and he needs to make it clear to Canadians he doesn't support such cuts.


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> From the already linked Hamilton Spectator article:
> 
> _According to a leaked ministry of education memo first disclosed by the Star, 1,558 full-time teaching jobs will be gone by this fall, which goes up to 2,177 by 2020-21, 2,915 by 2021-22, rising to 3,475 by 2022-23._
> 
> The Toronto Star story is what set off the fire alarms for school boards and parents.
> 
> The Ford government attempts to blame the unions for not willingly accepting the cuts.
> 
> The Ford government plans to eliminate full time teachers. They claim it is through attrition. How it happens is of no interest to parents.
> 
> How many times do the Conservatives have to get defeated before they understand voters do not and will not support these kinds of cuts........ever ?
> 
> I predict Andrew Scheer will continue to avoid being seen with Doug Ford at all costs and he needs to make it clear to Canadians he doesn't support such cuts.


Again, I'll ask you to support that there are 3500 teachers being laid off.
You listed the planned losses due to attrition, not lay offs. 
With enrollment dropping, we won't NEED the teachers, that's why we're not hiring as many going forward.

You also claimed health care budget cuts, but the budget was increased.

Please back up, or retract your false claims.


----------



## sags

See here is the thinking.

Wynne was very unpopular with voters and the Conservatives said vote for Doug Ford because it couldn't get any worse.

Doug Ford is elected and it got a lot worse. His popularity is now below Wynne's was when she was soundly defeated.

Now the Conservatives come along with the same shtick.......vote for Scheer because he can't be worse than Trudeau.

Ontario voters were already fooled once recently and won't be fooled again.


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> See here is the thinking.
> 
> Wynne was very unpopular with voters and the Conservatives said vote for Doug Ford because it couldn't get any worse.
> 
> Doug Ford is elected and it got a lot worse. His popularity is now below Wynne's was when she was soundly defeated.
> 
> Now the Conservatives come along with the same shtick.......vote for Scheer because he can't be worse than Trudeau.
> 
> Ontario voters were already fooled once recently and won't be fooled again.


You seem to have a lot of time to post stuff. 
Are you ever going to back up your fraudulent claims regarding teacher layoffs or healthcare budget cuts?

Or are you just a lying troll?


----------



## sags

In May 2018, Doug Ford said this:

_"I say it every night and I'm going to say it again and again: no one, no one will lose their job," he said._

After he was elected he changed the wording to "no frontline workers would lose their jobs".

Then he froze public service hiring and says they eliminate jobs through "attrition" that won't happen for years. In the meantime, teachers are laid off and not working.

Class sizes are well above the level the Ford government said they would be.

The public is done with Ford's lies and "clever" word play. They are just not going to vote for him or Conservatives again.

Unfortunately for Andrew Scheer..........that means him.

As for healthcare cuts.........how could you completely miss the battle over cuts to support autistic children as only one example ?


----------



## Mechanic

If 20:1 student/teacher ratios aren't good enough then maybe the teaching methods need looking at ? Nowadays, I see many leaving school that have appalling writing skills, as well as being unable to do basic math without a calculator and there are more skills lacking too. As an individual who was educated in classrooms where the ratio was north of 30:1, I have a tough time with that.


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> In May 2018, Doug Ford said this:
> 
> _"I say it every night and I'm going to say it again and again: no one, no one will lose their job," he said._
> 
> After he was elected he changed the wording to "no frontline workers would lose their jobs".
> 
> Then he froze public service hiring and says they eliminate jobs through "attrition" that won't happen for years. In the meantime, teachers are laid off and not working.
> 
> Class sizes are well above the level the Ford government said they would be.
> 
> The public is done with Ford's lies and "clever" word play. They are just not going to vote for him or Conservatives again.
> 
> Unfortunately for Andrew Scheer..........that means him.
> 
> As for healthcare cuts.........how could you completely miss the battle over cuts to support autistic children as only one example ?


I'd like to see the source for your "quote", because I wonder if it is being taken out of context. 

No teachers lost their jobs due to class size changes. That doesn't mean they are safe from declining enrolment. 

Heath are spending is increasing not being cut.
Spending allocations are changing,but are you honestly suggesting that if a single program gets a penny less, while the system as a whole gets billions more on funding that's "cuts"?
That's a stretch, oh and autism got a massive increase in spending, so the cuts aren't there anyway. 

To be fair, people are being lied to, no wonder these misleading statements seem so popular.


----------



## like_to_retire

sags said:


> Doug Ford is elected and it got a lot worse.


Unfortunately, as always seems to be the case, the Liberals spend their time in power handing out money and creating debt. 

Then when the province is about to literally fall apart from their fanciful mismanagement, the Conservatives have to step in and right the ship. It happens over and over.

It's painful, and provides copious fodder for the left wing media to rally the public about the big bad Conservatives making cuts - that are absolutely necessary to get us back on track.

Doug Ford has done his job. It won't gain him any popularity contest with the uninitiated left, but he's done what needs to be done.



sags said:


> His popularity is now below Wynne's was when she was soundly defeated.


That pretty much tells you how informed the public is. It's a shame there isn't a test to vote.



sags said:


> Ontario voters were already fooled once recently and won't be fooled again.


The majority of voters don't have a clue. They're directed by the left media who to vote for.

ltr


----------



## MrMatt

like_to_retire said:


> Doug Ford has done his job. It won't gain him any popularity contest with the uninitiated left, but he's done what needs to be done.


How many years did it take for NAFTA to be considered a good thing? 
The old PCs paid quite a political price for that one. 

ltr[/QUOTE]


----------



## condor

To people on this forum...please stop trying to have a logic based argument...from SAGGYBRAIN...after seeing all his posts with people reponding to facts...all he does is ..foam at the mouth and light his hair on fire. 
He makes a mockery when someone points to a proven stated fact.

He is brain dead.....Liberals walk on water while Conservatives sink to bottom of lake...indeed...this sums up all of his silly posts:smiley_simmons:


----------



## kcowan

sags said:


> The people are angry because Ford lied to them. He pledged he would balance the budget without any layoffs or cuts to social programs..


Trudeau claimed he would balance the budget. I guess he is a liar too?


----------



## sags

Yup....Trudeau lied about balancing the budget.

I think the difference in reality is that people care a whole lot more about cutting spending to social programs, education and healthcare than they do about balancing the budget. That is a lesson the Conservatives haven't learned yet.

Canadians will be willing to address the debt when it becomes a real problem but until then they aren't much concerned about it.


----------



## sags

condor said:


> To people on this forum...please stop trying to have a logic based argument...from SAGGYBRAIN...after seeing all his posts with people reponding to facts...all he does is ..foam at the mouth and light his hair on fire.
> He makes a mockery when someone points to a proven stated fact.
> 
> He is brain dead.....Liberals walk on water while Conservatives sink to bottom of lake...indeed...this sums up all of his silly posts:smiley_simmons:


For some reason I have a mental picture of you looking like an angry Bernie Sander's angry uncle.


----------



## sags

Mechanic said:


> If 20:1 student/teacher ratios aren't good enough then maybe the teaching methods need looking at ? Nowadays, I see many leaving school that have appalling writing skills, as well as being unable to do basic math without a calculator and there are more skills lacking too. As an individual who was educated in classrooms where the ratio was north of 30:1, I have a tough time with that.


I don't know about that. Our 10 year old grandson is in Grade 6 and is studying rudimentary algebra.


----------



## like_to_retire

sags said:


> Yup....Trudeau lied about balancing the budget.
> 
> I think the difference in reality is that people care a whole lot more about cutting spending to social programs, education and healthcare than they do about balancing the budget. That is a lesson the Conservatives haven't learned yet.
> 
> Canadians will be willing to address the debt when it becomes a real problem but until then they aren't much concerned about it.


OMG......................................

ltr


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> Yup....Trudeau lied about balancing the budget.
> 
> I think the difference in reality is that people care a whole lot more about cutting spending to social programs, education and healthcare than they do about balancing the budget. That is a lesson the Conservatives haven't learned yet.
> 
> Canadians will be willing to address the debt when it becomes a real problem but until then they aren't much concerned about it.


I think the real lesson is, lie to get in power, then do whatever the **** you want.
It worked for McGuinty. He started hiking taxes and slashing healthcare services within a few weeks of taking power. Then turned around and still managed to bury us in debt.
Then got re-elected again, and again.

People aren't concerned about debt, until they hit the wall.


----------



## RBull

sags said:


> Provincial politics are playing a much larger role in this election than it usually does.
> 
> In Ontario, the "Doug Ford factor" is hurting the Conservatives.
> 
> In Quebec, the SNC Lavalin affair and the pipeline issue is hurting the Conservatives.
> 
> In Ontario the voters are angry at the spending cuts and aren't interested in more cuts at the Federal level.
> 
> In Quebec, the majority of voters support Trudeau's lobbying for SNC Lavalin as they view it as Trudeau lobbying for jobs in Quebec.
> 
> Anyone who thinks the Conservatives can win this election without a significant increase in support in Ontario and Quebec isn't paying attention.


I'll repeat since you have difficulty absorbing the truth at times. 

Smart people can see your Liberal playbook. The federal conservative are not the provincial conservatives. You and the Lieberals want that to be true because it deflects away from the lies Mr Trudeau told re SNC and re budgets that don't balance in 2019 or balance themselves. It also deflects away from his obstruction on allowing investigation into finding the truth in this matter, like Mulroney, Martin and Harper allowed in the past. This PM is simply an arrogant hypocrit. Newsflash...SNC has hurt Trudeau and the Lieberals. I'm sure Trudeau will avoid discussing this or dismissing it as nothing at all costs during the campaign. 

Anyone who can't see this isn't paying attention and/or has gorged themselves on the Kool Aid. 

You continue to post as if you speak for all Canadians. You don't. Some of us want cuts in the right areas; we want fiscal responsibility overall and more self reliance. Some like you have their hand out asking for more from others all the time. I get that, but thankfully it isn't everyone. Smart people see that fiscal balance and not mortgaging future generations lives isn't an austerity budget. Endless deficits, big debt takes money away from programs and at some point will blow up. But it buys votes like yours.


----------



## condor

Saggybrain...thank you for not letting me down with your silly childish rebutals.....again thank you...you were right on!!!:smiley_simmons:


----------



## sags

If Canadians are outraged by the SNC Lavalin affair they have a strange way of showing it. The Liberals chances of forming a majority government have gone up again.

The Liberals now have a 69% chance of forming the next government (majority or minority) compared to the Conservatives 30% chance.

Before the SNC Lavalin affair, the Conservatives were expected to win a majority government. 

The Conservatives lost a lot of support with their constant accusations against Trudeau.

43% Probability of the Liberals winning a majority
26% Probability of the Liberals winning the most seats but not a majority

22% Probability of the Conservatives winning the most seats but not a majority
8% Probability of the Conservatives winning a majority


----------



## sags

It appears the Conservative handling of the SNC affair has strengthened the support of Trudeau in Quebec.

_Far more important, as Quebec Premier François Legault put it last February, was to "settle" SNC's inconvenient legal situation and "protect the headquarters and the thousands of good, well-paying jobs we have at SNC-Lavalin."
_
https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/snc-quebec-1.5282858


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> It appears the Conservative handling of the SNC affair has strengthened the support of Trudeau in Quebec.
> 
> _Far more important, as Quebec Premier François Legault put it last February, was to "settle" SNC's inconvenient legal situation and "protect the headquarters and the thousands of good, well-paying jobs we have at SNC-Lavalin."
> _
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/snc-quebec-1.5282858


That's why many complain Quebec is the most corrupt province in Canada.

They actually catch companies committing crimes, the PM steps in and allegedly committed further crimes to protect them, and Quebecers don't seem care.

Well, when being unethical, and possibly (likely) committing crimes is rewarded with running the country, no wonder Trudeau doesn't seem to understand why his behaviour is a problem.


----------



## sags

Eliminating the deficit and balancing the budget are no longer key priorities for the political parties.

Interesting that the budget could be balanced but the Liberals chose to spend on infrastructure and social programs instead.

The other parties don't appear all that aggressive either.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/th...ush-to-eliminate-budgetary-deficits-1.5284361


----------



## RBull

sags said:


> If Canadians are outraged by the SNC Lavalin affair they have a strange way of showing it. The Liberals chances of forming a majority government have gone up again.
> 
> The Liberals now have a 69% chance of forming the next government (majority or minority) compared to the Conservatives 30% chance.
> 
> Before the SNC Lavalin affair, the Conservatives were expected to win a majority government.
> 
> The Conservatives lost a lot of support with their constant accusations against Trudeau.
> 
> 43% Probability of the Liberals winning a majority
> 26% Probability of the Liberals winning the most seats but not a majority
> 
> 22% Probability of the Conservatives winning the most seats but not a majority
> 8% Probability of the Conservatives winning a majority


skip...skip...skip...skip..skip

Since you always like posting in absolutes as if all Canadians are of a particular ideal using flawed logic I thought I'd take the time to correct you. 

Given that the Liberals have much less than a majority of Canadians supporting them including NOW ~35% (much less than 50% majority of Canadians) we could conclude it shows that CANADIANS *ARE* OUTRAGED BY the SNC LAVALIN AFFAIR. This is also lower than the percentage of votes they had in last election indicating even some supporters of them have fled due to SNC or other reasons. 35% is not an increase over 39.5% unless you use Sags math. 

In reality we know neither of these positions are correct. Canadians have many reasons for voting the way they. Polls are also always changing. Liberals were elected with a majority and before SNC polls showed Liberals were expected to have a majority. It is a fact there was and is no evidence jobs were going to be saved with the PM trying to interfere with the AG. Liberals have acknowledged they had no proof or evidence of saving jobs and in any case the end doesn't justify the means as the ETHICS COMMISSIONER proved and ruled. No amount of twisting or turning will change that Mr Sags. Just eat your crow. 

Most importantly even if SOME Canadians can overlook or ignore the proven unethical behaviour of Mr. Trudeau with SNC it does not make it right. It isn't and it is a true shame Mr. Trudeau continues to block any attempt to allow Canadians to see all the facts on this matter. It isn't hard to understand why. It demonstrates a concerning lack of respect by some Canadians for honesty, integrity and ethical behaviour of our government. The most likely reason for ignoring this is Liberals are buying votes with unprescedented thousands of election pledges and billions in additional spending after already building structural deficits in their first term. A similar refrain from 2015. It also doesn't mean its right or what is needed. Many Canadians have demonstrated either they are not able to manage their own finances well or are only a small amount away from not being able to meet their financial obligations. With the highest household debt load in the world many Canadians have shown little financial sense with regards to their own households so it is not surprising they don't care about the governments spending and debt either. These are many of the same people easily swayed by goodies being handed out and probably aren't good examples of thoughtful objective views on SNC either. Mr. Sags you're a great example of this. At some point there will be a price to pay for this bad behaviour and choices. 

I have no idea who will win the election. I think both sides have squandered opportunites they had with mistakes. I only hope when the next recession comes the country will be much better prepared than it is now. That's not likely since we're squandering the balanced budgets liberals inherited, the global good times and low interest rates, low unemployment. Time to save, not spend.


----------



## sags

Or.......Conservatives have spent months railing against Trudeau and have an 8% chance of winning a majority government to show for it.


----------



## RBull

I’ll take that as acceptance of all I’ve stated.


----------



## Spidey

Unfortunately, I thing Sags is right and the Liberals, despite all the corruption, will get another majority. This won't be due to any great confidence in Trudeau but that he has been blessed with the lamest opposition possible. We need someone who stands up unapologetically for free-market values the same way Elisabeth May does for socialist values. I've resolved myself that the best hope is probably reducing the Liberal majority and rebuilding with a hopefully much better leader after this election. I think Rona Ambrose would be pretty good but I don't know if she is interested in the job.


----------



## gardner

Spidey said:


> I think Rona Ambrose would be pretty good but I don't know if she is interested in the job.


I wish she'd have been able to run. I would have taken her even above Chong who I supported and voted for. I think the conservatives still have a chance at a minority, but if they lose, I'm not sure what will happen. Historically losing conservative leaders haven't been taken out and shot -- at least not as much as NDP ones. Would Scheer hang in there as opposition leader or be forced out?

Anyway, it's still a few weeks -- anything could happen.


----------



## sags

Andrew Scheer announced a $6 billion dollar cut to income taxes. The Federal tax rate will drop by 1.75% over the next 4 years.

Along with the return of the transit income tax credit and savings on home heating bills, the Conservatives don't appear worried about the deficit.

I would say the problem with all the political party's promises scheduled for some time in the future, is they often don't come to pass.

I doubt Canadians even know when or how much the Liberals spent on infrastructure, since they have announced the same spending over and over.


----------



## kcowan

Press freedom, Liberal-style


----------



## RBull

Spidey said:


> Unfortunately, I thing Sags is right and the Liberals, despite all the corruption, will get another majority. This won't be due to any great confidence in Trudeau but that he has been blessed with the lamest opposition possible. We need someone who stands up unapologetically for free-market values the same way Elisabeth May does for socialist values. I've resolved myself that the best hope is probably reducing the Liberal majority and rebuilding with a hopefully much better leader after this election. I think Rona Ambrose would be pretty good but I don't know if she is interested in the job.


I am inclined to agree with the likely outcome and with what we can hope for with the election, and post election. I would like to see Peter McKay return to politics and lead.


----------



## kcowan

A little dated condemnation of current leadership

Kevin O'Leary tells it like he sees it.

Of course, he did not factor in the $600 million Pravda fund to buy favourable media coverage for the Liberals...


----------



## sags

kcowan said:


> Press freedom, Liberal-style


It isn't just the Liberals.

_We don’t give media accreditation to activist groups,” Conservative Party spokesman Cory Hann said._


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

Well, the greens have come out with their 'platform'. Easy for lizzie to propose living in lala land when you have managed to hang off the public teat for the past 8 years and will never form government.


----------



## Eder

kcowan said:


> Press freedom, Liberal-style


All non Liberals are deigned "white supremacists" by Christine...she's embarrassing.


----------



## sags

Pretty ambitious plaform by the Greens for sure. The NDP are close behind in pledge making and the Conservatives have laid out $60 Billion in election pledges so far.

The other parties are making Trudeau look like Mr. Scrooge. Come on Justin......a little something for the long suffering retirees.


----------



## Eder

At any rate it looks like Benier will get to participate in future debates after recent polling results show much more support than originally thought.


----------



## like_to_retire

Eder said:


> At any rate it looks like Benier will get to participate in future debates after recent polling results show much more support than originally thought.


It's a shame the way this has gone down.

Myself, I would vote for Bernier in a second if I thought he could win. Unfortunately, it ain't so.

This means I have to vote for Scheer to have a chance of keeping the Liberals from winning.

Pretty much every Conservative I know wants Bernier, but will not vote for him as they need to find a way to save our country from the horror of another 4 years of the Liberals.

ltr


----------



## Eder

I'm still on the fence....I'd like to send a message to the PC's to stop trying to be Liberal Light, on the other hand the threat of 4 more years of Eastern elitism has me considering voting strategically.


----------



## like_to_retire

Eder said:


> I'm still on the fence....I'd like to send a message to the PC's to stop trying to be Liberal Light, on the other hand the threat of 4 more years of Eastern elitism has me considering voting strategically.


Yes, we'd all like to send a message to the Conservatives, but is it worth it to have 4 more years of Liberal government? No.

In fact, I don't like rewarding Bernier for leaving the Conservatives to form his own party. He should have taken his loss (fixed or otherwise) and stayed on to offer his wise influence and eventually would have become the leader. A terrible move on his part and I don't want to reward him for it such that it means the Liberals win 4 more years.

ltr


----------



## MrMatt

like_to_retire said:


> Yes, we'd all like to send a message to the Conservatives, but is it worth it to have 4 more years of Liberal government? No.
> 
> In fact, I don't like rewarding Bernier for leaving the Conservatives to form his own party. He should have taken his loss (fixed or otherwise) and stayed on to offer his wise influence and eventually would have become the leader. A terrible move on his part and I don't want to reward him for it such that it means the Liberals win 4 more years.
> 
> ltr


The problem is we don't have ranked ballot for the actual Federal/Provincial elections.

The reason is it would destroy a party like the Liberals, who nobody really likes, but they pick up all those strategic votes.


Proportional representation means they're weaker, Ranked ballot is you'll get more outlier candidates placing higher in the early rounds, and you're likely to end up with a winner who has some degree of support.


----------



## bgc_fan

MrMatt said:


> The problem is we don't have ranked ballot for the actual Federal/Provincial elections.
> 
> The reason is it would destroy a party like the Liberals, who nobody really likes, but they pick up all those strategic votes.
> 
> 
> Proportional representation means they're weaker, Ranked ballot is you'll get more outlier candidates placing higher in the early rounds, and you're likely to end up with a winner who has some degree of support.


Actually, you've got it backwards. A ranked ballot is what Trudeau preferred as it would ensure Liberal dominance: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-electoral-reform-wherry-analysis-1.4179928
Think about it logically, the second choice of NDP is most likely Liberal (definitely not Conservatives), and second choice of Conservatives is likely to be Liberal (or maybe some other party not Green or NDP), which is what happens when you have a slightly centralist party. Essentially what would happen is a string of Liberal majorities with Conservatives in opposition and NDP as a third party in the distance. Of course, there is always the possibility that Conservatives and NDP just have enough of the Liberals and decide to rank their corresponding parties as number 2 selection, but I doubt that would be happening any time soon.

The current first past the post is the only system in which Conservatives would ever get into power due to vote splitting on the left, while the support base for the Conservatives is pretty strong aside from the Reform split way back when. 

Proportional representation would favour a Liberal/NDP coalition as there would not be any party that would get a majority winner. 

Of course the above is based on historical voting trends.


----------



## MrMatt

bgc_fan said:


> Actually, you've got it backwards. A ranked ballot is what Trudeau preferred as it would ensure Liberal dominance: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-electoral-reform-wherry-analysis-1.4179928
> Think about it logically, the second choice of NDP is most likely Liberal (definitely not Conservatives), and second choice of Conservatives is likely to be Liberal (or maybe some other party not Green or NDP), which is what happens when you have a slightly centralist party. Essentially what would happen is a string of Liberal majorities with Conservatives in opposition and NDP as a third party in the distance. Of course, there is always the possibility that Conservatives and NDP just have enough of the Liberals and decide to rank their corresponding parties as number 2 selection, but I doubt that would be happening any time soon.
> 
> The current first past the post is the only system in which Conservatives would ever get into power due to vote splitting on the left, while the support base for the Conservatives is pretty strong aside from the Reform split way back when.
> 
> Proportional representation would favour a Liberal/NDP coalition as there would not be any party that would get a majority winner.
> 
> Of course the above is based on historical voting trends.


Nice article, I agree with his concerns on Proportional representation.

However I think ranked ballot will bring out more edge candidates, and possibly get them elected.
How many Conservatives would vote PPC if that didn't end up costing CPC votes?

I think the current system is just fine, but it really encourages the status quo of the mostly Liberal/Conservative duopoly with most seats won at far less than 50% support.


----------



## andrewf

I'm partial to something like Single Transferable Vote. You have a local representative, it is mostly proportional, you tend not to get too many extreme/wingnuts elected, you directly vote for people and not parties. I would even be okay with increasing the number of MPs somewhat to keep districts from being too big. I think having a lot of backbenchers makes it less easy to dangle the cabinet carrot, which I think makes for a healthier parliament.


----------



## sags

Did not the Conservatives use a different electoral system and ended up with Doug Ford and Andrew Scheer, neither of whom were the first choice of the voters ?

Our system seems to work for it's main purpose, which is to govern and pass legislation. Why would we want a US or European model of gridlock in government ?


----------



## sags

Interesting that the Conservatives opposed Bernier's invitation to the debates while the Liberals didn't object.

I suspect the Conservatives fear Bernier will spend most of his time slamming the Conservatives for not being radical enough.

People like Bernier are driving the Conservative Party right into the political dumpster. Canadians will never be that far right in their views.


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> Did not the Conservatives use a different electoral system and ended up with Doug Ford and Andrew Scheer, neither of whom were the first choice of the voters ?
> 
> Our system seems to work for it's main purpose, which is to govern and pass legislation. Why would we want a US or European model of gridlock in government ?


They used ranked ballot or instant runoff. 
Basically you count all the first choices, if you don't get your 50%+1,you drop the option with the lowest number of votes, and take the next choice on those voters ballots. You repeat until someone gets at least 50%+1 votes for them. 

The advantage is that you're not throwing away your vote if you vote for a low likelihood candidate, it gets rid of strategic voting.
It also means whoever won had more popular support than the other candidates.


----------



## james4beach

sags said:


> Interesting that the Conservatives opposed Bernier's invitation to the debates while the Liberals didn't object.
> 
> I suspect the Conservatives fear Bernier will spend most of his time slamming the Conservatives for not being radical enough.
> 
> People like Bernier are driving the Conservative Party right into the political dumpster. Canadians will never be that far right in their views.


It can be good to bring him in front of the cameras. It won't take long to expose him as a nut. It would also be good to focus more attention on his supporters, some of whom are alt-right; lots of racists, xenophobes, and generally unpleasant characters.

Groups such as white nationalists and neo-nazis are naturally drawn to Bernier's party. Bernier himself is probably more of a moderate, but the language he uses, the emotions he whips up, and his policies attract extremists.

This is the first appearance that I can remember of the far right in national politics, during my life time. Bernier's opposition to immigration is so extreme that he wants to reduce immigration levels by something like 70% adjusted to population. Those would be lower levels of immigration than Canada has had in about 30 or 40 years, if not longer. In other words he wants immigration levels much lower than any Conservative government of recent decades.

For context... immigration levels, adjusted to population, have stayed *constant* through many governments, including Mulroney, Chretien, Harper, Trudeau. In fact it's a very consistent number of total admitted people per year. Recently, some conservatives have been criticizing Trudeau for admitting far more but there is no basis for this criticism. In fact, Trudeau's immigration plans just sustain the same % of immigrants vs total population. The number is virtually unchanged from 30 years ago.


----------



## gardner

MrMatt said:


> They used ranked ballot or instant runoff.
> Basically you count all the first choices, if you don't get your 50%+1,you drop the option with the lowest number of votes, and take the next choice on those voters ballots. You repeat until someone gets at least 50%+1 votes for them.
> 
> The advantage is that you're not throwing away your vote if you vote for a low likelihood candidate, it gets rid of strategic voting.
> It also means whoever won had more popular support than the other candidates.


The Ontario PCs added a stupid electoral district weighting system that, in my opinion, was probably open to manipulation. The net is that by a fair bit, Christine Elliott won the popular vote, but did not come ahead in the most "points".


----------



## gibor365

like_to_retire said:


> It's a shame the way this has gone down.
> 
> Myself, I would vote for Bernier in a second if I thought he could win. Unfortunately, it ain't so.
> 
> This means I have to vote for Scheer to have a chance of keeping the Liberals from winning.
> 
> Pretty much every Conservative I know wants Bernier, but will not vote for him as they need to find a way to save our country from the horror of another 4 years of the Liberals.
> 
> ltr


100% agree! If we have election system by popular vote, I'd vote for PPC .... with current system all PPC votes go directly to garbage. The major target is to keep Liberals out of government, so only CPC


----------



## james4beach

like_to_retire said:


> Myself, I would vote for Bernier in a second if I thought he could win. Unfortunately, it ain't so.
> . . .
> Pretty much every Conservative I know wants Bernier


Question for gibor & like_to_retire & Eder. What is it about Bernier that appeals to you so much, and that your friends like so much as well?


----------



## like_to_retire

james4beach said:


> Question for gibor & like_to_retire & Eder. What is it about Bernier that appeals to you so much, and that your friends like so much as well?


I suppose my tendency toward Bernier is influenced somewhat by my dislike of all the other candidates. I read over Elizabeth May's platform released this week - and if anyone actually votes for her, they need their head read.

Every time Bernier speaks I find myself nodding at what he says. I suppose I'm a bit of a Libertarian - small government type. 

Bernier certain seems to support small government, and he appears to be the only leader that is serious about our deficit, and he's definitely the only fiscal conservative of the bunch. That's pretty important to me. I dislike the social conservative crowd in the CPC and think they have too much influence over Scheer.

I also remember in his talks during the CPC leadership he supported free markets and wanted to change our supply management system. I support that position. It was really this issue that got Scheer into power a few votes ahead of Bernier.

I think we've become too politically correct, bending over for every group that yells the loudest. Bernier says this fragments our society and nothing gets done. Bernier is the least politically correct of the bunch for sure, and I suppose it could get him in trouble, but it's better than what we have now. There's too much kowtowing to special interest groups.

Bernier rejects climate alarmism and says he wants to concentrate on concrete improvements instead. This rings true with me.

He wants to allow the oil and gas industry to grow. Again, I back this position. How could any sensible person not want our economy to grow through our natural resources.

I could go on and on, and sure I don't support everything he says, but in comparison to the other leaders he's the one I would support if I thought he had any chance of winning.

The rest of them are duds or nuts.

ltr


----------



## MrMatt

like_to_retire said:


> I suppose my tendency toward Bernier is influenced somewhat by my dislike of all the other candidates. I read over Elizabeth May's platform released this week - and if anyone actually votes for her, they need their head read.
> 
> Every time Bernier speaks I find myself nodding at what he says. I suppose I'm a bit of a Libertarian - small government type.
> 
> Bernier certain seems to support small government, and he appears to be the only leader that is serious about our deficit, and he's definitely the only fiscal conservative of the bunch. That's pretty important to me. I dislike the social conservative crowd in the CPC and think they have too much influence over Scheer.
> 
> I also remember in his talks during the CPC leadership he supported free markets and wanted to change our supply management system. I support that position. It was really this issue that got Scheer into power a few votes ahead of Bernier.
> 
> I think we've become too politically correct, bending over for every group that yells the loudest. Bernier says this fragments our society and nothing gets done. Bernier is the least politically correct of the bunch for sure, and I suppose it could get him in trouble, but it's better than what we have now. There's too much kowtowing to special interest groups.
> 
> Bernier rejects climate alarmism and says he wants to concentrate on concrete improvements instead. This rings true with me.
> 
> He wants to allow the oil and gas industry to grow. Again, I back this position. How could any sensible person not want our economy to grow through our natural resources.
> 
> I could go on and on, and sure I don't support everything he says, but in comparison to the other leaders he's the one I would support if I thought he had any chance of winning.
> 
> The rest of them are duds or nuts.
> 
> ltr


Bernier just isn't suited to the current political system.


----------



## like_to_retire

MrMatt said:


> Bernier just isn't suited to the current political system.


Right, so maybe we should change that. Do you disagree with Bernier's philosophy?

Who is suited then? Elizabeth May, Jagmeet Singh? Surely not Trudeau.

How bad would it be to have a fiscal Conservative as leader.

ltr


----------



## sags

We haven't had a right wing fiscal Conservative government for some time. Stephen Harper certainly wasn't a fiscal conservative. 

He talked the talk but went from a Liberal surplus to record level deficits. Provincially, in Ontario we have had 2 such governments of late and they were both terrible.

The Mike Harris government is still loathed in Ontario, and Doug Ford is heading in the same direction at full speed. 

All those successive Conservative governments over 40 years didn't leave Alberta in very good shape. 

Lack of savings, lack of spending on infrastructure, and the lack of diversification left them in a weak position today.

Therein lies the problem for fiscal Conservatives. Their past history isn't going to win them many votes.


----------



## Prairie Guy

james4beach said:


> It can be good to bring him in front of the cameras. It won't take long to expose him as a nut. It would also be good to focus more attention on his supporters, some of whom are alt-right; lots of racists, xenophobes, and generally unpleasant characters.
> 
> Groups such as white nationalists and neo-nazis are naturally drawn to Bernier's party. Bernier himself is probably more of a moderate, but the language he uses, the emotions he whips up, and his policies attract extremists.
> 
> This is the first appearance that I can remember of the far right in national politics, during my life time.


If I made the same comments but with proof about the alt-left, their racism, their violence, etc., would that be allowed on this board? And yet some people keep getting away with slander and unproven accusations?

We're all still waiting for the supposed racist Trump tweets that have been claimed but not proven. Even one of the mods made the same claims but refuses to back it up.


----------



## sags

The evidence of the Trump racist tweets were posted several times. It was a long list........far too long to be repeated.

You must have missed them, but be of good cheer. I can verify they were there.


----------



## Prairie Guy

You can't even find one sags. You or the mod that made the same claim.

Meanwhile I'm not allowed to post actual video evidence of my comments about certain politicians lying or being gropy under the threat of a ban.


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> The evidence of the Trump racist tweets were posted several times. It was a long list........far too long to be repeated.
> 
> You must have missed them, but be of good cheer. I can verify they were there.


Then you must be able to link to it, which nobody did in that entire thread.

There wasn't a single tweet, the "big find" was a vox opinion article that didn't contain any tweets either.

This should be about the Canadian Federal election of 2019, Lets not pollute this thread with false accusations, we already have a thread for that.
Feel free to substantiate any of the claims in there.


----------



## james4beach

like_to_retire said:


> Every time Bernier speaks I find myself nodding at what he says. I suppose I'm a bit of a Libertarian - small government type.


When I was younger, I used to call myself a libertarian. I liked the general ideas of "every man for himself" and personal responsibility, government not telling everyone what to do, and free markets (unfettered). But as I got older, I completely reversed on this.

The key change for me was living in the US and seeing what happens when things in society are completely left to people to figure out for themselves, and corporations. The first thing that happens is that corporations abuse just about every possible situation. The absence of strong regulation and rules lets corporations run amok.

Things like protection of the environment, public health & safety, even caring for the disadvantaged do not happen on their own. Nor does everyone do what is sensible / safe / respectful of others around them. Free markets do not solve any of this. Unfortunately, many costs and consequences don't get priced in free markets. In practice we've seen, time and again, that markets don't look out for the public interest.

Welfare systems are absolutely necessary, and every advanced country has them. In the US, where there's minimal welfare (and the systems are stingy) people who are poor, who have chronic medical problems, or are down on their luck, are basicaly left to rot in the street. It's really disgusting what America does to its poor people. I can't believe how much poverty I saw in supposedly the world's richest country. But there's your light-touch government for you!

Banking systems are another great example. The only thing that has curtailed the relentless theft and misappropriation of their assets, broker and banker shenanigans has been strong regulation. The "free market" is an absolute disaster for banking, insurance, etc. Look at these bitcoin exchanges. They are the epitome of a free market ... unfettered by any regulation. Some Joe sets up a new crypto currency thing, takes investor money, and... obviously, steals it. Over and over again.

What a disaster, when there's a lack of regulation or when the government doesn't manage things (or enforce rules). Countless examples, and I lived some of them in the USA.

I just don't believe in the libertarian ideals any more. To me they seem naive and a little bit stupid. Instead, I strongly believe that government is necessary for many things, especially protection of people's rights / health / safety / the environment and also to create fair and level playing fields in complex sectors such as finance and trade.

Bernier for example endorses freedom to emit CO2. This is just as stupid as saying we should have no regulations about companies polluting, or using up fresh water supplies. We know what happens in these scenarios, because it happens in third world countries... the companies go absolutely crazy without regard to any effects and consequences.

Anyway, I think his Libertarian positions are pretty childish. My 22 year old self might have supported him... before I experienced the USA, before I understood the natural tendencies of corporations to be viciously selfish... but today I just think he's a fool.


----------



## MrMatt

james4beach said:


> When I was younger, I used to call myself a libertarian. I liked the general ideas of "every man for himself" and personal responsibility, government not telling everyone what to do, and free markets (unfettered). But as I got older, I completely reversed on this.
> 
> The key change for me was living in the US and seeing what happens when things in society are completely left to people to figure out for themselves, and corporations. The first thing that happens is that corporations abuse just about every possible situation. The absence of strong regulation and rules lets corporations run amok.
> 
> Things like protection of the environment, public health & safety, even caring for the disadvantaged do not happen on their own. Nor does everyone do what is sensible / safe / respectful of others around them. Free markets do not solve any of this. Unfortunately, many costs and consequences don't get priced in free markets. In practice we've seen, time and again, that markets don't look out for the public interest.
> 
> Welfare systems are absolutely necessary, and every advanced country has them. In the US, where there's minimal welfare (and the systems are stingy) people who are poor, who have chronic medical problems, or are down on their luck, are basicaly left to rot in the street. It's really disgusting what America does to its poor people. I can't believe how much poverty I saw in supposedly the world's richest country. But there's your light-touch government for you!
> 
> Banking systems are another great example. The only thing that has curtailed the relentless theft and misappropriation of their assets, broker and banker shenanigans has been strong regulation. The "free market" is an absolute disaster for banking, insurance, etc. Look at these bitcoin exchanges. They are the epitome of a free market ... unfettered by any regulation. Some Joe sets up a new crypto currency thing, takes investor money, and... obviously, steals it. Over and over again.
> 
> What a disaster, when there's a lack of regulation or when the government doesn't manage things (or enforce rules). Countless examples, and I lived some of them in the USA.
> 
> I just don't believe in the libertarian ideals any more. To me they seem naive and a little bit stupid. Instead, I strongly believe that government is necessary for many things, especially protection of people's rights / health / safety / the environment and also to create fair and level playing fields in complex sectors such as finance and trade.
> 
> Bernier for example endorses freedom to emit CO2. This is just as stupid as saying we should have no regulations about companies polluting, or using up fresh water supplies. We know what happens in these scenarios, because it happens in third world countries... the companies go absolutely crazy without regard to any effects and consequences.
> 
> Anyway, I think his Libertarian positions are pretty childish. My 22 year old self might have supported him... before I experienced the USA, before I understood the natural tendencies of corporations to be viciously selfish... but today I just think he's a fool.


Nobody is proposing anarchy.
I don't believe in communism anymore, we've all seen what happens.
I don't believe that an authoritarian government works either, we've seen what happens there.

As far as your specific issues.
The "problem" with sending your money to some anonymous guy on the internet isn't a problem of lack of regulation, it's a problem of stupidity. Don't give "Joe" your money.
Nobody is calling for free for all pollution.
Everyone (but the Liberals apparently) wants laws enforced.

The free market pushes efficiency and getting people what they want.
Controlled markets are inefficient and fulfill the wants of the rulers.


When you think respecting people and treating them like adults is "childish", you have the problem.


----------



## like_to_retire

james4beach said:


> When I was younger, I used to call myself a libertarian. I liked the general ideas of "every man for himself" and personal responsibility, government not telling everyone what to do, and free markets (unfettered). But as I got older, I completely reversed on this.


I understand your arguments on this James. I suspect you feel it's a slippery slope and if we even entertain a smaller government, it'll result in anarchy.

The beauty of democracy is that if it doesn't work out, we can kick them to the curb in the next election.

All the points I mentioned in my post as to why I like Bernier are not that radical and sets him apart in a good way for me. You disagree with them, that's OK.

You do seem to be the antithesis of the general public where young people are idealistic and liberal and then get more conservative as they age. Their idealistic utopia of youth meets the reality of the world and they get wiser as time passes. They don't want a large controlling government that usually ends in disappointment and debt.

Anyway, I'm pleased Bernier will get to speak at the next debate on Oct 7. Should make it a bit more interesting.

ltr


----------



## MrMatt

We have a government now that takes half our money, and wastes it on a lot of stuff, while ignoring their primary responsibilities. 
If they got rid of the waste and corruption, or even admitted those were problems we'd be further ahead.

I don't trust corporations, but I don't trust government either.
Only one of those has guns to force me to do their bidding. 
It is crazy that the government takes my tax money under the guise of "for my own good" and hands it out like party favours to the world.


----------



## sags

I have never seen any polls or studies that show Canadians want smaller government. 

On the contrary, people appear to want the government to provide them with more services.


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> I have never seen any polls or studies that show Canadians want smaller government.
> 
> On the contrary, people appear to want the government to provide them with more services.


There are a diverse set of opinions on the role of government. 
Some want more, some want less. 

Some just want more money for themselves and see government as the easy way to get it.


----------



## sags

If there is so much waste and corruption, why do politicians who pledge to purge it from the government continually fail to find it after they are elected ?

Where are the "inefficiencies" that Doug Ford was going to use to balance the Ontario budget ? 

Even Andrew Scheer knows that bucket doesn't hold water anymore. This election he is out of the gate spending, spending, spending........


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> If there is so much waste and corruption, why do politicians who pledge to purge it from the government continually fail to find it after they are elected ?
> 
> Where are the "inefficiencies" that Doug Ford was going to use to balance the Ontario budget ?
> 
> Even Andrew Scheer knows that bucket doesn't hold water anymore. This election he is out of the gate spending, spending, spending........


https://news.ontario.ca/tbs/en/2019...le-of-ontario-a-billion-dollars-annually.html


You don't win elections by telling people to be responsible, you promise them everything and hope you don't end up like Venezuela.


The real answer is that people don't care. We have the most unethical PM in history, yet polls show he is likely to win a majority. He didn't come through on his sunny ways and openness and transparency in government. He couldn't even hold back from omnibus bills, whipped votes and appointing candidates over the objections of the riding associations.

I want responsible ethical small government. 
The voters of Toronto and Quebec want corruption and handouts, and they have the votes.


----------



## Eder

MrMatt said:


> It is crazy that the government takes my tax money under the guise of "for my own good" and hands it out like party favours to the world.


You mean like this?

https://twitter.com/justintrudeau/status/1069214653169844227?lang=en


----------



## sags

Now we are talking...........

_After 75, you’ll be able to count on a stronger Old Age Security— we’re going to increase it by 10%. That’s an extra $729 on average, and will lift more than 20,000 seniors out of poverty, two-thirds of whom are women.

On top of that, we’re going to do what we can to help seniors who lose their partner. It’s one of the hardest things to go through in life, and worrying about rent is the last thing you should be focusing on. It’s why we’re going to increase the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) and the Quebec Pension Plan (QPP) survivor’s benefit by 25% for an increase in the maximum benefits of more than $2,000 a year. But more importantly, it will give you the time and peace of mind to adjust to a new life. 

The Liberal team will always be there for you so you can spend less time worrying, and more time doing the things you love.
_
Raising the OAS and CPP Survivor benefis are huge steps in the right direction. Justin Trudeau is the people's PM.


----------



## kcowan

MrMatt said:


> I don't trust corporations, but I don't trust government either.
> Only one of those has guns to force me to do their bidding.
> It is crazy that the government takes my tax money under the guise of "for my own good" and hands it out like party favours to the world.


The only hope is that their election promises do not get implemented like last time.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

Eder said:


> You mean like this?
> https://twitter.com/justintrudeau/status/1069214653169844227?lang=en


Exactly Eder! 

His entitled, 'life in a bubble' upbringing is glaring. Meanwhile his adoring fans ignore his complete lack of judgement.

This response in your link said it well:
_"do you see how tweeting a post that pledges $50 Million to a comedian friend of Trudeau's just to make up for not being there, really indicates an arrogance with our tax dollars as if it is nothing when it comes out of our pockets."_

Don't we all wish we could give away $50 million of other people's money with a tweet and a shrug.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

Just like Trudeau's irresponsible twitter cash giveaways, the liberals are promising more money for seniors.

As the CBC says, "_The Liberals are offering new financial supports for seniors — but no independent analysis of how much they would cost Canadians._"

Trudeau is getting desperate and promising everything to everyone. He's worried. 

After the past 4 years of spending and incompetence, can you imagine the debt hole Canada would be in if this idiot ran the country for another 4 years :eek2:


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

Obviously the liberals were unable to sit down in the last 4 years and do a *proper analysis* of senior's income needs - CPP, OAS, GIS.

So now Trudeau, desperate that he might lose the election, makesill-informed, off-the-cuff promises, hoping to buy voters. That's not competent management - that's grounds for firing.

If the liberals were to get re-elected, then the whole playbook changes just like 4 years ago.


----------



## sags

The Trudeau government enhanced the CPP, increased the GIS and increased child benefits which helps senior raising their grandchildren.

That was Step 1. Now we move on to Step 2.

Raise OAS and CPP Survivor benefits and increase funding to home care and nursing home care.

The Trudeau government works for seniors. The Conservatives proposals benefit high income earners more than low income earners.

Canadians have a clear choice in the election and I think the results will speak for themselves.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

So Trudeau plans to give 75 year old seniors another $2/day

That’s great. All those seniors sitting in McDonalds at Simcoe & Taunton getting by on their GM union pension will be able to buy their coffee rather than expect a free refill.

Oops, not GM retirees – you have to make less than $77,580/year for the full $2.

Hmmm, what do poor seniors do from age 65 to 75? Is the hope that they’ll die off before 75? Minor detail.

Trudeau will lift 20,000 seniors out of poverty! But what about the remaining 218,000 who will still be living in poverty? Minor detail.

Asked about funding it, Trudeau says “That's a conversation that we're going to be having with the provinces". Sorry seniors, that’s code for “of course we promised it so you would vote for us, but now we can’t get provincial buy in. It’s their fault. Sorry.” Minor detail.

All this announcement does is illustrate how incompetent and unqualified the liberals are to lead Canada.


----------



## sags

Andrew Scheer is spending a lot of his time dodging Doug Ford and people are taking note of it.

_*Where's Doug Ford?* That was one of the more persistent questions hurled at Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer during his mini-tour through Ontario and the Greater Toronto Area in the early days of the federal election campaign._

_It has raised questions as to whether Scheer, in this election campaign, is deliberately avoiding Ford, who has seen his popularity drop since his own election in June 2018._

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/andrew-scheer-doug-ford-ontario-1.5285199


----------



## sags

$60 more a month in OAS is $120 more a month for senior couples.

$60 more a month in OAS as well as $200 more a month for single retirees (CPP survivor benefit) is $280 more a month.

That is a significant amount of money for people who are struggling every month. It may be the difference between eating or not.


----------



## sags

The latest polls show Justin Trudeau has leaped to the top of people's choice for best Prime Minister.

_Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau has leapt ahead of his rival, Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer, in Canadians’ estimations of whom would make the best prime minister, a new poll suggests.

37 per cent of Canadians surveyed said they think Trudeau is best suited for the role of prime minister — a seven-point jump compared to mid-August.

In comparison, 30 per cent said the same about Scheer. That marked a drop of two per cent for the Tory leader since the same time last month.

Green Party Leader Elizabeth May saw a seven-point drop among voters asked the same question: only 14 per cent said she would make the best prime minister compared to 21 per cent in August.

Ten per cent said NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh would be best for the job while only five per cent said the same about Maxime Bernier, leader of the People’s Party of Canada._

https://globalnews.ca/news/5913686/...xGqECg.0&utm_referrer=https://www.google.com/


----------



## Prairie Guy

Your assume that someone who is short of money and can't afford to buy food would never consider finding a job to supplement their income.

If $60 a month is the difference between eating or not, find a part time job instead of waiting for a handout from Trudeau. All you need to do to earn $60 is work 5 hours at minimum wage. Work one day a week and earn a few hundred every month plus get potential perks from the business as an employee.


----------



## sags

LOL..........too funny

Sorry, grandma but dems dat works eats, so get off your lazy old *** and get a job.

And Conservatives wonder why so many Canadians reject their ideology......LOL


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

sags said:


> $xx more a month in OAS is $xxx more a month for senior couples.
> $xx more a month in OAS as well as $xxx more a month for single retirees (CPP survivor benefit) is $xxx more a month.
> That is a significant amount of money for people who are struggling every month. It may be the difference between eating or not.


These are all unfounded, unfunded fairy tale promises. Election bait - not a competent government plan.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

sags said:


> ... _Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau has leapt ahead of his rival, Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer... 37 per cent of Canadians surveyed said they think Trudeau is best... In comparison, 30 per cent said the same about Scheer._


Haha. What hyperbole. 7% from an unreliable survey, reported by Global. And that's "leapt ahead"? 
I guess the liberal's $600 million to buy the media was only enough taxpayer money to buy sensationalized headlines, not substance. Advertising is expensive isn't it.


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> LOL..........too funny
> 
> Sorry, grandma but dems dat works eats, so get off your lazy old *** and get a job.
> 
> And Conservatives wonder why so many Canadians reject their ideology......LOL


You think it's funny, but that is the reality. 
At some point someone has to actually go and do the work of making the food and building the society we live in. 

This is all about give give give, but Trudeau isn't thinking about where any of this is coming from.


----------



## Zipper

I'll be pretty happy with the 10% OAS bump. So will Mrs. Zipper. 

Trudeau is going to get the Geezer vote for this.

Well done!


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

Zipper said:


> I'll be pretty happy with the 10% OAS bump. So will Mrs. Zipper.
> Trudeau is going to get the Geezer vote for this.
> Well done!


But you won't get it Zipper.
This is just vote-buying, empty promises by the liberals at election time.
Typical of Trudeau, he speaks platitudes & promises without any substance or knowledge behind him.


----------



## Prairie Guy

sags said:


> LOL..........too funny
> 
> Sorry, grandma but dems dat works eats, so get off your lazy old *** and get a job.
> 
> And Conservatives wonder why so many Canadians reject their ideology......LOL


I wouldn't let my grandmother starve...and if the left felt the same way about their grandmothers then they wouldn't starve either.

But the left is lazy and they want Trudeau to take money from other people to support them.


----------



## andrewf

james4beach said:


> When I was younger, I used to call myself a libertarian. I liked the general ideas of "every man for himself" and personal responsibility, government not telling everyone what to do, and free markets (unfettered). But as I got older, I completely reversed on this.
> 
> The key change for me was living in the US and seeing what happens when things in society are completely left to people to figure out for themselves, and corporations. The first thing that happens is that corporations abuse just about every possible situation. The absence of strong regulation and rules lets corporations run amok.
> 
> Things like protection of the environment, public health & safety, even caring for the disadvantaged do not happen on their own. Nor does everyone do what is sensible / safe / respectful of others around them. Free markets do not solve any of this. Unfortunately, many costs and consequences don't get priced in free markets. In practice we've seen, time and again, that markets don't look out for the public interest.
> 
> Welfare systems are absolutely necessary, and every advanced country has them. In the US, where there's minimal welfare (and the systems are stingy) people who are poor, who have chronic medical problems, or are down on their luck, are basicaly left to rot in the street. It's really disgusting what America does to its poor people. I can't believe how much poverty I saw in supposedly the world's richest country. But there's your light-touch government for you!
> 
> Banking systems are another great example. The only thing that has curtailed the relentless theft and misappropriation of their assets, broker and banker shenanigans has been strong regulation. The "free market" is an absolute disaster for banking, insurance, etc. Look at these bitcoin exchanges. They are the epitome of a free market ... unfettered by any regulation. Some Joe sets up a new crypto currency thing, takes investor money, and... obviously, steals it. Over and over again.
> 
> What a disaster, when there's a lack of regulation or when the government doesn't manage things (or enforce rules). Countless examples, and I lived some of them in the USA.
> 
> I just don't believe in the libertarian ideals any more. To me they seem naive and a little bit stupid. Instead, I strongly believe that government is necessary for many things, especially protection of people's rights / health / safety / the environment and also to create fair and level playing fields in complex sectors such as finance and trade.
> 
> Bernier for example endorses freedom to emit CO2. This is just as stupid as saying we should have no regulations about companies polluting, or using up fresh water supplies. We know what happens in these scenarios, because it happens in third world countries... the companies go absolutely crazy without regard to any effects and consequences.
> 
> Anyway, I think his Libertarian positions are pretty childish. My 22 year old self might have supported him... before I experienced the USA, before I understood the natural tendencies of corporations to be viciously selfish... but today I just think he's a fool.


I am very sympathetic to libertarianism. I generally agree that government should by default not get involved unless there is a strong argument otherwise (market failure, moral hazard, social harmony/welfare maximization, etc.). I think some people get stuck on the idea that government is always bad, which is pretty facile. You also can't really point to any true 'libertarian paradises' that meet this standard, and that aren't total disasters (Somalia is quite libertarian).


----------



## andrewf

sags said:


> $60 more a month in OAS is $120 more a month for senior couples.
> 
> $60 more a month in OAS as well as $200 more a month for single retirees (CPP survivor benefit) is $280 more a month.
> 
> That is a significant amount of money for people who are struggling every month. It may be the difference between eating or not.


Most of them don't need it. If we want to lift a few tens of thousands of low income seniors out of poverty, no need to hose money over all those seniors making combined incomes of over $100k. Better to increase GIS. Of course, it is not a vote winner. This promise gets a thumbs-down from me.


----------



## andrewf

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> But you won't get it Zipper.
> This is just vote-buying, empty promises by the liberals at election time.
> Typical of Trudeau, he speaks platitudes & promises without any substance or knowledge behind him.


What, the Liberals should let the CPC have a monopoly on lying to voters? That's hardly fair!


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

No, but they need to take turns at the trough :encouragement:


----------



## Zipper

Almost all The 'Geezer Squad' votes.

I think this move will make a difference in all 3 London Ridings.

The volunteer Liberal drivers will be lined up at every Retirement home.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

Yes but the Conservatives will be there too, with cleaner vehicles. nthego:


----------



## OhGreatGuru

Bribing us with our own money as usual; selectively appealing to the specific demographics that they think will benefit them the most at the polls. Instead of making fundamental income tax reform. A pox on all their houses.


----------



## like_to_retire

OhGreatGuru said:


> Bribing us with our own money as usual; selectively appealing to the specific demographics that they think will benefit them the most at the polls. Instead of making fundamental income tax reform. A pox on all their houses.


+1

ltr


----------



## bgc_fan

OhGreatGuru said:


> Bribing us with our own money as usual; selectively appealing to the specific demographics that they think will benefit them the most at the polls. Instead of making fundamental income tax reform. A pox on all their houses.


Funny, you have no problem with the Conservatives doing that with bringing back the transit credit? Or when they were pushing for income splitting last election that targets a specific demographic? Or increasing the CESG to 30% of contributions to a max of $2,500 per year?


----------



## sags

The Conservatives also want to bring back the "sports credit" for two kids. 

According to the Canadian Tax Federation, almost all Conservative proposals are boutique tax credits that benefit wealthier people more than lower income people.

People with more money to spend save more money in the Conservative platform.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

Gee sags, even Kevin Page, the Liberal's inside man at SNC-Lavalin had kudos for the Cons program today. He's impressed that announcements are properly documented and costed, unlike the unsubstantiated, too-late promises that Trudeau comes up with. He may have had a doobie with Butts, or thinks he's teaching drama class again? 
Kevin is hedging his bets like all good bubble dwellers.


----------



## Eder

I think JT needs to be investigated similar to Trump for foreign intervention helping their election.


https://calgaryherald.com/news/loca...hy-trudeau-changed-charity-laws-for-activists

Krause also points out that the same U.S. foundations that have spent hundreds of millions of dollars successfully blocking Canadian energy pipelines to tidewater also funded groups that helped Trudeau win the 2015 election.

Krause showed slides that prove that foreign money “moved the needle” in the 2015 federal election campaign, with groups claiming credit for defeating 26 Conservative incumbents. These foreign funded groups, such as OPEN and Leadnow, pumped millions of dollars into Canada’s federal election, a dangerous loophole in Canadian law that the Trudeau government refuses — perhaps not surprisingly — to close. Leadnow admitted that it received foreign funding before the 2015 election but claims that money was not used in its Vote Together campaign to defeat the Harper Conservative government.

“They didn’t do this because of how we treat refugees or immigrants, or First Nations people or anyone else,” Krause told the crowd. 
“This was done as part of the campaign to land-lock our crude. To defeat the one political party (the Conservatives) that was committed to breaking the American monopoly that’s keeping our country over a barrel,” she said.

Krause then showed a slide with a massive tangle of red lines representing pipelines and dots representing tankers on our coasts, which wasn’t lost on the oil-friendly group to reflect on the recent passing of Bill C-48, the tanker ban, and Bill C-69, which has been dubbed the “no more pipelines” law.
“The only ones against which there is a multimillion-dollar, decade-long campaign are the pipelines that would take your oil to overseas markets. No campaign against Texas,” she states.
“Why us?” she asks. “Why not Texas?”
Fair questions. We need some answers. Perhaps Butts can help.

In other news Sheer promised to repeal C69 and the carbon tax yesterday....guess he just bought my vote.


----------



## Eder

Oh...it just gets better & better lol

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/can...nface-costume-in-2001-2/?intcmp=notifications

Captain Crayon needs to explain...(although personally I couldn't care less) but the moral woke lefties should take note here.


----------



## kcowan

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> All this announcement does is illustrate how incompetent and unqualified the liberals are to lead Canada.


It is not the liberals, it is Trudeau. And these promises are just so much election BS. But we need more support from the Ontario voters!

BTW don't listen to the CBC! They have become part of the Trudeau Pravda gang.


----------



## Eder

Ooops!


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

Eder said:


> Oh...it just gets better & better lol
> https://www.theglobeandmail.com/can...nface-costume-in-2001-2/?intcmp=notifications
> Captain Crayon needs to explain...(although personally I couldn't care less) but the moral woke lefties should take note here.


In the event you find the link paywalled, you can  find a report & pic here as well

*But then we already know that he has abysmal, terrible, poor judgement and is not fit to be PM.*


----------



## andrewf

I think the blackface thing is less of a third rail in Canada than the US. Agreed that it fails the political correctness test, but it does not seem racist to me. I don't think it takes too much convincing that Trudeau is a bit of a doofus.


----------



## Prairie Guy

Just pretend that it was Harper or Trump in that pic and imagine the massive outrage.

Now ask yourself why the media doesn't seem to care. Is that journalism?


----------



## Eder

I don't care but I'm just an angry old white man. Hopefully this doesn't derail the money fest both Sheer & JT are raining on us...(with our own $$)


----------



## kcowan

bgc_fan said:


> Or increasing the CESG to 30% of contributions to a max of $2,500 per year?


Funny I think that is a good move. The RESP is not well-used but it will appeal to the financially literate voters. We desparately need more financial literacy in this country.

Increasing OAS is a bad idea. Increased GIS is what is needed.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

Jagmeet was a bit confused by jt's need to wear this costume as well:









But the local media got a lot of laughs out of Canada's costume queen.


----------



## Eder

Prairie Guy said:


> Just pretend that it was Harper or Trump in that pic and imagine the massive outrage.
> 
> Now ask yourself why the media doesn't seem to care. Is that journalism?


He said he was sorry...thats enough for me although I don't see any problem with a white or black faced costume...guess I'm not enlightened enough. I think CBC said it wasn't really brown but more of a tanned look.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

The issue is not whether his costuming was racist or in bad taste. 
The issue is that Trudeau has ALWAYS shown poor judgement in his decisions.
He only became PM 4 years ago because the liberals were desperate to cash in on his father's name. 
He is not fit to be making the decisions required of a PM!


----------



## Eder

Well Jagmeet showed fake outrage on Global News but Sheer was unavailable. I really hope his his reaction is "Who cares that was long ago" and encourages all Canadians to remain focused on the issues and to get off their asses & vote.


----------



## bgc_fan

kcowan said:


> Funny I think that is a good move. The RESP is not well-used but it will appeal to the financially literate voters. We desparately need more financial literacy in this country.
> 
> Increasing OAS is a bad idea. Increased GIS is what is needed.


I don't have an issue with providing support to higher education. My point was that it is essentially a boutique type election promise, and the Conservatives are bringing a few of them back.


----------



## sags

Andrew Scheer held a rally in Calgary (heart of Conservative country) and drew an audience of less than 200 people.

We have a guy playing bongo drums downtown who draws a bigger crowd. What is going on with Scheer and his own supporters ?


----------



## sags

Prairie Guy said:


> Just pretend that it was Harper or Trump in that pic and imagine the massive outrage.
> 
> Now ask yourself why the media doesn't seem to care. Is that journalism?


Please no.........I still have a mental picture of Harper wearing a cowboy hat burned into my memory and it still haunts me today.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

_I should have known better but I didn’t, But I did that and I shouldn’t have done that, I shouldn’t have done that, it was a dumb thing to do, I’m disappointed in myself, I’m pissed off at myself for having done it, I wish I hadn’t done it, but I did it, I’ve taken responsibility for having made a real mistake, I did something I really shouldn’t have done

As for other candidates who may have made mistakes on social media or other things in the past maybe you should have given them a little more latitude? I think this is something like everything you have to evaluate on a case by case basis, this is something I take seriously, (thinking: but the fact is they’re not me and the rules are different for me)

(thinking: I have poor judgment, as long as someone else is making the decisions I think I look pretty good)_


----------



## humble_pie

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> The issue is not whether his costuming was racist or in bad taste.
> The issue is that Trudeau has ALWAYS shown poor judgement in his decisions.
> He only became PM 4 years ago because the liberals were desperate to cash in on his father's name.
> He is not fit to be making the decisions required of a PM!



a bit unhinged here, no?

trudeau became PM in october 2015 because a record number of canadians voted him into power. It was the biggest landslide majority in canadian voting history.

trudeau & cabinet have made many excellent decisions. Canada is in good shape, economy growing fastest of the G20 nations.

only a gossiping featherweight would preacher on about who's fit to be a prime minister & who's not fit ... but then, cmf forum has turned into a backwater of ultra cons all jabbering about whether they'll vote bernie or whether they'll vote andrew.

meanwhile the liberals have started construction on transmountain II at the edmonton start & also at the burnaby terminal. BC is putting up a last court opposition but admits it does not have the constitutional right to block federal pipeline development. There are still a few indigenous chiefs in BC who are opposed to transMountain. Elizabeth May says she is opposed. That's about it. My guess is that their views will be history by the end of this year.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

Just to be sure I have this right, your humble opinion is level-headed and valid to express, but my opinion - that Trudeau has repeatedly shown poor judgement, rode on the coattails of his name, and should not be PM is that of an unhinged, gossiping featherweight?

Got it. 

How little you know.


----------



## MrMatt

humble_pie said:


> a bit unhinged here, no?
> 
> trudeau became PM in october 2015 because a record number of canadians voted him into power. It was the biggest landslide majority in canadian voting history.
> 
> trudeau & cabinet have made many excellent decisions. Canada is in good shape, economy growing fastest of the G20 nations.
> 
> only a gossiping featherweight would preacher on about who's fit to be a prime minister & who's not fit ... but then, cmf forum has turned into a backwater of ultra cons all jabbering about whether they'll vote bernie or whether they'll vote andrew.
> 
> meanwhile the liberals have started construction on transmountain II at the edmonton start & also at the burnaby terminal. BC is putting up a last court opposition but admits it does not have the constitutional right to block federal pipeline development. There are still a few indigenous chiefs in BC who are opposed to transMountain. Elizabeth May says she is opposed. That's about it. My guess is that their views will be history by the end of this year.



Please explain your claim it was the "biggest landslide majority in Canadian vorting history.

Liberal 6,943,276	Conservative 5,613,614	Difference 1,329,662 << Admittedly a pretty impressive
However previously
Conservative 5,209,069	Liberal 3,633,185	1,575,884, bigger differential.

Or Chretien in 93, that was a Landslide win on available seats.


----------



## Spidey

humble_pie said:


> a bit unhinged here, no?
> 
> trudeau became PM in october 2015 because a record number of canadians voted him into power. It was the biggest landslide majority in canadian voting history.



According to this site, 8 previous governments had bigger percentage of seats than Trudeau. It was apparently though one of the "Biggest seat gains in Canada's history delivered a majority government — with one of its smallest mandates."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-historical-trudeau-government-1.3344130


----------



## MrMatt

bgc_fan said:


> Funny, you have no problem with the Conservatives doing that with bringing back the transit credit? Or when they were pushing for income splitting last election that targets a specific demographic? Or increasing the CESG to 30% of contributions to a max of $2,500 per year?


I actually have a problem with the transit credit, and sports credit etc.
I think they should get rid of all these special credits and complex plans and simplify the system.

Hike the basic deduction to $30k, and link to inflation. Though the cut in the lowest bracket is pretty close IMO.

Increase TFSA contribution limits to 15% of median Canadian income


----------



## marina628

Doug Ford plus a PC Federal Government ...yeah I do not think that will fly in 905.


----------



## Spidey

Trudeau's blackface stunt has poor Jagmeet in tears. It isn't only the blackface, his hand is pretty close to grope territory on that woman in front of him. Perhaps they were an "item" at the time but even if that were the case the posture appears a tad controlling. And if they were not an "item" it appears a lot controlling. He was 29 at the time, so not exactly a kid. Thank god he didn't wear that costume on his India trip

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/kinsella-brownface-photo-shows-why-the-trudeau-show-needs-to-be-cancelled


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

Re/ the girl with him. When asked, Trudeau smiled slightly and said, "she was a close friend".

I was actually impressed with  Jagmeet's comment: _"The kids that see this image, the people that see this image, are going to think about all the times in their life that they were made fun of, that they were hurt, that they were hit, that they were insulted, that they were made to feel less because of who they are and I want to talk to those people right now," Singh said. 

"I want to talk to all the kids out there," he said. "You might feel like giving up on Canada. You might feel like giving up on yourselves. I want you to know that you have value, you have worth and you are loved and I don't want you to give up on Canada and please don't give up on yourselves."_

A lot more heartfelt than anything that's ever come out of Trudeau's mouth.


----------



## bgc_fan

MrMatt said:


> I actually have a problem with the transit credit, and sports credit etc.
> I think they should get rid of all these special credits and complex plans and simplify the system.
> 
> Hike the basic deduction to $30k, and link to inflation. Though the cut in the lowest bracket is pretty close IMO.
> 
> Increase TFSA contribution limits to 15% of median Canadian income


I agree. So I appreciated the fact that the Liberals did away with all those boutique credits and had one single child benefit and reduced the second tier tax rate.

First of all, the tax brackets are linked to inflation, and have been since Chretien's government linked it. But I agree they should be gradually increasing the basic deduction an extra $500 or so, until it reaches $20k.

You do realize that the TFSA contribution limit is above 15% of the median Canadian income don't you? Unless you have an inflated idea of what the median income is.
The TFSA contribution limit is $6000. Median household income (of 2 or more people) is $76,900 (15% is $11,535 or less than 2x$6k given 2 people older than 18). For a single individual, the median income is $28,200 (15% is $4,230).
Numbers are from StatsCan: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/12-581-x/2018000/is-rd-eng.htm


----------



## doctrine

andrewf said:


> I think the blackface thing is less of a third rail in Canada than the US. Agreed that it fails the political correctness test, but it does not seem racist to me. I don't think it takes too much convincing that Trudeau is a bit of a doofus.


This doesn't seem racist to you? Really? Boys will be boys, is that it? Even if you're 29 years old? Was blackface not racist in 2001?


----------



## andrewf

marina628 said:


> Doug Ford plus a PC Federal Government ...yeah I do not think that will fly in 905.


You're back! Nice to see you around, marina.


----------



## andrewf

doctrine said:


> This doesn't seem racist to you? Really? Boys will be boys, is that it? Even if you're 29 years old? Was blackface not racist in 2001?


Well, this is a black & white photo, so it's hard to say whether it is truly blackface or more brownface (a la tan-in-a-can Trump). And I interpret the real issue with blackface being the old minstrel shows, which were truly racist. The issue with more modern uses of blackface are not so much the act itself (which might be done out of ignorance and not malice), but the echo back to the time of minstrel shows. And I think that smarts more for America with its more complicated racial history. As a side note, I will say that Canada has more than enough of its own issues with racism in its history. 

To summarize, I don't believe that blackface is inherently racist, as I believe racism is more about intention/motivation. Innocuous things can be racist if they are motivated by prejudice (a security guard following a racial minority individual around a store as they are shopping). Whereas a kid dressing up as Michael Jaskson on Halloween with dark makeup is probably not racist in motivation, in that it is coming more from a place of admiration.

That said, blackface is inherently ill-advised as people may read malice where there is none. 

I recently watched Tropic Thunder, and had been meaning to rewatch it for a while. I feel like Robert Downey Jr's portrayal of an Aussie guy method acting a black man got in just under the wire of being socially acceptable. I don't think that movie would be made today.

Of course, I am probably not your target lefty. I have been strongly opposed to the social justice/cancel culture turn in society. I already saw it as a problem when I was on a university campus a bit over ten years ago. I am probably centre-leftish to centrist but was surrounded by people to the left of me.


----------



## marina628

andrewf said:


> You're back! Nice to see you around, marina.


Not for long but thanks for noticing


----------



## james4beach

doctrine said:


> This doesn't seem racist to you? Really? Boys will be boys, is that it? Even if you're 29 years old? Was blackface not racist in 2001?


The conservative brain trust at CMF (MrMatt, Pluto, Prairie Guy) have argued at length, very recently, that when brown people such as Arab/muslim people are the target, it isn't racism. They argued that when Trump made derogatory comments about hispanics, muslims, and brown people in general, that it wasn't racism. That even when Trump specifically targeted their groups (a far more hostile act than Trudeau's silly costume), that it wasn't racist.

So I expect conservatives to be consistent in the arguments they make. I was told at CMF that this kind of thing isn't racist.

MrMatt, you still believe that right? Come on, you scholar. Clarify the situation for your fellow conservatives: what Trudeau did wasn't racist.

(My own belief on this matter is that yes, Trudeau's costume was a bit racist, but he did not intend any harm, and wasn't doing something to oppress non-white communities. It's a silly costume, but that's basically it. )


----------



## doctrine

Wait, because three people on an anonymous online forum have that attitude, that it is okay for the Prime Minister to be dressed in blackface/brownface? More than once? What else has he done that he hasn't admitted? Because he certainly didn't apologize for this before he was outed.


----------



## doctrine

andrewf said:


> Well, this is a black & white photo, so it's hard to say whether it is truly blackface or more brownface (a la tan-in-a-can Trump). And I interpret the real issue with blackface being the old minstrel shows, which were truly racist. The issue with more modern uses of blackface are not so much the act itself (which might be done out of ignorance and not malice), but the echo back to the time of minstrel shows. And I think that smarts more for America with its more complicated racial history. As a side note, I will say that Canada has more than enough of its own issues with racism in its history.
> 
> To summarize, I don't believe that blackface is inherently racist, as I believe racism is more about intention/motivation. Innocuous things can be racist if they are motivated by prejudice (a security guard following a racial minority individual around a store as they are shopping). Whereas a kid dressing up as Michael Jaskson on Halloween with dark makeup is probably not racist in motivation, in that it is coming more from a place of admiration.
> 
> That said, blackface is inherently ill-advised as people may read malice where there is none.
> 
> I recently watched Tropic Thunder, and had been meaning to rewatch it for a while. I feel like Robert Downey Jr's portrayal of an Aussie guy method acting a black man got in just under the wire of being socially acceptable. I don't think that movie would be made today.
> 
> Of course, I am probably not your target lefty. I have been strongly opposed to the social justice/cancel culture turn in society. I already saw it as a problem when I was on a university campus a bit over ten years ago. I am probably centre-leftish to centrist but was surrounded by people to the left of me.


When the leader of the free world of social justice is caught in the act, the literal poster boy for diversity and inclusiveness, there will be consequences. This isn't just a random person. Ignorance of what black/brown face means is not an excuse. And not from the Prime Minister, who is also the son of the actual Father of Multiculturalism in this country. And wouldn't have said a thing if he wasn't caught.

There is no need to downplay or try to justify this. Trudeau himself called it racist behaviour.


----------



## sags

I found it surprising that Andrew Scheer criticized Trudeau for wasting money by buying the TM pipeline.

I would have thought the Conservatives supported the purchase. It looks like the Liberals are the only party who supported the purchase of TMP.

_Scheer said the Conservatives would have never spent federal funds in other ways the Liberals have, including $220 million to buy energy-efficient gas turbines for the Canada LNG project in British Columbia, and the $4.5-billion purchase of the Trans Mountain pipeline.
_
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/conservatives-business-subsidies-1.5288031


----------



## MrMatt

james4beach said:


> The conservative brain trust at CMF (MrMatt, Pluto, Prairie Guy) have argued at length, very recently, that when brown people such as Arab/muslim people are the target, it isn't racism. They argued that when Trump made derogatory comments about hispanics, muslims, and brown people in general, that it wasn't racism. That even when Trump specifically targeted their groups (a far more hostile act than Trudeau's silly costume), that it wasn't racist.
> 
> So I expect conservatives to be consistent in the arguments they make. I was told at CMF that this kind of thing isn't racist.
> 
> MrMatt, you still believe that right? Come on, you scholar. Clarify the situation for your fellow conservatives: what Trudeau did wasn't racist.
> 
> (My own belief on this matter is that yes, Trudeau's costume was a bit racist, but he did not intend any harm, and wasn't doing something to oppress non-white communities. It's a silly costume, but that's basically it. )


I did not argue any such thing. 

I simply stated that there MUST be a race involved for it to be racism. 
You can be racist against brown people, white people, asians, blacks etc.

I hold that by definition if the discrimination isn't based on race, it isn't racism. I think you argued that there is no such thing as race, but it's still racism. 
If you're discriminating against gender, religion, culture, belief system, political affiliation, citizenship etc, that may well be a form of discrimination, but it isn't racism.
You can't have racism without the racial aspect.

Now Trudeau in "brownface", well I'd suggest that those who think it is racist to "dress up" like another culture and put on on blackface would consider this racist. I believe that many Lefties and SJWs fall into this category
Those that think it is okay to dress up as another culture, or wear brownface/blackface would not think this is racist.

I think the issue is that among the political left, this behaviour is considered racist, and putting on blackface and singing Day-O, might just be the type of cultural appropriation that will harm Trudeau in the election.

Also do I, in this specific case consider the act racist.
Yes. Because he himself said it was racist.


----------



## sags

It was racist and Trudeau apologized for it being racist.

In context, it was a costume party and he was dressed up like Aladdin and had brown makeup on.

Maybe he should have gone to the party as Lawrence of Arabia. Trudeau showed poor judgement for a 29 year old.

Given the circumstances among his own candidates, perhaps Andrew Sheer should tamp down the fake outrage on this one.


----------



## sags

Andrew Scheer also wants to stop the $3.3 billion a year subsidy the Federal government gives the oil industry.

Alberta leads the way with $600 per capita handouts to corporations.

_John Lester, a former federal government economist who now works as an executive fellow at the University of Calgary's School of Public Policy, said in a 2018 paper that there were about $14 billion in federal government business subsidies in 2014-15. The paper said Ottawa and the four largest provinces in Canada provided $29 billion in subsidies through program spending, mostly through the tax system, with *Alberta leading the way at $600 per capita corporate handouts.*

The total amount was about half of what the provinces and Ottawa collected in corporate income taxes.

The federal government has been promising under both the former Conservative government and the recent Liberal one to cancel federal fossil fuel subsidies — worth more than $3.3 billion a year — as part of a pledge of all G20 nations to do so. Despite the decade-old promise that Canada has recommitted to every year since, the subsidies have not been cut._

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/conservatives-business-subsidies-1.5288031


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> I found it surprising that Andrew Scheer criticized Trudeau for wasting money by buying the TM pipeline.
> 
> I would have thought the Conservatives supported the purchase. It looks like the Liberals are the only party who supported the purchase of TMP.
> 
> _Scheer said the Conservatives would have never spent federal funds in other ways the Liberals have, including $220 million to buy energy-efficient gas turbines for the Canada LNG project in British Columbia, and the $4.5-billion purchase of the Trans Mountain pipeline.
> _
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/conservatives-business-subsidies-1.5288031


Actually Conservatives simply wanted the government to let them build the pipeline.
It was not a responsible use of tax dollars to buy the pipeline, and I'm STILL opposed to doing so.


----------



## Beaver101

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> The issue is not whether his costuming was racist or in bad taste.
> The issue is that Trudeau has ALWAYS shown poor judgement in his decisions.
> He only became PM 4 years ago because the liberals were desperate to cash in on his father's name.
> He is not fit to be making the decisions required of a PM!


 ... he was 29 years old and a teacher already. What an example for his students (and to-be if he's returning after his stint as PM). On closer look, I would be more concerned where his hands were in that pic.


----------



## sags

This is inconceivable, outrageous and beyond the pale.

If this doesn't bring Trudeau crashing down and losing the election, there is only one conclusion that can be gleaned from it.

Justin Trudeau is invincible.


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> This is inconceivable, outrageous and beyond the pale.
> 
> If this doesn't bring Trudeau crashing down and losing the election, there is only one conclusion that can be gleaned from it.
> 
> Justin Trudeau is invincible.


It's a silly costume, and shouldn't be a big deal. 
But in this crazy world a poor choice in makeup is a greater crime than all the alleged and/or proven ethical, legal and criminal behaviours that Trudeau and his government have engaged in.

Kinda sad, but at least we might finally get rid of him.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

Now Mercedes Stephenson on Global News has found a 3rd instance of Trudeau pretending he is a coloured person with his body blackened.

In addition to consistently poor judgement, this idiot appears to have *no imagination* at all. Three times coloured? What about the pirates, ghosts, and aliens of the world? 

It has been confirmed that this instance is not related to the 2nd, high school event that Trudeau admitted to yesterday. So it would seem that his memory is also poor.


----------



## Longtimeago

What is it that bible quote, 'Let he who is without sin cast the first stone'.

If we are going to be honest we have to accept that every one of us is tribal at some level. Part of being 'civilized' is fighting within ourselves against any kind of tribalism and trying to see and treat everyone as an equal. But the honest truth is that we do not see and treat everyone equally and never will. However, having said that, the right thing to do is to keep TRYING to be as fair as we can. We are all human, we all make mistakes, we all discriminate in many ways, all the time. 

What Trudeau did in 2001 was stupid, not thought out and he should have known better. He probably would have known better if he had thought about it. But who here gives serious thought to everything they do every day? As I was watching the CBC news reporting on this issue this morning, a newsreader referred to Jagmeet Singh as and I quote, "the first non-white leader of a party". What is that if not a racist comment? Think about it.

Do I think that newsreader is racist? No, not really, she did not intend any insult, she was just referring to him in a way that to her as a WHITE person is normal. Whether it is as black person referring to a 'white person' or a white person referring to a 'black person', they are equally as racist terms. If someone sees all people as the same as them, there would be no reason to refer to skin colour at all. 

So it got me to thinking about how realistic is it to think that any of us is not tribal in our thinking regardless of how we want to think of ourselves as not being so. I am not a racist, I do not have any animosity towards people who are Jewish or Muslim. I do not think that someone who has a beard, wears checked shirts and refers to himself as a 'hipster' is my inferior. I do however have to ask what is the intent of the 'hipster' in referring to himself as a hipster? The answer I think is obvious. He is trying to differentiate himself from anyone who is not part of that tribe! Is that not a form of discrimination? I agree with MrMatt that it does not involve race and so is not racist but is it not equally as bad in its own way? I'm assuming of course that there are hipsters of different races, I don't know. Are all hipsters white? 

I believe we all discriminate even though we might not think we do. Deep down inside somewhere, we are all tribal in different ways. If I am a proud Canadian and take even a small bit of offense when someone in Europe say, thinks I am an American, is that not offensive to an American to hear me say that? Am I not saying that an American is a lesser being than a Canadian?

We are all tribal and cannot escape that. All we can do is try to do what as a civilized person we believe we should do but I for one am not going to cast the first stone.


----------



## MrMatt

Trudeau has been sewing division and promoting identity politics and I think it is fitting if that intolerance was the cause of his downfall. God knows he seems to be immune to everything else.


----------



## Prairie Guy

MrMatt said:


> It's a silly costume, and shouldn't be a big deal.
> But in this crazy world a poor choice in makeup is a greater crime than all the alleged and/or proven ethical, legal and criminal behaviours that Trudeau and his government have engaged in.
> 
> Kinda sad, but at least we might finally get rid of him.


I agree that his ethics violations and crimes are far worse, but if this is what it takes to keep him from being elected again then I'm all for it.


----------



## Longtimeago

Have you ever considered how two individuals who are reasonably intelligent, educated and keep up with current affairs, can have entirely different opinions on something like which political party to vote for?

If 40% vote for the Liberals and 40% vote for the Conservatives, does that mean that 40% of voters are idiots? Which 40%? The 40% that do not agree with you? Does it not amaze you how many people must be idiots when they keep voting for the Liberals? It certainly amazes me how so many people can keep voting for the Conservatives.

Hey wait a minute, if your 40% of idiots and my 40% of idiots make up 80% of the voting public, where are the non-idiots? Could it be we Liberal and Conservative voters really are all idiots and should be voting for the NDP or Green Party? 

There is only one party to vote for, that's the party I vote for and anyone who votes for any other party is an idiot or deluded by the lies of that party. Does that sound like an intelligent statement to you?


----------



## MrMatt

Longtimeago said:


> Have you ever considered how two individuals who are reasonably intelligent, educated and keep up with current affairs, can have entirely different opinions on something like which political party to vote for?
> 
> If 40% vote for the Liberals and 40% vote for the Conservatives, does that mean that 40% of voters are idiots? Which 40%? The 40% that do not agree with you?


Unfortunately, the other guys are idiots is a common thought. But it's wrong. 

It's different values and different situations. 
Let's say I want to get somewhere, should I. 
Walk
Pat for the bus
Take a taxi
Rent a car
Buy a car
Buy a plane ticket
Charter a plane
Buy a plane. 

I think it is obvious that the answer is different for different people. 

That's something people seem to forget. 

If you weigh the factors differently, you'll ha e a different decision. 
To bring it back to finance, what is the correct fixed income/equity split. 
Depends on the individuals situation and personality. 

Failing to acknowledge that we are all individuals, in out own situations with our own thoughts and values is one of the fundamental problems we are facing today. 
Some people don't even want to acknowledge it, let alone address it.


----------



## Eder

Can't make this stuff up LOL!! Probably racist of me posting a pic of a favorite movie of mine though.


----------



## MrMatt

Eder said:


> Can't make this stuff up LOL!! Probably racist of me posting a pic of a favorite movie of mine though.


I'm offended, idiocracy is a much better movie.


----------



## james4beach

sags said:


> This is inconceivable, outrageous and beyond the pale.
> 
> If this doesn't bring Trudeau crashing down and losing the election, there is only one conclusion that can be gleaned from it.
> 
> Justin Trudeau is invincible.


Yup, the conservatives better hope this is it for him. If this can't sink him, nothing will.

In my view though, other than exercising very poor taste in costumes, I don't see any malice in this. He wasn't oppressing any brown people or trying to knock them down.

In my view, Harper's actual policies were far more aggressive to brown people (muslims in particular) as he verbally played up fears about muslims and actually enacted policies that made their lives more difficult. Harper actually oppressed non-whites, including indigeneous peoples. His views on "old stock Canadians" was another illustration of this. This is government _actually_ being oppressive to minorities and brown people... that's what we had under the last Conservative government.

Trump as well, explicitly says things that oppress brown people, targest their communities. In other words these are aggressive acts of racism and oppression. Nothing light about his stuff, it's dead serious.

Trudeau's stupid costume is... a stupid costume. He hasn't done anything to oppress non-whites in Canada and people, especially minorities, clearly know the difference. My reaction when I saw the breaking news was to laugh. The costume, everything about this, is very funny. But it's not harmful, not malicious, not oppressive.

But yeah, conservatives: you'd better hope this ends Trudeau.


----------



## Eder

I'm sure you would take the high road if it was Sheer as well lol. Please...dont tell us.


----------



## MrMatt

james4beach said:


> In my view though, other than exercising very poor taste in costumes, I don't see any malice in this.


I don't see malice here, it's in the rest of his actions, like his total willingness to act contrary to the best interests of the country.


----------



## james4beach

Trudeau acknowledged the act was racist, and apologized for it. In the rest of his life, and his politics, he does not have racist policies or do anything to oppress non-whites.

If Trudeau did have a history of oppressing non-whites, and also did the costume thing, I'd have a very different position.

Harper was actually much more hostile towards brown people (and muslims in particular) with his actions. There is a really big difference between putting on a stupid costume, and conducting domestic and foreign policy that consistently oppresses and attacks visible minorities, non-whites.

Scheer, I don't pay much attention to him as he has no noteworthy policies, and probably will have no effect on Canadian politics.


----------



## Prairie Guy

There goes james again making more racist accusations that he can't prove.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

Time for some pointed, hypocrisy-revealing humour from Alex Huntley at  The Beaverton.

*Liberals fail to vet Montreal candidate*

MONTREAL – The Liberal Party of Canada will be reviewing its vetting process after images of a candidate wearing brownface were revealed by Time Magazine.

Justin Trudeau, an up-and-coming hopeful for the party in the Montreal riding of Papineau, was photographed in a year book wearing brownface while wearing an Aladdin costume at a party.

He was 29-years-old and a teacher at the time and “probably should have known better,” explained a source.

“He was just some famous guy’s son and we thought this could give us the inside edge,” said one party insider. “He was well connected and had great looks. He could’ve been leader one day if something like this didn’t happen.”

The Liberal Party has not yet made an announcement on what they will do with Trudeau, whose actions stem from a long history of Orientalism.

“Thank goodness this man wasn’t a cabinet minister or, worse, the prime minister because that could be quite embarrassing for the country,” added the insider.


----------



## james4beach

That's pretty funny.

Make no mistake though, the Conservative party has a far worse track record when it comes to prejudice against brown people, and oppression of non-white citizens. Visible minorities should be concerned about *actual* policies and government actions, not silly costumes.

Harper's "old stock Canadians" comment was one of the best givewaways of the undertone in the Conservative party: that non-whites, those not from northern Europe, aren't considered quite as important or legitimate in this country.


----------



## MrMatt

james4beach said:


> he does not have racist policies or do anything to oppress non-whites.


To be fair, you previously argued that there is no such thing as race, under that logic racism is literally impossible.

In fact your statement implies that racism against whites isn't even racism,which itself is racist and absurd.


----------



## Prairie Guy

Whose chest was Trudeau touching in that pic? Was is a student or another teacher?


----------



## Prairie Guy

james4beach said:


> That's pretty funny.
> 
> Make no mistake though, the Conservative party has a far worse track record when it comes to prejudice against brown people, and oppression of non-white citizens. Visible minorities should be concerned about *actual* policies and government actions, not silly costumes.
> 
> Harper's "old stock Canadians" comment was one of the best givewaways of the undertone in the Conservative party: that non-whites, those not from northern Europe, aren't considered quite as important or legitimate in this country.


Trudeau said his actions were racist but you excused him. Then you made unproven racist accusations about the Conservatives. Prove your accusations or I will report you to the mods for slander and/or trolling.


----------



## Eder

Well heres #3 incident...we truly have a moron for our leader.


----------



## MrMatt

Prairie Guy said:


> There goes james again making more racist accusations that he can't prove.


You see its obvious, and everywhere! 
Like look at Trudeau, he's just a feminist, that means all his sexual discrimination is OK. 
Who cares if he tweets away millions, and implements gender discrimination as official government policy. 
It's all good, he apologised.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

Where is the controversy James? 
And is Harper running again?

In 2007, Justin Trudeau (now Prime Minister), who was then a candidate for the Liberal Party of Canada, raised the ire of some commentators for using "old stock canadian" during an interview, dismissing Quebec's claim of being a "nation". He asked: "...whether everyone in Quebec was part of that nation, or just the “old stock” pioneers." 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Stock_Canadians#Justin_Trudeau_Controversy

Clarifying previous comments on refugees, Harper said that he would "bring in more" than in the past, but that "we do not offer them a better health-care plan than the ordinary Canadian can receive. I think that's something that new (Canadians) and old stock Canadians can agree with. 
https://www.cbc.ca/news/trending/canada-election-2015-globe-debate-weird-moments-1.3233233


----------



## marina628

I thought about White chicks last night , one of my favorite movies too lol .My son is transgender and i am first to admit when he first came out to me I was ignorant and not understanding of what that meant .I probably made mistakes a lot actually with pronouns during the transition phase .I seen people at their worst and to date I guess we have lost 5-10 friends who are 'religious ' and believe my son suffers from a mental illness and is morally wrong .We are lucky that I could afford to get a condo with 24/7 security for my son and pay for expensive treatments ,going to a bathroom was a big issue for him at work until his Legal name and gender was changed to match his outward appearance.My son was assaulted more than once in Toronto for being Transgender .Even sharing this now I am sure there are people on this forum who will grab their bibles and pray for the perceived sins of being transgender .
We all played cowboys and Indians ,when Pocohautas came out the kids wore feathers in their hair and the outfits ,go to any drama class and people were wearing makeup similar to Justin Trudeau even 5 years ago I bet.I have voted NDP ,PC and Liberal and not voted ,what gets me is people make a big deal of this when literally others are living on the streets and even our employed youth struggle to keep a roof over their head.I won't vote for anyone who is against the LGBTQ community because it affects my family just like each of you want your needs represented .We should focus on these issues instead of a photo from 18 years ago , most governments are not good it is just the really bad ones get all the attention .If Doug Ford was not Premier I probably could have voted for PC but not a hope in hell this time.


----------



## james4beach

Thanks for sharing marina. That's some nice context you give.

Remember that Conservative supporters are just excited to get a "gotcha" moment. Many of them truly don't understand what it really means to suffer harassment, prejudice, and oppression in society due to being a minority group. Or in other words, they really can't understand that costumes (quite normal in recent years) are a world apart, virtually irrelevant, to *actual* concerns about rights and fair treatment of brown people, queer people, and other minorities.


----------



## MrMatt

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> Where is the controversy James?
> And is Harper running again?


Trudeau would prefer to run against Harper, or even better Trump, than the actual election he's running in.


----------



## james4beach

MrMatt said:


> Trudeau would prefer to run against Harper, or even better Trump, than the actual election he's running in.


Trudeau is running against a nobody. Unless you consider Jagmeet Singh, who is really a contender.


----------



## MrMatt

james4beach said:


> Many of them truly don't understand what it really means to suffer harassment, prejudice, and oppression in society due to being a minority group.


Actually having been discriminated against by official policy of the government due to my race and gender I do understand this. 

Imagine if you can a world where as a young child you are told "no" because of your gender, or your race. 
And you're told this despite not even being mature enough to even understand what gender (or race) really are. 
Even today many people think discrimination against certain groups is just fine, and they will argue that it isn't discrimination at all. 

Sorry, but your racist ideology isn't welcome.
Now comes the part where you use racism to deny my lived experience.


----------



## Beaver101

^


> ... *Even today many people think discrimination against certain groups is just fine, and they will argue that it isn't discrimination at all.* ...


 ... I'm interested in knowing where you got this idea from.


----------



## james4beach

I said "many" conservatives don't understand this. Not all.



MrMatt said:


> Actually having been discriminated against by official policy of the government due to my race and gender I do understand this.


Are you talking about being discriminated against because of being a white male? You don't have to share if you don't want, but I'm really curious what kind of discrimination you encountered. From the way you write, and from your insistence that 'whites' are a race but other targeted groups _are not races_, I'm guessing you're a white male.


----------



## MrMatt

james4beach said:


> From the way you write, and from your insistence that 'whites' are a race but other targeted groups _are not races_, I'm guessing you're a white male.


You are the one who said there is no such thing as race in the bizarre thread. 

I do believe that a race could be a visibly or genetically identifiable group.
So whites, blacks, Asians etc could be considered races. 

I do think today in North America officially sanctioned racism is primarily against whites and Asians. You can mix in sexual discrimination against men if you want, as it is typically permitted if not encouraged. In fact there are movements to legislate gender discrimination, so it kind of is a big deal.


----------



## sags

Thanks Marina..........and remember haters gotta hate. It is what they do.


----------



## RBull

james4beach said:


> Trudeau is running against a nobody. Unless you consider Jagmeet Singh, who is really a contender.


For a nobody with plenty of flaws himself he seems to be doing well against your hero. At least he isn't an imposter - proven unethical, a proven liar, a virtue signaling hyprocrite, and now what a racist too? 

But I'm doubtful you'll agree with these facts.


----------



## latebuyer

Let me preface this by saying i'm not a conservative, but i would be concerned if Trudeau got elected because he consistently shows poor judgement with 2 ethical violations, his ridiculous costumes in india and now his black face costume. How can he be trusted to run the country? I'm about his ag e and i can say i'd never be stupid enough to wear a black face costume back when i was younger. He was seriously 29!? Perhaps high school can be excused but not if he was 29. Say that isn't so. He's also a laughing stock on the world stage and no one will take him seriously. Excuse the rant but i don't understand how people can still support him. I was never a fan he always seemed like a pretty boy with no substance. I also dislike that he's throwing out election promises like candy with big dollar amounts attached.


----------



## andrewf

RBull said:


> For a nobody with plenty of flaws himself he seems to be doing well against your hero. At least he isn't an imposter - proven unethical, a proven liar, a virtue signaling hyprocrite, and now what a racist too?
> 
> But I'm doubtful you'll agree with these facts.


Sheer is just a liar & dissembler, with Schrodinger's policy on abortion (he won't not introduce legislation and won't not not introduce it--clear?).


----------



## Userkare

andrewf said:


> Sheer is just a liar & dissembler, with Schrodinger's policy on abortion (he won't not introduce legislation and won't not not introduce it--clear?).


Interesting use of the Schrodinger analogy. I've usually seen it in the context of abortion being that a fetus is at the same time both an unborn human being, and unwanted tumorous tissue.


----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> Sheer is just a liar & dissembler, with Schrodinger's policy on abortion (he won't not introduce legislation and won't not not introduce it--clear?).


His position on abortion is crystal clear.

The CPC will not introduce anti-abortion legislation.
The party also will not prevent any MP from introducing any particular legislation. This is consistent with democratic principles, parliamentary custom, and Scheers previous rulings as speaker. 
Trudeau simply kicking out anyone who doesn't agree with him, or pre-emptively prohibiting legislative proposals is contrary to democratic principles, parliamentary custom, however it is admittedly consistent with his arrogant overreaching style of "leadership"

I'm pro-abortion, I think the kind of person who is willing to kill their baby likely won't be a very good parent anyway.
That being said, I think before a medical procedure, like abortion, the parent should be counselled on the risks. You know that whole informed consent thing.
Look at that, I managed to have a position that's offensive to extremists on both sides of the debate, informed consent, but go ahead and kill them.

As far as a unborn child being not a person, why is it that pretty much everyone thinks it is particularly wrong to assault a pregnant woman? Or to assault causing a miscarrage or death of the fetus.
Everyone knows that it is separate human life, with it's own DNA, blood, feelings an life.
As flippant as I am about killing it, I really would prefer that viable yet unwanted children were not murdered.
If you want to discontinue life support, go ahead, remove it from life support (the mother), but I think the moral thing to do would be to do it safely and let the child live their life.

Oh, and what is it with the babykillers that they don't want to execute rapists and murderers like Paul Berrnardo?


----------



## latebuyer

I'm female and can say i'm not concerned that the abortion law would be overturned at all. There is no way an independent mp bill on abortion would pass. If it did there would be supreme court appeals. As for Scheer he has a different approach to Trudeau, doesn't he? As we've seen with the case of Jodi Wilson Raybault when an MP disagrees with him he turfs them out. Very different.


----------



## Spidey

IMO with Trudeau, the hypocrisy is the most glaring issue.

- He tries to shame us regarding carbon use but he apparently uses more air-travel for vacations than any PM in history.
- He promised to have an honest, clear and open government but he's the only PM to have been found guilty two ethics breaches.
- He pretends to be more feminist than the pope is Catholic but he was accused of groping a reporter, treats women who disagree with him in a bullying, paternalistic fashion and has quite a possessive, dominant posture with the woman in the blackface photo.
- He warns of the danger of white supremacists and the threat of racism in Canada but the recent pictures demonstrate that perhaps his concern should start with himself. After initially saying this only happened twice, he now admits he can't remember how many black face incidents occurred. (Does this guy have a tickle trunk filled with ethnic costumes and black face makeup?)
- He has no trouble apologizing on behalf of all Canadians but has a lot of trouble apologizing for things he has personally done (with the exception of this last case where he had absolutely no other option). 

I read somewhere that conservatives are far more sensitive to, and disgusted by hypocrisy than liberals. Seems to be the case.


----------



## hboy54

sags said:


> This is inconceivable, outrageous and beyond the pale.
> 
> If this doesn't bring Trudeau crashing down and losing the election, there is only one conclusion that can be gleaned from it.
> 
> Justin Trudeau is invincible.


He might be invincible, but I stopped counting after finding a dozen current "blackface" articles in the G&M. I wonder if this story has same "legs" in other media.


----------



## james4beach

Already today, minority advocacy groups, and activists, are coming out and saying that they are not happy Trudeau did this, but are acknowledging that he apologized, accepted it was wrong. They also say this really wasn't a big deal (given how long ago it was). Many societal standards have changed pretty recently, just like the Pocahontas costumes Marina talked about, feathers and all, were very normal until recently.

As usual, it's the Conservatives who are trying to make as big a deal as possible out of it, even when nobody else is. This kind of thing isn't going to gain them many votes, by the way. If someone really is very sensitive about political correctness, and they think Trudeau crossed a line, do you think they're going to go running to the _Conservatives_ in response?


----------



## MrMatt

james4beach said:


> As usual, it's the Conservatives who are trying to make as big a deal as possible out of it, even when nobody else is. This kind of thing isn't going to gain them many votes, by the way. If someone really is very sensitive about political correctness, and they think Trudeau crossed a line, do you think they're going to go running to the _Conservatives_ in response?


Jagmeet Singh is a Conservative?
Does he know?


----------



## james4beach

MrMatt said:


> Jagmeet Singh is a Conservative?
> Does he know?


Is Singh making a bigger deal of it than Scheer? If so, then I guess the NDP are in fact trying to grab votes away from Liberals (people who are more politically correct, etc.)


----------



## humble_pie

i thought equating a costume party to children getting hit - ie physically abused - was a tad too rich


----------



## humble_pie

hallowe'en coming up, we need to ban kids dressup trick or treating

i've never seen a hallowe'en without cowboys, indians, astronauts, rap singers. I once even costumed a toddler as a whale. OMG what an insult to the environment, what was i thinking of

no sooner do we get done w blocking hallowe'en than it's time to rub out christmas. The thought of all those elves, fairies, 3 wise men & deer w malfunctional DNA ought to creep a racist bigot to the marrow of his bones

the manger story, that looks like some kind of anti-abortion propaganda

then there's the biggest insult of all. Imagine depicting santa claus as a pre-technical aging white male hiding behind billows of fake silver whiskers & beard. Santa doesn't even drive a truck. He's never heard of delivery by drones. What kind of evil stereotyping is that


----------



## like_to_retire

hboy54 said:


> He might be invincible, but I stopped counting after finding a dozen current "blackface" articles in the G&M. I wonder if this story has same "legs" in other media.


*The New York Times*

_"The Downfall of Canada’s Dreamy Boyfriend"

"For Americans, Justin Trudeau’s undoing has been swift. For Canadians, it has been a long time coming."_

ltr


----------



## doctrine

james4beach said:


> Already today, minority advocacy groups, and activists, are coming out and saying that they are not happy Trudeau did this, but are acknowledging that he apologized, accepted it was wrong. They also say this really wasn't a big deal (given how long ago it was). Many societal standards have changed pretty recently, just like the Pocahontas costumes Marina talked about, feathers and all, were very normal until recently.
> 
> As usual, it's the Conservatives who are trying to make as big a deal as possible out of it, even when nobody else is. This kind of thing isn't going to gain them many votes, by the way. If someone really is very sensitive about political correctness, and they think Trudeau crossed a line, do you think they're going to go running to the _Conservatives_ in response?


If this was Scheer, would an apology be sufficient? If this was a Liberal cabinet member, would this be okay? If this was a brand new candidate competing for a nomination of a local riding, would he or she have a chance? The answer to all of those questions is unequivocally no. They would be gone. *poof*. 

This man is the Prime Minister and should be held to the highest standards. He takes responsibility. Not accountability. There is none. No consequences for him. Consequences are for others. He has stood there for years and chastised others from the moral high ground. The Liberal party has literally been running a nonstop campaign of shaming Conservative candidates en masse for past behaviour. And they have shamed Sheer for accepting apologies! Just last week! This might be one of the most hypocritical events in political history. 

How do you wear blackface so much that you can't remember how many times? There are no winners here. Only losers. What a sad event. My respect has grown for Singh, however. He is not minimizing the impact, unlike many posters here.


----------



## RBull

Spidey said:


> IMO with Trudeau, the hypocrisy is the most glaring issue.
> 
> - He tries to shame us regarding carbon use but he apparently uses more air-travel for vacations than any PM in history.
> - He promised to have an honest, clear and open government but he's the only PM to have been found guilty two ethics breaches.
> - He pretends to be more feminist than the pope is Catholic but he was accused of groping a reporter, treats women who disagree with him in a bullying, paternalistic fashion and has quite a possessive, dominant posture with the woman in the blackface photo.
> - He warns of the danger of white supremacists and the threat of racism in Canada but the recent pictures demonstrate that perhaps his concern should start with himself. After initially saying this only happened twice, he now admits he can't remember how many black face incidents occurred. (Does this guy have a tickle trunk filled with ethnic costumes and black face makeup?)
> - He has no trouble apologizing on behalf of all Canadians but has a lot of trouble apologizing for things he has personally done (with the exception of this last case where he had absolutely no other option).
> 
> I read somewhere that conservatives are far more sensitive to, and disgusted by hypocrisy than liberals. Seems to be the case.


Good summary. Even anectdotally on here it would seem that's true conservatives are more tuned into hyprocrisy. 

Clearly the trouble Trudeau is having was created by himself and his handlers, with enormous efforts at marketing and building his brand and expectations as a virtuous social justice warrior. A champion of diversity, the environment, human rights, honesty, openess and transparency, sunny ways, doing things differently etc. What we've actually seen is quite a bit different and increasingly the actions just don't line up with the words.


----------



## RBull

andrewf said:


> Sheer is just a liar & dissembler, with Schrodinger's policy on abortion (he won't not introduce legislation and won't not not introduce it--clear?).


You're entitled to your opinion. It isn't mine and the issue is settled to my satisfaction, and it seems also to many Canadians. 

It doesn't change the facts I stated above re Mr. Trudeau.


----------



## jargey3000

I dont have much (any?) respect for politicians, but i must say, i appreciated this local Muslim doctor's take on the issue....
http://ntv.ca/please-grow-up-n-l-muslim-association-president-dismisses-trudeau-photo-controversy/


----------



## jargey3000

.....I was going to dress up as a Clown, for halloween...ya know, whiteface make up, big ol red false nose the hair etc,...
but then i reflected....good lord what am i thinking! wouldnt that be terribly offensive...to all politicians?!


----------



## jargey3000

another thought....do black people ever put on white-face? and pretend to be *******?
I betcha that would be hilarious!!


----------



## RBull

doctrine said:


> If this was Scheer, would an apology be sufficient? If this was a Liberal cabinet member, would this be okay? If this was a brand new candidate competing for a nomination of a local riding, would he or she have a chance? The answer to all of those questions is unequivocally no. They would be gone. *poof*.
> 
> This man is the Prime Minister and should be held to the highest standards. He takes responsibility. Not accountability. There is none. No consequences for him. Consequences are for others. He has stood there for years and chastised others from the moral high ground. The Liberal party has literally been running a nonstop campaign of shaming Conservative candidates en masse for past behaviour. And they have shamed Sheer for accepting apologies! Just last week! This might be one of the most hypocritical events in political history.
> 
> How do you wear blackface so much that you can't remember how many times? There are no winners here. Only losers. What a sad event. My respect has grown for Singh, however. He is not minimizing the impact, unlike many posters here.


Good response. I agree concerning Mr. Singh. He is the only one of the leaders truly able to respond with deep experience and understanding of the issue. And he has.


----------



## sags

I don't think it would be a bad thing if Trudeau loses some support and ends up with a minority government.

The NDP would support him and that would government policy further to the left. That would be a good result.


----------



## Longtimeago

RBull said:


> Good response. I agree concerning Mr. Singh. He is the only one of the leaders truly able to respond with deep experience and understanding of the issue. And he has.


Umm, he may be the only one of the party leaders who is able to respond with deep experience and understanding of the issue but he is not the only person in the world who can respond with deep experience and understanding of the issue. I found the response of the gentleman who was on his left in the photo and is a Sikh I believe as is Jasmeet Singh, interesting. This man was after all at the party and might be considered as best placed and sufficiently aware, to judge. Equally able to judge would be all those of colour who were also at the party. What is worth noting is that Mr. Khurana took no offense, still sees no offense and no other person who attended the party is said to have taken offense, with a couple of them specifically saying they did not.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bc-brownface-photo-trudeau-west-point-grey-1.5290814


----------



## sags

And then there are the Atlanta Braves, Washington Redskins and Cleveland Indians who in 2018 finally abandoned their mascot Chief Wahoo.

They have played at "Progressive Field" since 1994. As of 2013 there were still about 2000 sports teams at all levels with racially questionable names.

Some people just won't give it up........keeping the racist tradition alive.......one hat at a time.

https://www.amazon.com/New-Era-7035..._1?_encoding=UTF8&refRID=XS1ZP79PMW4RYWBD76DH


----------



## Longtimeago

jargey3000 said:


> I dont have much (any?) respect for politicians, but i must say, i appreciated this local Muslim doctor's take on the issue....
> http://ntv.ca/please-grow-up-n-l-muslim-association-president-dismisses-trudeau-photo-controversy/


His viewpoint was interesting in that his message to Canadians (not to Trudeau) was, 'grow up'. He perceives Trudeau's actions as nothing unusual for a costume party and considers even discussing it as 'petty' and that there are far more important things for Canadians to be paying attention to. The opinions of the other young individuals towards the end of the clip are much the same. 

But I note jargey3000 that after you posted your comment and the link, no one referred back to it, they just continued on voicing their individual opinions. People don't want to discuss or debate things, they just want to state their opinions. If someone provides a link such as this one you have provided, that goes against their opinion, they just ignore it because they can't argue against it. It's pretty hard for say a white Conservative in Winnipeg, to argue against the opinion of half a dozen brown muslims elsewhere that their opinion is not of more weight in the matter.

I would like to see some of those decrying Trudeau over this incident, try to explain to the Muslim community representative in the clip you linked, how he is wrong in his view and how their view is right. I find his comments of 'grow up', 'petty' and 'more important things' to ring very true in my view.


----------



## Eder

I'm pretty sure most voters will vote based on policy rather than what color clown face someone wore as a kid...media is so stupid and full of fake outrage. Whats next? Pictures of Jagmeet in brown face as well?

Hopefully we can quickly get back to listening of false promises of how the 3 jerks will spend our tax money to try buy votes from the gullible.


----------



## Userkare

This whole black-face fiasco would be much ado about nothing had the left not made it their crusade to dig up everything, said by anyone, ever, in the past, that's not 100% in line with current norms - i.e. retro shaming. Sheer is reviled for expressing what he felt was his Christian beliefs in a speech 15 years ago. Who could have predicted that in 2019 having "Christian values" would be a negative? To be clear, personally, I believe that religion is the biggest scam inflicted on humanity. I accept that many, if not most, people don't feel the same as I do; and I recognize that sometimes, when you strip away the mumbo-jumbo, religions can have some good tenets - like the "do unto others" type of stuff.

Although Sheer has said numerous times that his government would not endorse any legislation limiting abortion or same sex marriage, the left keeps stirring up F.U.D. about whether he would even allow a private member to put it forward. This is just as ludicrous as asking if a Liberal Muslim MP would bring foward a bill to criminalize homosexuality; after all, isn't that what Muslim countries do? 

Now, Sheer is being accused of being hypocritical when he said he would forgive a candidate in his caucus for remaks made years ago if they were sincerely apologetic but not showing the same for J.T. In Trudeau's case, though, he didn't come completely clean; he still won't say exactrly how many other times he may have done this, so his apology seems to be more politically motivated than an act of contrition. Also, the actions from years ago of a potential back-bench MP do not have the same seriousness as the actions from years ago of a sitting Prime Minister. Today, Trudeau and Canada are a big joke in the global media. If re-elected, Trudeau will have to face leaders from every ethnic persuasion who probably have seen these photos; he will be the face of Canada to them. J.T's cultural insensitivity was demonstrated on his trip to India; luckily, that time, he decided not to go brown-face. How can/will he handle this?

So, I think that Sheer should practice his Christian values and forgive Trudeau. If anything good can come out of this, I hope it will be the end to this mud digging & slinging. I fear, though, that the Libs will be bringing in the back-hoe to try to find anything that they can to embarass their competition.


----------



## humble_pie

jargey3000 said:


> .....I was going to dress up as a Clown, for halloween...ya know, whiteface make up, big ol red false nose the hair etc,...
> but then i reflected....good lord what am i thinking! wouldnt that be terribly offensive...to all politicians?!




love this

you'd be welcome on my block hallowe'en eve

kids in dressup would be tickled pink to see you
yea _*pink*_


----------



## jargey3000

humble_pie said:


> love this
> 
> you'd be welcome on my block hallowe'en eve
> 
> kids in dressup would be tickled pink to see you
> yea _*pink*_


...humble, i'm sure you'll correct me... but technically, wouldn't "hallowe'en eve" actually 
be the evening BEFORE hallowe'en..? is not hallowe'en "all hallows' EVE":smiley_simmons::smiley_simmons::smiley_simmons:

trickortreat!!


----------



## humble_pie

RBull said:


> Good response. I agree concerning Mr. Singh. He is the only one of the leaders truly able to respond with deep experience and understanding of the issue. And he has.




how interestingly diverse peoples' perceptions of reality are

i saw NDP leader jagmeet singh as milking the situation for every ounce of self-pity he could suck out of it. 

the business of equating an 18-years-ago costume party appearance with the physical abuse - hitting, mr singh specified - of children today is a melodramatic, self-pitying falsehood, imho.

it's not uncommon for all kinds of challenged persons to parade their minority marker in public in order to manipulate & exploit guilt & pity from the rest of society. In the past cmf forum has seen a few members using their physical ailments to whine pity & attention out of forum members (interestingly, they succeeded with a few parties) (guilt techniques do work with some people)

me i tend to lose respect for persons who publicly parade what they claim to be their individual stories of suffering in order to squeeze guilt & pity out of others. What i seek to reward is merit & accomplishment. I'm extremely happy to praise & acknowledge the many who succeed in spite of personal challenges; but i draw the line at emotional blackmail from a self-pitier.

jagmeet singh appears to be doing quite a bit of self-pitying lately. His recent sudden stories about an emaciated, estranged, alcoholic father don't add up, when there is his father, hale, hearty, of normal weight & proudly smiling alongside his son jagmeet at the 2017 NDP convention which named jagmeet leader of the party.

those are crocodile tears from a sympathy-sniffing jagmeet in the recent video imho. Equating justin trudeau to an abuser who "hits" children is a disgraceful attack, imho.

i hadn't seen this self-pitying side of jagmeet singh before. I had been prepared to respect all of his views as the leader of an important, historic, positive-offering canadian political party. I still believe that New Democrats have a vital role to play in canada's growth. But now that their current leader's crocodile tears have surfaced, forewarned is forearmed.


----------



## humble_pie

jargey3000 said:


> ...humble, i'm sure you'll correct me... but technically, wouldn't "hallowe'en eve" actually
> be the evening BEFORE hallowe'en..? is not hallowe'en "all hallows' EVE":smiley_simmons::smiley_simmons::smiley_simmons:
> 
> trickortreat!!



i think you're right!

but the kids on my block'll take a cute Clown any day, night, morn or eve


----------



## MrMatt

Eder said:


> I'm pretty sure most voters will vote based on policy rather than what color clown face someone wore as a kid...media is so stupid and full of fake outrage. Whats next? Pictures of Jagmeet in brown face as well?
> 
> Hopefully we can quickly get back to listening of false promises of how the 3 jerks will spend our tax money to try buy votes from the gullible.


Conservatives think that. 
The social justice lefties have a different thought process.


----------



## jargey3000

humble_pie said:


> i think you're right!
> 
> but the kids on my block'll take a cute Clown any day, night, morn or eve


----------



## sags

Interesting how the Trudeau "brownface" incidents have created a lot of questions for all the political party election platforms on racial lines.

Party policies on immigration, education, social benefits, indigenous people's rights, are now being publicly challenged by reporters and groups.

Conservative pundits are saying now is not the time during an election campaign. Social groups are saying now is exactly the right time to ask these questions.

Conservative leader Andrew Scheer was caught off guard by a question and didn't answer it directly. Interesting last couple of weeks in the campaign coming up.


----------



## humble_pie

MrMatt said:


> Conservatives think that.
> The social justice lefties have a different thought process.




no, it's the exact opposite. It's the Cons who've gone viral/hysterical over the costume incidents. Look at all the nagging cmf preacher posts from the usual Con suspects here.

it's the liberal centrists & lefties who are carrying on business as usual.


----------



## sags

Yup....the same people who hoot and holler about Trudeau, also hoot and holler about immigration policy, social benefits, criminal justice reform, reparations and land rights to indigenous folks. Andrew Scheer wants to challenge indigenous land rights in the Supreme Court to seize land to build pipelines.

The public spotlight will light up all corners of all the political parties, and it might not be a pretty sight to see.


----------



## james4beach

I think it's hilarious too, the sudden 180 from conservatives. Now, suddenly, they care about the disadvantaged, and oppression of minority groups? Funny stuff.

The people showing this sudden outrage on the board would have never voted Liberal anyway. They're just excited at Trudeau's embarrassment.

The NDP direction is interesting here. Unfortunately, it looks like Singh has decided to go the politically correct / social justice route and he's sounding a bit over the top. A strategic attempt to get some Liberal votes, since anyone leaving the Liberals over issues of political correctness is obviously not going to the Conservatives.


----------



## sags

If Trudeau falls short of a majority, it is likely he will get a minority government that is supported by the NDP.

If that happens, Conservatives will have a lot more to hoot and holler about as the government moves sharply to the left.


----------



## Userkare

james4beach said:


> I think it's hilarious too, the sudden 180 from conservatives. Now, suddenly, they care about the disadvantaged, and oppression of minority groups? Funny stuff.
> 
> The people showing this sudden outrage on the board would have never voted Liberal anyway. They're just excited at Trudeau's embarrassment.
> 
> The NDP direction is interesting here. Unfortunately, it looks like Singh has decided to go the politically correct / social justice route and he's sounding a bit over the top. A strategic attempt to get some Liberal votes, since anyone leaving the Liberals over issues of political correctness is obviously not going to the Conservatives.


I have voted Liberal in the past. In the 2013 leadership race, I was quite interested in Deborah Coyne, a constitional lawyer who worked with P Trudeau getting the position. When they instead propelled an empty suit with a famous label to the leadership position, it appeared to me that they were going more for image over substance. I felt that they should have waited for JT to have more than a few years experience in Parliament, but they wanted a rock-star right away. I wondered then who was pulling the strings behind the scenes; now we know it was G Butts. I always felt that JT was disengenuous, self centered, and egotistical.; it shows in his mannerisms. He is a 'feminist', but only if women do what he says. As soon as they stand up to him, they are gone. I wondered why Deborah Coyne couldn't have been given a riding to run in, and then maybe a cabinet post if elected - but then there's the whole awkward situation that she's JT's half sister's mom; for some reason, she had to go. She wound up in 2015 running for the Greens in my riding - snowball chance in hell of getting elected here.

So yes, I'm really enjoying watching Justin squirm. For all the **** he's dished out, it's great to see some come back to hit him in the face. But yes, time to move on. I only hope this has humbled him to think twice before shaming others - but I doubt his eqo could ever be squelched.


----------



## sags

Your assessment of Justin Trudeau being a "rock star" leader may be right on, but remember the Liberals already had 2 weak leaders who were virtually unknown and that didn't work out so well for them. Trudeau took the Liberals from last place to a majority government, which isn't too shabby.

His policies have been pretty well accepted by the public, I think. His poll numbers were very high until recently.

Child benefits, CPP expansion, marijuana legalization, justice reforms, handling the Syrian crisis, EI reforms, return of OAS to 65, return of pensions for military veterans......are pretty popular.

Like Trudeau personally or not, he has been getting some good advice on programs to advance that Canadians like. Maybe it is Gerald Butts pulling the strings.

Maybe we should be voting for Gerald Butts.


----------



## andrewf

^ Felt the same way about the Ontario PCs. I was ready to vote for them if they had picked someone serious like Christine Elliot. Instead they picked a doofus, and they are now reaping what they sowed.

I was also not much of a fan of Justin. He has actually outperfomed by expectations of him, which is pretty faint praise. I think people have and continue to underestimate him because he comes across as an airhead. But he is savvy as a politician. I thought for sure he was going to lose this election, but he's managed to claw back to a slight lead. It will be interesting to see how much the brownface scandal hurts him.


----------



## humble_pie

james4beach said:


> The people showing this sudden outrage on the board would have never voted Liberal anyway. They're just excited at Trudeau's embarrassment.



underscore that verb _excited_. It's astonishing how, ever since russia invaded crimea, the Cons manage to keep themselves continuously hyper-excited over very little.


----------



## james4beach

I didn't vote for Trudeau either. He also surprised and impressed me... I didn't see this coming.

I would not have guessed that today, we'd be looking at such economic strength, record high employment levels, improved trade diversification, excellent handling of Trump & US relationship, a stable exchange rate, excellent staff around him... just wow. This guy has knocked it out of the park.

And he actually performs _leadership_. Bringing in a carbon tax is not an easy thing to do. But it's the correct action, based on sound policy and sound economics. And he's doing it -- this is what I want from a leader. Initiative and boldness.

As for conservative excitement, I think it's really because populism on the right (which they adopted from the Americans) is mostly an emotional experience. We've seen that growing in Canada too. This is another reason I've lost respect for the conservatives. They would sooner organize a "truck owners against Trudeau" parade than actually tackle important policies and focus on good government.


----------



## MrMatt

humble_pie said:


> it's the liberal centrists & lefties who are carrying on business as usual.


The partisan Liberals will apparently overlook almost anything.
Broken promises, Criminal acts, ethical violations, groping, multiple racist acts. It doesn't seem to matter,they're still behind Teflon Trudeau.


----------



## humble_pie

MrMatt said:


> Broken promises, Criminal acts, ethical violations, groping, multiple racist acts.



i'll agree to ethical violations about travel to the aga khan's island only; but all the rest of the above are nothing more than the usual fake charges from the usual ultra Cons.

a) trudeau didn't break his promise on ranked voting. He sent out a blue-ribbon committee who journeyed across canada holding public hearings at enormous expense. They left no stone unturned. In the end they concluded that the canadian electorate had no will whatsoever for electoral reform, did not want electoral reform at that point in time. The PM had no choice but to abandon the issue. This does not mean it cannot be raised again.

b) trudeau has not committed any criminal acts. There are obsessed accusations of non-specified "crime" being repeatedly hurled by the same people. The situation looks like a mob lynching & to most ordinary canadians, the enraged accusers sound stunned.

c) the alleged groping: it was 2 decades ago. The alleged victim didn't press charges, won't confirm or discuss what actually happened many years ago. It's the kind of story that aging harpies, who have nothing better to do with their time, love to gossip about.

d) the blackface incidents were not "racist" acts at the time they were committed a couple decades ago. They were dumb acts & the PM is indeed a doofus as andrewf has pointed out; but he came from a theatre teaching background & evidently the costumed performance aspect got the better of him on several occasions.

i distinctly remember how in elementary school we were taught & encouraged to dress up like "indians" & persons from other countries in school pageants & special UN days because - our teachers believed - it was the best way for schoolchildren to learn about other cultures. Dressing in their clothes, preparing & eating their food dishes, learning their dances, even learning something of their languages. 

back in the day, all those cross-cultural activities meant approval of & positive involvement with a foreign culture. Millions of canadian schoolchildren were taught this. Millions of canadian parents dressed their hallowe'en kids in the same costumes.


----------



## MrMatt

humble_pie said:


> i'll agree to ethical violations about travel to the aga khan's island only; but all the rest of the above are nothing more than the usual fake charges from the usual ultra Cons.
> 
> a) trudeau didn't break his promise on ranked voting. He sent out a blue-ribbon committee who journeyed across canada holding public hearings at enormous expense. They left no stone unturned. In the end they concluded that the canadian electorate had no will whatsoever for electoral reform, did not want electoral reform at that point in time. The PM had no choice but to abandon the issue. This does not mean it cannot be raised again.
> 
> b) trudeau has not committed any criminal acts. There are obsessed accusations of non-specified "crime" being repeatedly hurled by the same people. The situation looks like a mob lynching & to most ordinary canadians, the enraged accusers sound stunned.
> 
> c) the alleged groping: it was 2 decades ago. The alleged victim didn't press charges, won't confirm or discuss what actually happened many years ago. It's the kind of story that aging harpies, who have nothing better to do with their time, love to gossip about.
> 
> d) the blackface incidents were not "racist" acts at the time they were committed a couple decades ago. They were dumb acts & the PM is indeed a doofus as andrewf has pointed out; but he came from a theatre teaching background & evidently the costumed performance aspect got the better of him on several occasions.
> 
> i distinctly remember how in elementary school we were taught & encouraged to dress up like "indians" & persons from other countries in school pageants & special UN days because - our teachers believed - it was the best way for schoolchildren to learn about other cultures. Dressing in their clothes, preparing & eating their food dishes, learning their dances, even learning something of their languages.
> 
> back in the day, all those cross-cultural activities meant approval of & positive involvement with a foreign culture. Millions of canadian schoolchildren were taught this. Millions of canadian parents dressed their hallowe'en kids in the same costumes.


Sorry, but all my statements are true. Not "usual fake charges". 

A. As far as broken promises, he said a more open and accountable government, and science based policy among others. He lied not only about the specifics of what he'd do, but about his general approach to governing.
B. He freely admits to several crimes, in addition to the ones that the ethics commissioner strongly suggested he likely committed. Of course the PMO blocked any investigation.
C. Groping, I assume by "alleged 2 decades ago" you mean the incident where he provided a written apology. Not the one where he's in blackface with his hands on the chest of a student or teacher. 
D. Trudeau said they were racist, therefore they were racist. Those aren't even the only incidents, but HE says they're racist.

For anyone else in the Liberal party a single incident like the above, even the accusation is enough to get kicked out in some cases.
He's a hypocrite and the sooner he's out of office the better.

I just wish he was getting kicked out for his flaws and failings as a leader, not because of a costume he put on.


----------



## humble_pie

MrMatt said:


> Sorry, but all my statements are true.




sorry but all of your statements are false

we have to leave things there


----------



## MrMatt

humble_pie said:


> sorry but all of your statements are false
> 
> we have to leave things there


This is in short the problem today.
People like you who are happy to troll.

That's exactly what you're doing, ALL my statements are true, and I can support them with evidence.

Trudeau said his actions were racist, that is absolutely clear and undeniable, yet you claim it is a false statement.

I honestly thought that though you like Trudeau, you had some interest in discussion, however it is now evident that you're simply a troll.


I have never knowingly made a false statement, and if I find I'm incorrect I'll retract it.
It's called integrity, something Liberals apparently don't understand.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

In the same way that Trudeau was caught out, the photographic evidence reveals the truth:








Troll image captured from 
hacked computer camera
source :smiley_simmons:


----------



## sags

To put this thread back on track, when are the Conservatives going to make their big announcement on money for seniors ?


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> To put this thread back on track, when are the Conservatives going to make their big announcement on money for seniors ?


They already made a big taxcut for every Canadian paying income tax.
We don't need more bureaucracy and handouts, we need the government to simply take less.


----------



## sags

That piddly tax cut is it ? That's the big plan ? Who put that guy in charge of the plan ? Get a new plan.....that plan is no good.


----------



## sags

The Liberals ponied up 10% more OAS at age 75.

I figure the Cons can do a lot better than that.

Say an immediate increase of 25% and increasing an additional 25% every year for 3 more years.

That plan would be a plan worth having a plan.


----------



## andrewf

sags, you really have a one track mind when it comes to getting more government cash in your pocket.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

make that no mind at all.


----------



## sags

The way I see it, everybody has their hand out at election time, one way or the other.

The "man in the street" interviews on the election show that people make their choice based on what they want that affects their lives.

Transit credits, fitness credits, OAS/GIS increases, pharmacare, daycare, taxes,.....and on and on.

After all there is no such thing as "government cash". They temporarily hold taxpayer cash and divvy it out.

The politician who makes the most people happy.........wins.


----------



## andrewf

Believe it or not, I don't generally vote based on what set of policies benefits me most financially.


----------



## like_to_retire

andrewf said:


> Believe it or not, I don't generally vote based on what set of policies benefits me most financially.


Yeah, me neither - must be a socialist thing.

ltr


----------



## Longtimeago

MrMatt said:


> This is in short the problem today.
> People like you who are happy to troll.
> 
> That's exactly what you're doing, ALL my statements are true, and I can support them with evidence.
> 
> Trudeau said his actions were racist, that is absolutely clear and undeniable, yet you claim it is a false statement.
> 
> I honestly thought that though you like Trudeau, you had some interest in discussion, however it is now evident that you're simply a troll.
> 
> 
> I have never knowingly made a false statement, and if I find I'm incorrect I'll retract it.
> It's called integrity, something Liberals apparently don't understand.


OK, lets' take your comment re 'hands on chest' you have linked to groping.

First, it is ONE hand, so you got the 'hands' wrong. Second, what is wrong with where his hand is in the picture? The chest overall may cover the area of the body up to the neck I guess but he doesn't have his hand on her 'breast' which is what someone inappropriately having his hand on a woman's chest generally refers to as far as I am aware. And given the smile on her face, it sure doesn't look to me like she thinks she is being 'groped'. So you got that part wrong as well. Care to retract?


----------



## like_to_retire

Longtimeago said:


> And given the smile on her face, it sure doesn't look to me like she thinks she is being 'groped'.


You have no idea what she thinks. My understanding is that often woman don't say anything even though they may be uncomfortable. Hands off is usually a better approach.

ltr


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

Tempest in a teapot at this point I think. 

That said, I'm a bit surprised there doesn't seem to have been any 'analysis' of the picture by 'prominent psychologist xx', or maybe its just not easily found.

When asked about her initially, Trudeau smiled slightly and said she was a close friend. 

He appears to be 'embracing' her, but I'm sure people with analysis skills could comment on why he is has a 'lock' on her hand rather than just resting his hand on her waist. Or why his hand is across her upper chest/lower neck restraining her rather than just resting on her shoulder. Does it indicate that he wants to be entwined and as close to her as he can get, or does it indicate an individual who 'controls' people?

I sure don't know and I don't think its particularly relevant.

To those supporting him, they're discounting all this. To those who aren't, and to some previous undecided who have (based on recent polls) swung away from him, they'll continue to hope that he will not become PM again.


----------



## kcowan

Why can't his hands be at his sides? What is his problem anyway?


----------



## sags

I don't think JT has to go around "groping" women..........not the way Ivanka and Melania Trump gazed upon his countenance.


----------



## like_to_retire

kcowan said:


> Why can't his hands be at his sides? What is his problem anyway?


Wasn't it just a year earlier than this incident where Trudeau was accused of “groping” and “inappropriately handling” an unnamed female reporter who was covering a beer-and-music festival in Creston, B.C. which he attended?

And did he say, “If I had known you were reporting for a national paper, I never would have been so forward.”?

When you're in position of authority, it's best to be especially aware of wrapping your hands around a woman as is seen in the latest blackface incident. He's a teacher and the son of the former PM. To me, that translate to authority, and so those you touch might be hesitant to tell you to get away.

ltr


----------



## sags

Wow.......huge breaking news.

Andrew Scheer has been accused of saying he didn't "need Indians to vote for him" during a campaign to win his Regina riding. 

This incident has been reported by the Vice Chief of the Tribal Council whom Scheer was meeting with. 

It has gone viral on Facebook. More news to follow.........

_Posting on September 16, Myke Agecoutay shared a photo of Andrew Scheer, and added the following caption, “During my role as Vice Chief of the FILE HILLS QU'APPELLE TRIBAL COUNCIL (fhqtc) our Member of Parliament, ANDREW JAMES SCHEER accepted a meeting invitation from my office, hosted in the sacred boardroom on Treaty 4 territory.”

Agecoutay went on to explain, “He [Scheer] opened up the discussion as a formal position of the party platform ‘I don’t need your Indian votes, I don’t need Indians to win’...What was more disturbing, not the fact that he was right, the look on his face, pure pleasure.”_

https://www.narcity.com/news/ca/and...id-i-dont-need-indians-in-a-previous-campaign


----------



## Prairie Guy

sags said:


> I don't think JT has to go around "groping" women..........not the way Ivanka and Melania Trump gazed upon his countenance.


A pic was taken out of context had the effect of fooling some people. You had no idea what transpired in the moment just before it was snapped.

Why do you so easily fall for every media lie? One might get the impression that you're incapable of thinking for yourself.


----------



## Prairie Guy

sags said:


> I don't think JT has to go around "groping" women.


He doesn't have to...but yet he does on a regular basis. Countless incidents that we know about...who knows how many more we don't know about.


----------



## Retired Peasant

like_to_retire said:


> Wasn't it just a year earlier than this incident where Trudeau was accused of “groping” and “inappropriately handling” an unnamed female reporter who was covering a beer-and-music festival in Creston, B.C. which he attended?
> 
> And did he say, “If I had known you were reporting for a national paper, I never would have been so forward.”


Did he really say that? As though it's fine to be forward otherwise?


----------



## Eder

Most here may just be a bit jealous of JT & his hand...she's a fox. I know the crowd I ran with at that age, 1 or more of the women would be lifting their shirts for the photo lol.


----------



## like_to_retire

Retired Peasant said:


> Did he really say that? As though it's fine to be forward otherwise?


Exactly, and he gave himself a pass on that incident that he probably wouldn't have given anyone else by saying, "People experience things differently".

ltr


----------



## like_to_retire

Eder said:


> Most here may just be a bit jealous of JT & his hand...she's a fox. I know the crowd I ran with at that age, 1 or more of the women would be lifting their shirts for the photo lol.



Are you missing the point Eder? You aren't the son of a former PM. He must be extra careful. Apparently he isn't, and then he makes darn sure he lectures all of us regarding woman's rights, etc, etc, etc, etc. 

People in glass houses.

ltr


----------



## sags

Trudeau made a big announcement on banning assault rifles and allowing municipalities to ban handguns.

In densely populated urban areas like the vote rich GTA, this is long overdue and will be well accepted by voters.


----------



## gardner

sags said:


> allowing municipalities to ban handguns


Municipalities are a thing of the provinces. All the feds can do is delegate scope for banning to the province. Whether the province does anything with it is a matter for the province. I predict that other than Quebec, Ontario and possible BC, the provinces do nothing.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

Saint Justin thank you for saving us all.
If only Toronto had banned them sooner, all these murders with stolen and unregistered handguns by gangs and criminals would never have occurred.
What a moron.


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> Trudeau made a big announcement on banning assault rifles and allowing municipalities to ban handguns.
> 
> In densely populated urban areas like the vote rich GTA, this is long overdue and will be well accepted by voters.



Assault rifles can only be possessed by military and law enforcement.

Handguns can only be possessed by civilians for target shooting, you need a separate licence.
Also to buy or move it (like take it to the range) needs a separate permit from the Province.

Effectively none of the gun crime in Canada is with legally owned firearms.


----------



## gardner

MrMatt said:


> Effectively none of the gun crime in Canada is with legally owned firearms.


While I would accept that some, possibly even most of the gun crime in Canada is with illegally obtained guns, I think it's a stretch to say that substantially all is using illegal weapons. There's domestic violence with legal handguns. Also cases of violence with legally owned long guns.

After a little googling, it is often hard to tell, exactly, if the guns used in incidents in the news were legal or not. Sometimes you can deduce from charges including certain weapons charges but not illegal possession, but even that is not exact. There's also the technicality that if you legally own a handgun, but then take it somewhere without a permit, it becomes illegal -- dunno if you want to try to hang your hat on that one.


----------



## sags

The government will buy back the assault rifles. They estimate there are 250,000 of them in Canada.

There have been several instances where assault rifles were used to commit crimes. Gun control groups wanted a broader gun ban.

Banning handguns in cities is kind of like banning pitbulls. The greater good of society takes precedence over individual rights.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

You're the expert here sags.
Please share with us the definition of an 'assault rifle'. 
You know, the 250,000 that are in Canada.


----------



## gardner

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> Please share with us the definition of an 'assault rifle'.


Personally, I would support a definition: "a rifle that is neither a muzzle-loader nor bolt-action". And I would go so far as to ban semi-auto shotguns. I'm all for hunting, varminting and range shooting and so forth, but I don't see a need to fire 5 shots in 3 seconds. My guess is that my definition would catch more than 1/4 million guns though, 'specially a ****-ton of rimfire 22s.


----------



## RBull

Longtimeago said:


> Umm, he may be the only one of the party leaders who is able to respond with deep experience and understanding of the issue but he is not the only person in the world who can respond with deep experience and understanding of the issue. I found the response of the gentleman who was on his left in the photo and is a Sikh I believe as is Jasmeet Singh, interesting. This man was after all at the party and might be considered as best placed and sufficiently aware, to judge. Equally able to judge would be all those of colour who were also at the party. What is worth noting is that Mr. Khurana took no offense, still sees no offense and no other person who attended the party is said to have taken offense, with a couple of them specifically saying they did not.
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bc-brownface-photo-trudeau-west-point-grey-1.5290814


My comment had nothing to do with other people beyond the leaders. 

However, certainly some people won't take offense to Mr. Trudeau's blackface. Those attending the event are likely friends of Mr. Trudeau and I'm sure are much more likely not to take offense. If they really were offended they may well have left the event. I don't think there is any one person best placed to judge. Each of us will make our own judgement based on many factors. This is the way it should be.


----------



## RBull

humble_pie said:


> how interestingly diverse peoples' perceptions of reality are
> 
> i saw NDP leader jagmeet singh as milking the situation for every ounce of self-pity he could suck out of it.
> 
> the business of equating an 18-years-ago costume party appearance with the physical abuse - hitting, mr singh specified - of children today is a melodramatic, self-pitying falsehood, imho.
> 
> it's not uncommon for all kinds of challenged persons to parade their minority marker in public in order to manipulate & exploit guilt & pity from the rest of society. In the past cmf forum has seen a few members using their physical ailments to whine pity & attention out of forum members (interestingly, they succeeded with a few parties) (guilt techniques do work with some people)
> 
> me i tend to lose respect for persons who publicly parade what they claim to be their individual stories of suffering in order to squeeze guilt & pity out of others. What i seek to reward is merit & accomplishment. I'm extremely happy to praise & acknowledge the many who succeed in spite of personal challenges; but i draw the line at emotional blackmail from a self-pitier.
> 
> jagmeet singh appears to be doing quite a bit of self-pitying lately. His recent sudden stories about an emaciated, estranged, alcoholic father don't add up, when there is his father, hale, hearty, of normal weight & proudly smiling alongside his son jagmeet at the 2017 NDP convention which named jagmeet leader of the party.
> 
> those are crocodile tears from a sympathy-sniffing jagmeet in the recent video imho. Equating justin trudeau to an abuser who "hits" children is a disgraceful attack, imho.
> 
> i hadn't seen this self-pitying side of jagmeet singh before. I had been prepared to respect all of his views as the leader of an important, historic, positive-offering canadian political party. I still believe that New Democrats have a vital role to play in canada's growth. But now that their current leader's crocodile tears have surfaced, forewarned is forearmed.


Fair enough. You're entitled to your opinion. Many of us on here could have predicted it. 

It's interesting to read your criticism of Mr. Singh while you ALWAYS ignore the acting and phoniness of Mr. Trudeau, and love to rush to his defense.


----------



## sags

gardner said:


> Personally, I would support a definition: "a rifle that is neither a muzzle-loader nor bolt-action". And I would go so far as to ban semi-auto shotguns. I'm all for hunting, varminting and range shooting and so forth, but I don't see a need to fire 5 shots in 3 seconds. My guess is that my definition would catch more than 1/4 million guns though, 'specially a ****-ton of rimfire 22s.


That sounds like a good description.

Toronto, Otttawa and Montreal have already said they want to ban handguns. In Ontario, Premier Doug Ford said he will not support the legislation.

Ford's stance will just be another reason for people to elect someone else. He has zero chance of winning again anyways.


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> The government will buy back the assault rifles. They estimate there are 250,000 of them in Canada.
> 
> There have been several instances where assault rifles were used to commit crimes. Gun control groups wanted a broader gun ban.
> 
> Banning handguns in cities is kind of like banning pitbulls. The greater good of society takes precedence over individual rights.


Only if you define assault rifle as anything scarier than a bright white nerf gun.


----------



## humble_pie

RBull said:


> It's interesting to read your criticism of Mr. Singh while you ALWAYS ignore the acting and phoniness of Mr. Trudeau, and love to rush to his defense.



the *always* accusation is not true in the least. Since 2017 i have frequently criticized liberal immigration/refugee border control practices, particularly with respect to the quebec border. I note that ottawa has adjusted its border policies to be more strict & continues to adjust its border policies to be more strict; however in common with many canadians of all parties i believe illegal border crossing is a zone that still has to be ramped up.

i've also criticized the PM's preacherish speaking voice on some occasions. Specifically i've posted that i don't understand why Sophie doesn't get after him about this. Sophie doesn't preach, herself, & surely she can see that the sanctimonious overtones are negative.

i've mentioned before - & thank you if i may say it again - that trudeau adopts the preacher voice only when he speaks in english. He doesn't talk like that in french! neither does he constantly preach in english, the unpleasant tone usually appears only for major addresses & press conferences; mercifully it is lacking in casual talk. But it's the major addresses & press scrums that the public gets to see, so it's understandable that people complain about trudeau's holier-than-thou expressions.

if butts & telford are unable to tell JT to get down off his high horse when speaking formally in english & to talk more naturally as he does in french, then it's up to Sophie to straighten him out. If his kids were a few years older - firstborn Xavier isn't even a teen-ager yet, although Xavier looks like an independent young lad who'd be feisty enough - the kids would be able to tell their father off.


----------



## MrMatt

humble_pie said:


> the *always* accusation is not true in the least. Since 2017 i have frequently criticized liberal immigration/refugee border control practices, particularly with respect to the quebec border. I note that ottawa has adjusted its border policies to be more strict & continues to adjust its border policies to be more strict; however in common with many canadians of all parties i believe illegal border crossing is a zone that still has to be ramped up.
> 
> i've also criticized the PM's preacherish speaking voice on some occasions. Specifically i've posted that i don't understand why Sophie doesn't get after him about this. Sophie doesn't preach, herself, & surely she can see that the sanctimonious overtones are negative.
> 
> i've mentioned before - & thank you if i may say it again - that trudeau adopts the preacher voice only when he speaks in english. He doesn't talk like that in french! neither does he constantly preach in english, the unpleasant tone usually appears only for major addresses & press conferences; mercifully it is lacking in casual talk. But it's the major addresses & press scrums that the public gets to see, so it's understandable that people complain about trudeau's holier-than-thou expressions.
> 
> if butts & telford are unable to tell JT to get down off his high horse when speaking formally in english & to talk more naturally as he does in french, then it's up to Sophie to straighten him out. If his kids were a few years older - firstborn Xavier isn't even a teen-ager yet, although Xavier looks like an independent young lad who'd be feisty enough - the kids would be able to tell their father off.


No, they're still allowing illegal entry, the level of border protection is pathetic.
They should not permit illegal entry at all, either physically deny them entry, or deport them immediately.
Nobody is a refugee from the US.

Okay, Trudeau only preaches to us heathen Canadians who don't see the world his French way.
I always appreciated how French Leaders, like Duceppe manage to speak with respect and understanding.

The issue is that he really does think he's right and above all sin.


----------



## MrMatt

MrMatt said:


> Only if you define assault rifle as anything scarier than a bright white nerf gun.


But the rest of the platform seems redundant.
You already have to show a firearms licence to buy ammunition.
If you're suspected as a risk, they'll seize or force you to turn over your firearms to someone else.

It's like they don't understand or even read the current gun laws before they drafted this proposal.

Not surprising, I think most Toronto voters think we live in some American TV city with rampant gun violence. Where you can just walk in and buy a gun.
You can't.

What needs to change is that when someone is found commtting crimes, we need to put them in jail
When you're walking around in the city with a prohibited weapon, loaded, and not properly secured, hit them for all the crimes and lock them up for the decade or two that we have on the books now.

We need to enforce the laws we have now. Adding new laws only targets law abiding citizens.


----------



## kcowan

humble_pie said:


> i've also criticized the PM's preacherish speaking voice on some occasions. Specifically i've posted that i don't understand why Sophie doesn't get after him about this. Sophie doesn't preach, herself, & surely she can see that the sanctimonious overtones are negative.


Wow I appreciate your insight. It seems to indicate that Trudeau is only capable of being a proper PM in French. I am OK wih limiting his influence to French-speaking areas.

As far as seeing him as an arrogant narcissist he is intolerant of others, I conclude that he is not suited to managing government in English. I am saddened but I was also disappointed in his Dad.


----------



## Eder

The Donald can't resist haha.


----------



## humble_pie

kcowan said:


> ... Trudeau is only capable of being a proper PM in French.



would you say that andrew scheer is capable of being a proper PM in any language though each:

the big challenge to the next elected gummint will be foreign trade, which in turn will be linked to foreign relations. We are an export nation, do not have a 100% domestic economy that can sustain itself in a closed loop.

no way can i see andrew scheer navigating on a global platform. His preposterous idea about china is to increase mosquito-sized canadian aggression against behemoth-sized china. Frivolously, scheer says No Problem, canada should give the finger to china & go trade with other nations, although he has no specific countries in mind.

meanwhile global growth has slowed & every single country on the planet is stuck with lowered demand from trading partners. TMP II will fix the alberta dilbit export problem but it won't do a thing to correct troughing or dropping world oil prices.

when i look at our 3 PM candidates - or make that all 5 candidates - & i ask myself, Which one can manage best on the international trade platform, the only candidate with enough experience to qualify is trudeau.

PS canada has to let meng go. We need to refocus & redirect our china policy, which i believe the brand-new Liberal-appointed canadian ambassador to beijing has been mandated to carry out. He's an old pro-china hand. Good for ottawa to put this in place. Canada doesn't have the luxury of fooling around with china the way donald trump does in the US.


----------



## sags

Very true Humble,

It isn't just the leaders who are involved. The Liberals have a very deep cabinet and experts in all matters while the Conservatives are pretty thin on talent.

The Conservatives have no Chrystia Freeland, Bill Morneau, Catherine McKenna, or Ralph Goodale to step up in the important jobs.

It is going to take a few election cycles for the Conservatives to pick a stronger leader and rebuild the party. They aren't ready yet.


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> Very true Humble,
> 
> It isn't just the leaders who are involved. The Liberals have a very deep cabinet and experts in all matters while the Conservatives are pretty thin on talent.
> 
> The Conservatives have no Chrystia Freeland, Bill Morneau, Catherine McKenna, or Ralph Goodale to step up in the important jobs.
> 
> It is going to take a few election cycles for the Conservatives to pick a stronger leader and rebuild the party. They aren't ready yet.


I would agree, and honestly that was my hope, that the competent members of the Liberal party would keep Trudeau under control, and avoid serious mistakes.

But the Liberal party, by failing to reign in Trudeau failed, and I don't trust them to do so in the future.
I also had the same hopes for Ontario Ford, however Ford seems much more moderate than I was expecting, and I don't think it's as necessary.


----------



## Longtimeago

MrMatt said:


> Assault rifles can only be possessed by military and law enforcement.
> 
> Handguns can only be possessed by civilians for target shooting, you need a separate licence.
> Also to buy or move it (like take it to the range) needs a separate permit from the Province.
> 
> Effectively none of the gun crime in Canada is with legally owned firearms.


Umm, not quite. While guns brought into Canada illegally are no doubt more common, guns that are legally in Canada do indeed get into the hands of whose who use them illegally. The gun used by the guy in the Danforth Ave. shooting for example was a legally owned gun that was stolen from a home in Saskatoon in 2015. 

There are also cases of people who have the legal right to buy guns in Canada, buying multiple guns and then selling them on illegally. You are simplifying the problems far too much MrMatt.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/gun-i...in-saskatoon-break-and-enter-source-1.4030454

https://globalnews.ca/news/4349235/...349235/canadian-gun-owners-selling-illegally/

The police are now saying that approximately 50% of guns used in crimes started out as being legally purchased in Canada.


----------



## gardner

humble_pie said:


> TMP II will fix the alberta dilbit export problem


It will certainly help. And I think the actual use it gets put to will be revealing as to the actual economics of export outside North America. But it's not a big enough pipe to totally "fix" the shipping bottleneck.



> ]PS canada has to let meng go. We need to refocus & redirect our china policy


It was a mistake to arrest her. A few minutes of "creative incompetence" would have saved us a good deal of trouble -- just sending the RCMP to the wrong gate maybe with a picture of Meng as a young girl or something could have done the trick. It's tough, though. For better or worse we ARE on team-USA and cooperating with a duly constituted arrest warrant and extradition request IS in our best interest overall. I hope the courts can find that the charges are politically motivated and that the charges are not based in acts that are criminal in Canada, and just send her home. Having to wait maybe another whole year with the Chinese stirring up trouble at every turn is going to be tough.

To just give in to China and give her back extra-judicially would send a pretty strong signal that we are considering changing from Team-USA to Team-China. That is a potential thing to want to consider, but it's a big thing and I don't think most Canadians would like the idea. To actually switch teams is, IMO not feasible or desirable at all. And the threat of doing so would likely not have any effect at all on the current American policy of dickishness.


----------



## humble_pie

sags said:


> The Liberals have a very deep cabinet and experts in all matters while the Conservatives are pretty thin on talent.
> 
> The Conservatives have no Chrystia Freeland, Bill Morneau, Catherine McKenna, or Ralph Goodale to step up in the important jobs.



might i add Marc Garneau to the list of strong ministers. Evidently garneau & goodale scored highest in a poll a few months ago for ministers who canadians trusted the most.


----------



## Longtimeago

Re comparing the leaders of the parties, I think that Jasmeet Singh is probably the most honest and well intentioned with the least concern for personal gain. If he was a Liberal candidate I would probably vote for him. If it came down to my choosing between Trudeau and Singh as leader of the Liberal party, I would probably pick Singh. But that is not the real world we live in is it.

Nor if I am truthful, do I think Mr. Singh has what it takes to be a PM. The sad reality is that a PM must deal in POLITICS and that of course is a whole different ball game than just being honest and well intentioned. When it comes to politics, Mr. Singh is a lightweight as shown by his being honest and well intentioned. To succeed in politics you have to be ruthless, willing to compromise your values and ideals from time to time and above all, a dissembler of the first order.


----------



## humble_pie

gardner said:


> It was a mistake to arrest her [meng wanzhou]. A few minutes of "creative incompetence" would have saved us a good deal of trouble -- just sending the RCMP to the wrong gate maybe with a picture of Meng as a young girl or something could have done the trick. It's tough, though. For better or worse we ARE on team-USA and cooperating with a duly constituted arrest warrant and extradition request IS in our best interest overall. I hope the courts can find that the charges are politically motivated and that the charges are not based in acts that are criminal in Canada, and just send her home. Having to wait maybe another whole year with the Chinese stirring up trouble at every turn is going to be tough.
> 
> To just give in to China and give her back extra-judicially would send a pretty strong signal that we are considering changing from Team-USA to Team-China. That is a potential thing to want to consider, but it's a big thing and I don't think most Canadians would like the idea. To actually switch teams is, IMO not feasible or desirable at all. And the threat of doing so would likely not have any effect at all on the current American policy of dickishness.



very insightful comments, thankx. As you say so accurately, it's a tough situation.

also as you say, canada cannot just up & release meng extra-judicially. Here's hoping the courts release without excessive delay & the then-acting attorney general will cooperate swiftly in expediting her return to wherever she wants to go, which presumably would not be the US of A.

apparently the federal attorney general has the power to over-rule an extradition court's ruling that, for example, meng might be found extraditable instead of free to go. Me i would expect a then-sitting attorney general to immediately so over-rule. That is what we might expect under a liberal federal government post-october 2019; we might expect that, one way or the other, meng will eventually be released into freedom.

i have no clue what to expect from any other gummint & i suspect that their candidates have no clue as to how they will proceed in the meng/china dispute either.


----------



## sags

Holding Meng was another decision that "you know who" decided she didn't need to discuss with Trudeau or the cabinet.


----------



## MrMatt

Longtimeago said:


> Re comparing the leaders of the parties, I think that Jasmeet Singh is probably the most honest and well intentioned with the least concern for personal gain. If he was a Liberal candidate I would probably vote for him. If it came down to my choosing between Trudeau and Singh as leader of the Liberal party, I would probably pick Singh. But that is not the real world we live in is it.
> 
> Nor if I am truthful, do I think Mr. Singh has what it takes to be a PM. The sad reality is that a PM must deal in POLITICS and that of course is a whole different ball game than just being honest and well intentioned. When it comes to politics, Mr. Singh is a lightweight as shown by his being honest and well intentioned. To succeed in politics you have to be ruthless, willing to compromise your values and ideals from time to time and above all, a dissembler of the first order.


I actually agree here, Trudeau is a much stronger politician for that reason.

His complete lack of ethics or principals is a huge attribute in politics.
I think as he switches his opinions based on who's around him, I feel he honestly believes what he's saying. Then he'll turn around and say the complete opposite, again with near 100% conviction.
To him, it doesn't matter how unfair or hurtful an action or policy is, if it helps him, he'll pursue it.


----------



## like_to_retire

MrMatt said:


> I actually agree here, Trudeau is a much stronger politician for that reason.
> 
> His complete lack of ethics or principals is a huge attribute in politics.
> I think as he switches his opinions based on who's around him, I feel he honestly believes what he's saying. Then he'll turn around and say the complete opposite, again with near 100% conviction.
> To him, it doesn't matter how unfair or hurtful an action or policy is, if it helps him, he'll pursue it.


Every media writer has had their say about Trudeau this last week, and I've read them all.

I didn't agree with them all, but in third place I would go with Conrad Black - Trudeau's not a racist, just a hypocrite and a weak leader.

In second place I guess I would choose Rex Murphy - For anyone else, resignation would be unavoidable – and appropriate.

But the hands down winner comes from Andrew Coyne - By now it should be clear there is something wrong with Justin Trudeau.

That the left continue to back this guy says a lot.........

ltr


----------



## Userkare

I'll add this to the list.... https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/poli...attle-his-image-on-the-world-stage/ar-AAHFFbN

A nice summary of JT's international gaffes lest we forget.


----------



## Eder

I love me some Conrad lol

*"But the country cannot tolerate sanctimony from someone who hurls rocks at opponents who are good people, even if they are not overly exciting."*


----------



## sags

Wow..........the Liberals are hitting all the right notes.

JT announces the first $15,000 of income will be tax free and they will lower cellphone bills by 25%.

Add it up so far, and the Liberals are offering Canadians a mighty impressive package.


----------



## sags

Meanwhile, Conservative Andrew Scheer says they want to take over control of military pensions again. Canadians will remember how that worked out under Harper.

Almost every policy that Andrew Scheer espouses is a retread of failed Harper era ideas. It appears to be true that Scheer is Harper Lite.


----------



## like_to_retire

sags said:


> Wow..........the Liberals are hitting all the right notes.


What was your favorite article in the media on Trudeau's blackface this week?

ltr


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

sags said:


> Wow..........the Liberals are hitting all the right notes.
> JT announces the first $15,000 of income will be tax free and they will lower cellphone bills by 25%.
> Add it up so far, and the Liberals are offering Canadians a mighty impressive package.


You'd have to be brain dead to believe Trudeau promises.
How about we just send him our phone bills and he sends us a cheque for 25%. That's the only way it would ever happen.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

*Trudeau not acting in 'good faith' on PBO platform costing*
_Justin Trudeau's Liberals have "gamed" a process the party itself created to increase the transparency of fiscal promises during elections, an economist says.
In their 2015 platform, the Liberals pledged to expand the mandate of the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) to include the estimated costs of various campaign commitments. They said at the time it "would help Canadians make informed decisions" and give voters a "credible, non-partisan way to compare each party's fiscal plans."
The proposal was enshrined in legislation after the Liberals formed government, making the current election campaign the first under the PBO's expanded mandate.
Unlike the Tories and New Democrats, however, the Liberals have so far neglected to release PBO estimates for the nearly $4 billion worth of campaign promises they've made to date._


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

*Andrew Coyne: Is Justin Trudeau a racist? No. He is a sanctimonious fraud.*


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

*Conrad Black: Trudeau's not a racist, just a hypocrite and a weak leader*


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

Justin Trudeau all sizzle no steak

Justin Trudeau’s multiple blunders rattle his image on the world stage

Trudeau's political career should be over


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> Wow..........the Liberals are hitting all the right notes.
> 
> JT announces the first $15,000 of income will be tax free and they will lower cellphone bills by 25%.
> 
> Add it up so far, and the Liberals are offering Canadians a mighty impressive package.


I agree that raising the personal amount is a good idea. I prefer it to simply reducing rates.

The "lower cellphone bills", not a huge fan, these promises almost always fall apart.


----------



## sags

The Liberals have pledged to "cost everything" in one nice big package. Don't worry, everything will be fully funded. Bill Morneau is working on the details.


----------



## sags

Despite the right wing media frenzy, the recent events haven't done much of anything to the polls.

People would rather overlook the youthful indiscretions of JT's distant past, than have to live with another Harper-like government.

Andrew Scheer is adopting all the old Harper playbook pledges, and it is reminding voters of who Andrew Scheer really is.

I mean seriously, he pledges to sign a "covenant" with military veterans ? Scheer's use of Biblical language signalling is over the top.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

Covenant: From Middle English, borrowed from Old French covenant (“agreement”). Literally an "agreement".


----------



## hboy54

sags said:


> Despite the right wing media frenzy, the recent events haven't done much of anything to the polls.
> 
> People would rather overlook the youthful indiscretions of JT's distant past, than have to live with another Harper-like government.
> 
> Andrew Scheer is adopting all the old Harper playbook pledges, and it is reminding voters of who Andrew Scheer really is.
> 
> I mean seriously, he pledges to sign a "covenant" with military veterans ? Scheer's use of Biblical language signalling is over the top.


What a coward you are sags. When the Liberals poll ahead, you give the polling numbers. Now that they are behind, we get "have not done much ...".

What is wrong with my proposal of $1/litre tax, something that might actually hit people in the pocket book enough to change behaviour, as opposed to the weak phase in over many years that is the Liberal plan which will clearly accomplish nil. Oh, it might actually affect too much all the hypocrites who want action as long as someone else pays and doesn't affect them personally : people like you and James and pretty much everyone else.


----------



## Eder

Pretty funny that JT apologizing for the third time for blackface on Global News...not one white person seen in the background...*Goebbels* would be proud. Meanwhile Sheer just had white veterans in the background....bleh, missed scoring points


----------



## kelaa

Off the cuff appropriations of private property and pronouncements of regulations (firearms, telecom rates), boy, I thought Canadians didn't like the third-world dictator shtick?


----------



## MrMatt

kelaa said:


> Off the cuff appropriations of private property and pronouncements of regulations (firearms, telecom rates), boy, I thought Canadians didn't like the third-world dictator shtick?


Don't worry we'll get an absolutely world class apology.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

Trudeau is going to save 25% on cell phone bills. He claims he will save families $1000/year.

'Scuse me? Does anyone pay $4000/yr ($333/mo) for their family cell phone plan?

This guy lives in a bubble. He has no idea what people in the real world pay for things.

And wtf should we be subsidizing families 'wants' rather than needs anyway? Does a family 'need' phones and data plans for everyone over age 3? No, these are discretionary' and if you can't afford it don't buy it.

Talk about big government and the nanny state.


----------



## dubmac

I hold BCE, T in some quantity. Is anyone concerned about these kind of "promises" to lower wireless fees, and have gov't sponsored cell phone plans? I'm wondering how the market will respond to this kind of crap.


----------



## dubmac

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> Trudeau is going to save 25% on cell phone bills. He claims he will save families $1000/year.
> 'Scuse me? Does anyone pay $4000/yr ($333/mo) for their family cell phone plan?
> /QUOTE]
> 
> I hold BCE, T in some quantity. Is anyone concerned about these kind of "promises" to lower fees? I'm wondering how the market will respond to this kind of crap.


----------



## AltaRed

dubmac said:


> I hold BCE, T in some quantity. Is anyone concerned about these kind of "promises" to lower wireless fees, and have gov't sponsored cell phone plans? I'm wondering how the market will respond to this kind of crap.


I hold all 3 telecoms. Yes, I would look for some market reaction to that idiotic 'throw mud at the wall' stuff, at least temporarily. Hopefully that too will pass. 

My view is this promise, like so many poorly conceived others, will be broken when the heat is on, Canadians don't get their 5G as soon as they like and JT is taking heat over it. He can't do math either as already pointed out. No family pays $4k/yr for their telecom needs and I guess JT and his henchmen have never heard of data sharing family plans either.


----------



## MrMatt

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> Trudeau is going to save 25% on cell phone bills. He claims he will save families $1000/year.
> 
> 'Scuse me? Does anyone pay $4000/yr ($333/mo) for their family cell phone plan?
> 
> This guy lives in a bubble. He has no idea what people in the real world pay for things.
> 
> And wtf should we be subsidizing families 'wants' rather than needs anyway? Does a family 'need' phones and data plans for everyone over age 3? No, these are discretionary' and if you can't afford it don't buy it.
> 
> Talk about big government and the nanny state.


Yes, there are people who do spend that much.
I know families with 2 adults who have cable TV all with the same provider (Rogers) who are spending close to $400/month. Of course they lump it all in together.

Go to Bell, the Ultra Premium plans start at over $100/month.

The same type of person who spends $400 or more a month on cell phones (which is just 3 high end plans), doesn't think much about the consequences of their decisions, which is pretty much a requirement to vote Liberal.


----------



## sags

We spend $550 a month (plus $100 data charge if we go over the house internet) and that is with a Rogers "better bundles" discount.

TV........$100

Internet.......$100 (500 gigabit limit)

Home phone........$65

Cellphone 1......$200

Cellphone 2......$65

Cellphone 3......$16

(It is a 20 gigabite shared data plan for the cellphones.)

Netflx..........$12

Microsoft Live......$2

Unfortunately, the Trudeau plan will only reduce our wireless bill so we would save.......25% of $280........$70 a month or $840 a year.


----------



## sags

We have looked at other carriers and other plans but they all have drawbacks of low data limits, poor coverage, fewer channel selection, slower internet speeds.

Canada needs to regulate telecommunications costs in Canada. It is a ripoff compared to the rest of the world and the quality of service is below par.

The telecommunications is for myself, wife and son (and grandson)...........so if we break it down individually it is $180 a month each.


----------



## Danny

Sags where do you live? Those prices seem high. I am in Ottawa. Cell pone is 65.00 per month. Umlimited calling and unlimited text with 10 gid data plan. Internet I pay 65.00 per month, high speed unlimited data.


----------



## Prairie Guy

How much phone data does someone need? Wifi is everywhere.

$165 for cable and internet, $25 for cell phone (2 gig data, unlimited phone calls in Canada and unlimited texts). GF is moving in and will pay half the cable bill so my monthly total for cable, internet, and phone will be just over $100.


----------



## sags

London.......Rogers.

I wish we could get packages for those prices.


----------



## sags

My wife pays $16 for a "grandfathered" plan that gives her 0 data and 25 minutes talk and 25 minutes text.

Another beef........from what I have read even after paying the phone tab monthly until the phone is paid off, the monthly cost of the plan doesn't go down.

The government needs to disband and overhaul the CRTC. The telecoms are playing them for fools.


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> London.......Rogers.
> 
> I wish we could get packages for those prices.


You can. 

Fido byo plans, unlimited minutes and text, 4gigs for 50, 7 for $65.

Also, once the phone is paid off, switch to a byop plan.

This is actually the problem. People are screaming for more regulation and red tape, rather than simply going and picking a cheaper plan.


----------



## RBull

humble_pie said:


> the *always* accusation is not true in the least. Since 2017 i have frequently criticized liberal immigration/refugee border control practices, particularly with respect to the quebec border. I note that ottawa has adjusted its border policies to be more strict & continues to adjust its border policies to be more strict; however in common with many canadians of all parties i believe illegal border crossing is a zone that still has to be ramped up.
> 
> i've also criticized the PM's preacherish speaking voice on some occasions. Specifically i've posted that i don't understand why Sophie doesn't get after him about this. Sophie doesn't preach, herself, & surely she can see that the sanctimonious overtones are negative.
> 
> i've mentioned before - & thank you if i may say it again - that trudeau adopts the preacher voice only when he speaks in english. He doesn't talk like that in french! neither does he constantly preach in english, the unpleasant tone usually appears only for major addresses & press conferences; mercifully it is lacking in casual talk. But it's the major addresses & press scrums that the public gets to see, so it's understandable that people complain about trudeau's holier-than-thou expressions.
> 
> if butts & telford are unable to tell JT to get down off his high horse when speaking formally in english & to talk more naturally as he does in french, then it's up to Sophie to straighten him out. If his kids were a few years older - firstborn Xavier isn't even a teen-ager yet, although Xavier looks like an independent young lad who'd be feisty enough - the kids would be able to tell their father off.


Thanks for your insight. OK, so not always but certainly often.

From what you've described for me this french english change is only more proof he's an actor- an imposter. Outside of the fiscal policies I disagree with its the chasm between words and actions that is most troubling and reprehensible. Blackface doesn't personally affect me but I can see how some Canadians are deeply shaken and is but another chasm example. I'll spare repeating all my issues with the current leader but several columns this past weekend in NP outlined my thoughts pretty well. 

In any case, IMHO we are seeing a race to the bottom in this election with all of the promises being made.


----------



## sags

MrMatt said:


> You can.
> 
> Fido byo plans, unlimited minutes and text, 4gigs for 50, 7 for $65.
> 
> Also, once the phone is paid off, switch to a byop plan.
> 
> This is actually the problem. People are screaming for more regulation and red tape, rather than simply going and picking a cheaper plan.


The highest Fido plan is 10 gigs for $115. We currently have a 20 gig "shared" plan and sometimes bump up against it.

If each of us got a Fido plan it would cost $230 plus tax. We currently pay $240 plus tax..........hardly worth the effort.

The most interesting part of the Trudeau announcement was Canadian telecom rates for "family plans" was going to be compared to other countries.

By the way.........Rogers own Fido and with no contract they can jack up prices anytime they want.


----------



## sags

Tale of the tape in this election,

Trudeau is announcing new programs (pharmacare, first time home buyers) and Scheer is talking about eliminating the carbon tax and environmental impact studies.

It is almost as if the Conservatives have run out of ideas and are just running out the clock now.


----------



## andrewf

20 gigs? What do you use it for? The only time I bump up against my 5 gig limit is when I watch a lot of video. Then I just set video quality lower, 480 is plenty for a phone screen, and if it is audio-centric video (podcast, news) I'll just set it to 144p.


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> MrMatt said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can.
> 
> Fido byo plans, unlimited minutes and text, 4gigs for 50, 7 for $65.
> 
> Also, once the phone is paid off, switch to a byop plan.
> 
> This is actually the problem. People are screaming for more regulation and red tape, rather than simply going and picking a cheaper plan.
> 
> 
> 
> The highest Fido plan is 10 gigs for $115. We currently have a 20 gig "shared" plan and sometimes bump up against it.
> 
> If each of us got a Fido plan it would cost $230 plus tax. We currently pay $240 plus tax..........hardly worth the effort.
> 
> The most interesting part of the Trudeau announcement was Canadian telecom rates for "family plans" was going to be compared to other countries.
> 
> By the way.........Rogers own Fido and with no contract they can jack up prices anytime they want.
Click to expand...

Ahh, so you want the biggest and best plan available, then complain that it costs as much as a small car. Maybe if it such a huge deal, watch slightly less video on your phone?
Personally I download video in advance to save data. Which is why my plan is half the cost of yours.


----------



## sags

There are 3 people using the data, and we generally use less than 10 gigs a month. 

My son was using a lot of data when he was using his phone as a GPS for work, or downloading blueprints or municipal regulations.

Of 20 gigs......and 11 days to go, we still have 16 gigs remaining.

I could lower the gigs to 10 gigs, but the savings aren't much......maybe $20 a month. The more gigs you have the cheaper per gig they are.

The biggest problem with a small data package is overage data charges. At $70 a gig..........it gets expensive.


----------



## sags

On the home internet, we used to have unlimited data but Rogers eliminated those plans and gave us 500 gigs.

It was plenty until we got an XBox One for our grandson to play. Just downloading the games that came with it put us over the limit.

I had no idea some games require 100 gigabytes each. I should have clued in when the downloads took all night.

We had $400 in overage charges but only had to pay $100 because of a grandfathered plan. They told us we "saved" $300........lol.

I can understand how single people can figure out a cheap plan but for families it is a lot more difficult. 

When our grandson visits, sometimes there are 3 or 4 of us on the internet or playing games at the same time. It all comes from the same data plan.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

Sags, you are the perfect 'gimmee gimmee' voter.
You CHOOSE to be a family with 3 cell phones with large data plans, a landline, tv with netflix, and internet with large data.

I agree its challenging to shop around and change providers, but have you ever even called Rogers and politely questioned your bill, asked why they have better rates advertised, noted better competitor pricing, etc. They should connect you to their retention group and offer you reductions.

You depended on a union to look after you while working, and you expect the government to look after you in retirement. News flash - they already do (CPP, OAS, medical, etc.). Expecting the government to manage your discretionary spending is obscene.

As for comparing other countries... make sure they have the same land area, and places like Maple Creek and Tuk that need infrastructure as well before they roll out typical Trudeau garbage.

Incidently, We have cell/phone/tv plans that are not cheap. But we accept that we've chosen them.
And we own substantisl BCE and T shares which 'pay us back'. I'm not concerned as a long term shareholder.

Added: see your new post Sags. Suggest you do some projects w grandson (xmas gifts for m&d) and get out for some memorable 'adventures'. They'll remember those things about g&g. They sure as hell won't remember you via playing xbox.


----------



## Userkare

I'd like to know how the telcos will be forced to lower their rates by 25% but then still roll out major new infrastructure to support 5G. 

The Lib platform is scattergunning money at everything, just to buy votes; pathetic!


----------



## sags

Userkare said:


> I'd like to know how the telcos will be forced to lower their rates by 25% but then still roll out major new infrastructure to support 5G.
> 
> The Lib platform is scattergunning money at everything, just to buy votes; pathetic!


People with small data plans won't get much use out of 5G networks. They will be faster but will consume more data.


----------



## Userkare

sags said:


> People with small data plans won't get much use out of 5G networks. They will be faster but will consume more data.


I'm asking why would telcos even invest in a major infrastructure upgrade to support 5G when there's a government promising to limit their profitability?


----------



## MrMatt

Wow, $70/gig for overages? Fido texts me and offers much lower overage rates ($10/gig)
Isn't unlimited internet standard? You should look at start or teksavvy, really fast unlimited for 50-60/month unlimited. 

I gotta say, it seems like your high bills are due to not shopping around.


----------



## sags

Maybe they shouldn't build it. 

The telcos are only interested in 5G because they can profit more from data.

_There’s a dark secret lurking behind all the promised benefits of the impending 5G networks slowly coming online around the world: All that extra speed and bandwidth is going to make it really hard to stay within your monthly data limits, as the BBC recently discovered with its first live segment streamed over 5G._

_With carriers already introducing additional charges to allow existing smartphones to just use 5G networks, your cellphone bill is going to inevitably get quite expensive once you realize you need heaps more data every month._

https://gizmodo.com/bbc-goes-to-conduct-its-first-broadcast-over-5g-immedi-1835119262


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> We spend $550 a month (plus $100 data charge if we go over the house internet) and that is with a Rogers "better bundles" discount.
> 
> 
> Internet.......$100 (500 gigabit limit)


Okay for 100 a month internet that's Rogers unlimited 300u (300Mbps) plan.
The only current plant with a data limit is $50/month.
Something isn't adding up. 

Oh teksavvy just switched almost all plans to unlimited.


----------



## sags

MrMatt said:


> Wow, $70/gig for overages? Fido texts me and offers much lower overage rates ($10/gig)
> Isn't unlimited internet standard? You should look at start or teksavvy, really fast unlimited for 50-60/month unlimited.
> 
> I gotta say, it seems like your high bills are due to not shopping around.


"Unlimited" doesn't actually mean unlimited.

The major carriers cap internet speeds after the first 10 gigabyte is reached. The restricted data speeds are too slow to do anything, but it is unlimited.

I see lots of offers here and there, but you have to read all the fine print. Many of the deals are for a few months and then the price goes up.

It looks to me like Fido doesn't charge overage data fees because they simply don't allow people to go over. They turn off the data until the next billing cycle.

It looks to me like Canadians have a unique choice. You can have a smartphone but just don't use it much for what it is intended for.

No need for a smartphone to talk and text.


----------



## Emjay85

MrMatt said:


> Okay for 100 a month internet that's Rogers unlimited 300u (300Mbps) plan.
> The only current plant with a data limit is $50/month.
> Something isn't adding up.
> 
> Oh teksavvy just switched almost all plans to unlimited.


It usually doesn't add up with sags...

Rogers has a promotion on now, $60 with 15 gigs.

Rogers also has unlimited home internet plans for well under $100. All you have to do is ask.


----------



## Userkare

It's getting confusing here. Are we mixing mobile internet plans with home internet plans? If you really really need to watch Netflix on the way to work, then pre-load the content to your device the night before from home internet, and watch it on the commute without any data usage. I did that on my last Via Rail trip from Ottawa to Toronto; worked great!


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> MrMatt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, $70/gig for overages? Fido texts me and offers much lower overage rates ($10/gig)
> Isn't unlimited internet standard? You should look at start or teksavvy, really fast unlimited for 50-60/month unlimited.
> 
> I gotta say, it seems like your high bills are due to not shopping around.
> 
> 
> 
> "Unlimited" doesn't actually mean unlimited.
> 
> The major carriers cap internet speeds after the first 10 gigabyte is reached. The restricted data speeds are too slow to do anything, but it is unlimited.
> 
> I see lots of offers here and there, but you have to read all the fine print. Many of the deals are for a few months and then the price goes up.
> 
> It looks to me like Fido doesn't charge overage data fees because they simply don't allow people to go over. They turn off the data until the next billing cycle.
> 
> It looks to me like Canadians have a unique choice. You can have a smartphone but just don't use it much for what it is intended for.
> 
> No need for a smartphone to talk and text.
Click to expand...

Sags, you're mixing up terms. 
I'm paying 60 a month for very fast unlimited home internet. 
I pay 55 a month for 4gigs of cell phone data, when I hit my limit, fido stops and asks if I want to buy more at various price points. If it's early in the month I'll get the 3 gigs for $30.

I think you are overpaying for the services you have. But regulation is the wrong way to fix that.
You should simply take responsibility and make better choices. This is a financial forum, we can help you.

I'm not against all regulations, but cell phones contracts are just consumer laziness.


----------



## sags

Assuming no phone tab and no taxes paid.....

You are paying $85 a month for 7 gigs a month on 1 cellphone.

For 2 phones that would be.........$170 a month and you have 7 gigs of data to share (3.5 gigs each).

I pay $190 a month for 2 phones and have 20 gigs to share (10 gigs each).

So for $20 a month we have 13 more gigs of data. I don't see much savings there.

I would say we are both getting ripped off.

P.S. You are getting a good deal for unlimited internet at $60 a month, as long as the speed isn't capped at some level.


----------



## RBull

sags said:


> The Liberals have pledged to "cost everything" in one nice big package. Don't worry, everything will be fully funded. Bill Morneau is working on the details.





sags said:


> Despite the right wing media frenzy, the recent events haven't done much of anything to the polls.
> 
> People would rather overlook the youthful indiscretions of JT's distant past, than have to live with another Harper-like government.
> 
> Andrew Scheer is adopting all the old Harper playbook pledges, and it is reminding voters of who Andrew Scheer really is.
> 
> I mean seriously, he pledges to sign a "covenant" with military veterans ? Scheer's use of Biblical language signalling is over the top.


Too bad they won't honour their pledge to cost everything promptly through the PBO, but not surprising given the recent history of hypocriscy and words not lining up with actions. 

The right wing media didn't cause Trudeau to lie, to operate unethically, to break many of his important promises, to act like a racist, and to virtue signal endlessly while acting frequently in a completely different undesirable manner. In fact he is self destructing and his legacy will be one of disgrace. He has caused a huge fall in his own approval ratings since being elected, along with that of his party. If you see these as wins, and ignore these obvious failings while flailing around desperately to find tiny faults with another leader, or endlessly reference a former PM not in the running that's your perogative. Most of us on here see that for what it is. 

I wonder why you are so keen on encouraging the government to reward you with more seniors/other benefits like more OAS, CPP, tech savings you very evidently don't truly need, based on your previous disclosures of income. Considering these will add more to the current structural deficits and will be financed by future generations it seems to speak volumes on your flawed grasp of what is deserved, fair, earned and responsible. 

Now all the parties seem to be in a race to the bottom. This isnt good for the future of the country and future generations. But you seem to care most about what you can extract from others so we can see how this makes you pleased. Shameful.


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> Assuming no phone tab and no taxes paid.....
> 
> You are paying $85 a month for 7 gigs a month on 1 cellphone.
> 
> For 2 phones that would be.........$170 a month and you have 7 gigs of data to share (3.5 gigs each).
> 
> I pay $190 a month for 2 phones and have 20 gigs to share (10 gigs each).
> 
> So for $20 a month we have 13 more gigs of data. I don't see much savings there.
> 
> I would say we are both getting ripped off.
> 
> P.S. You are getting a good deal for unlimited internet at $60 a month, as long as the speed is n't capped at some level.


No, I'm paying 55 before tax or 62 after tax for 4 gigs. For 125/mo for 2 phones. 

In the summer have gone through 1-2 tb/month of data at home and had no slowdowns.


----------



## AltaRed

I hold BCE, T in some quantity. Is anyone concerned about these kind of "promises" to lower fees? I'm wondering how the market will respond to this kind of crap.[/QUOTE]

People are mixing up bundles including internet and cable with cell phone service, rather than just cell phone. Unlimited nationwide calling and 10GB data plans are easily available under $100/mo. 

And what normal person remotely needs even 5GB? A business perhaps like a Contractor, but not any residential owner given how accessible wi-fi is almost anywhere.


----------



## sags

Yikes........1-2 T usage in a month and my overage charge would be $1500-$4500.

Yup........I gotta call Rogers and get a deal or go somewhere else.


----------



## sags

To some fellow posters..........

If you don't skip the paragraphs of rants against Trudeau, I won't be able to read all the personal insults at the bottom of the post and I do so look forward to them.

So if you could just get right to the point............that would be great. Also if you could make them a little more imaginative, that would be even better.

Creativity is the key here folks.


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> Yikes........1-2 T usage in a month and my overage charge would be $1500-$4500.
> 
> Yup........I gotta call Rogers and get a deal or go somewhere else.


Only the cheapest plan at Rogers has a limit. 
And yes Tb of data is crazy, but we typically have a few video streams running almost all the time.


----------



## MrMatt

AltaRed said:


> People are mixing up bundles including internet and cable with cell phone service, rather than just cell phone. Unlimited nationwide calling and 10GB data plans are easily available under $100/mo.
> 
> And what normal person remotely needs even 5GB? A business perhaps like a Contractor, but not any residential owner given how accessible wi-fi is almost anywhere.


I honestly think people simply don't understand, or appreciate the impact of their choices. 
Myself I chose to save the 50+ a month to go to a lower data plan. Most people don't want to make trade offs, they want everything now. It's a very short-sighted and unsustainable way to live.


----------



## Zipper

Geez sags. Maybe you are my neighbour. I'm in South London.


----------



## sags

We are in the west end of London. It's a small world.


----------



## tdiddy

So Trudeau announces increase to basic personal amount for those earning less than 150K, which is then phased out I presume, because the tax code really needs added complexity. So that he can add his "ensures that the wealthy don't get an extra hand up" line. Another tax policy against the wealth that proportionately effects those making 210-300K the most rather than the ultra rich. OAS increase will effectively do the same. We need to smooth out the tax brackets a bit to get back on the right side of the laffer curve and makeup the balance with increased inheritance taxation. If there is one thing this PM has taught me its that e should be doing everything possible to make sure that trust fund kids actually have to earn some of their opportunities in life.


----------



## bgc_fan

sags said:


> The highest Fido plan is 10 gigs for $115. We currently have a 20 gig "shared" plan and sometimes bump up against it.
> 
> If each of us got a Fido plan it would cost $230 plus tax. We currently pay $240 plus tax..........hardly worth the effort.
> 
> The most interesting part of the Trudeau announcement was Canadian telecom rates for "family plans" was going to be compared to other countries.
> 
> By the way.........Rogers own Fido and with no contract they can jack up prices anytime they want.


If you are interested, Fido and Rogers are offering a loyalty $60 / month for 15 GB. https://www.iphoneincanada.ca/carriers/rogers/rogers-fido-60-15gb/


----------



## dubmac

great article in the G&M today (Sept 24) pg B6 that basically states that if any Gov't tries to legislate price decreases to cell phone plans, wireless providers (BCE, T, Rogers) will take them to court. The imposition of MVNM's will undermine their investment that these companies have been paying for in the past decade. The one truth that these politicians do NOT convey is that prices for cell phone plans have dropped 35% per average plan from 2016-2018 it is reported, and prices are expected to drop further. This kind of intervention by politicians makes me a little annoyed. Anyhoo..good article (likely behind a pay-wall)


----------



## MrMatt

tdiddy said:


> So Trudeau announces increase to basic personal amount for those earning less than 150K, which is then phased out I presume, because the tax code really needs added complexity. So that he can add his "ensures that the wealthy don't get an extra hand up" line. Another tax policy against the wealth that proportionately effects those making 210-300K the most rather than the ultra rich. OAS increase will effectively do the same. We need to smooth out the tax brackets a bit to get back on the right side of the laffer curve and makeup the balance with increased inheritance taxation. If there is one thing this PM has taught me its that e should be doing everything possible to make sure that trust fund kids actually have to earn some of their opportunities in life.


Funny, he's aiming to be halfway to Doug Ford's $30k tax free.


----------



## sags

In Canada, the Liberals, Greens, and NDP are left of center politically have about 70% support of the people. The Conservatives continue to poll around 30% support.

The 30% minority isn't going to decide the future for the 70% majority unless there is extreme vote splitting. 

If the parties of the left joined together the Conservatives would never win another election. 

If the NDP get trounced in this election, which is highly expected, there will likely be more talk of a Liberal/NDP merger.


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> If the parties of the left joined together the Conservatives would never win another election.
> 
> If the NDP get trounced in this election, which is highly expected, there will likely be more talk of a Liberal/NDP merger.


Then they'll out compete each other to be more "progressive", until they become too ridiculous to be elected.

Look at the democrats in the US, they're pushing further and further left, to win the party, but making themselves increasingly unelectable.


----------



## james4beach

sags said:


> In Canada, the Liberals, Greens, and NDP are left of center politically have about 70% support of the people. The Conservatives continue to poll around 30% support.
> 
> The 30% minority isn't going to decide the future for the 70% majority unless there is extreme vote splitting.


Each time I read these threads at CMF including MrMatt's responses, I have to remind myself that we have a rather right-leaning population on this board that is not very representative of Canadian norms.

One illustration of this was support expressed by several people here for Bernier. This guy is a fringe candidate who's kind of nuts, and yet several people here take him seriously, from what I remember. In the real world, he's not a viable candidate. At CMF though, he's taken seriously.

Additionally, at CMF it's amazing how much climate change denial there is, how much love is expressed for oil & gas corporations and their policy positions. It's really weird stuff. Again, unrepresentative of Canada in general.


----------



## MrMatt

james4beach said:


> Each time I read these threads at CMF including MrMatt's responses, I have to remind myself that we have a rather right-leaning population on this board that is not very representative of Canadian norms.
> 
> One illustration of this was support expressed by several people here for Bernier. This guy is a fringe candidate who's kind of nuts, and yet several people here take him seriously, from what I remember. In the real world, he's not a viable candidate. At CMF though, he's taken seriously.
> 
> Additionally, at CMF it's amazing how much climate change denial there is, how much love is expressed for oil & gas corporations and their policy positions. It's really weird stuff. Again, unrepresentative of Canada in general.


Funny, I don't see much climate change denial. It's basically just you claiming there is climate change denial.
Can you name 5 climate change deniers?

Let me start, people who believe in climate change.
Me, James, SAGS, Altared, agent99.


Bernier isn't very electable, basically because he is putting his values ahead of political pragmatism. 
That's why I wish he was PM, that's also why I didn't vote for him for party leadership.


----------



## like_to_retire

james4beach said:


> Each time I read these threads at CMF including MrMatt's responses, I have to remind myself that we have a rather right-leaning population on this board that is not very representative of Canadian norms.


Canada is a federation that comprises ten provinces and three territories. Of the three territories, two are completely non-partisan, so let's forget about them in this discussion. 

In the 10 provinces, 7 of the 10 have elected a Conservative, right leaning government. That seems representative of Canadian norms.

And if the press is to be believed, Nova Scotia will go Conservative next, with anger largely directed at Liberal Nova Premier Stephen McNeil, who has just a 16 per cent approval rating as of June, the lowest rating of any Canadian premier according to an Angus Reid poll.

So then we'll have 8 of 10 provinces electing a Conservative, right leaning government. Basically, sensible people support fiscal conservatism and reject climate alarmism, and they want to allow our economy to grow through our natural resources. The people have spoken.

ltr


----------



## AltaRed

I'd suggest most of those 'right' gov'ts are actually centrists, still occurring some deficits, primarily in the name of maintaining, for the most part, our system of generous social benefits. Few of them have yet been able to right the ship with balanced budgets, and may not be able to do so for a few years yet. We have had way too many years of out-of-control spending by gov'ts that have nearly bankrupted their provinces. Just have to look at the RBC economic report every year to see the state of affairs.

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

Added: Clearly shows the trend is for the better with these new governments.


----------



## like_to_retire

AltaRed said:


> We have had way too many years of out-of-control spending by gov'ts that have nearly bankrupted their provinces. Just have to look at the RBC economic report every year to see the state of affairs.


Totally agree, and so do most people, as this is representative of the majority of Canadian norms, which is completely opposite what James is saying.

ltr


----------



## MrMatt

I'd agree that the CPC has swung hard centrist, all these tax credits and programs, they're way left of what I want.

Sorry, arts and crafts are important, but we don't need a tax credit for that too.


----------



## like_to_retire

james4beach said:


> One illustration of this was support expressed by several people here for Bernier. This guy is a fringe candidate who's kind of nuts, and yet several people here take him seriously, from what I remember. In the real world, he's not a viable candidate. At CMF though, he's taken seriously.


I would definitely vote for Bernier if I felt he could win. He wants to remove the deficit. He's a true fiscal conservative. He supports free markets and wants to change our supply management system. He rejects climate alarmism. He wants to allow the oil and gas industry to grow. He wants to free our economy by reducing inter-provincial trade barriers.

You think he's nuts, yet your candidate continually puts on blackface - so many times he can't remember how many. Bernier doesn't do that.

ltr


----------



## AltaRed

I don't agree with some of Bernier's social views but most of his policies are economically sound and pragmatic. Unlike the whacko stuff falling out of May's mouth that even the PBO cannot wrap its head around. Never mind the blackface seen protesting in the streets and wetting his knickers over Greta. Somewhere, someday, common sense will prevail but it seems Canada will have to fall into the ditches first before it can save itself. All showman and fluff and minimal substance.


----------



## kcowan

I am convinced that J4B and sags need to find a forum for socialists and that they cause much disruption in this forum for no net benefit.


----------



## AltaRed

Whether this 'rag' is just another right wing piece or not, we do know Greta is being 'handled' https://www.americanthinker.com/blo...PvvvmdOpnaDCoYQHp3nQlGAU4344SB8NBEPWmJv69Vd3s

Another example of a long list of how the showman continues to run into sharp objects.


----------



## sags

Trudeau spent the day explaining the Liberal plan forward. They released their full election policy with the cost estimates provided.

Scheer spent the day going back to the past again, saying he would restore the partisan appointments of Senators.

Does Scheer actually have any policies of his own that aren't retreads from his Harper days ?

Someone should remind Scheer that Harper's policies led to Trudeau's majority government.


----------



## humble_pie

sags said:


> Does Scheer actually have any policies of his own that aren't retreads from his Harper days ?



scheer was in the news couple days ago promising a gigantic transnational energy corridor to carry oil, gas, hydro & IP/phone across the country, from the atlantic to the pacific

an energy corridor is an idea that scheer stole from calvin helin, head of the beleaguered Eagle Spirit pipeline proposal. Helin's pipeline was to run through an energy corridor carrying multiple services that would have been built from edmonton to prince rupert on the BC coast.

in theory, a transnational energy corridor is an appealing election giveaway toy. IIRC the tentative siting is to the north of the existing transCanada mainline.

in reality, such a project won't happen in canada in anybody's lifetime. Provinces are too fractious.

china, meanwhile, powers on with the new Silk Road, a goods & shipping complex that now runs all the way from china to the port of piraeus in greece.


----------



## james4beach

kcowan said:


> I am convinced that J4B and sags need to find a forum for socialists and that they cause much disruption in this forum for no net benefit.


You should be able to hear views that don't agree with yours without freaking out. This is a useful life skill. The perspectives I write are quite mainstream in Canada -- very common. If you have this much trouble reading my perspective, you're going to have a lot of trouble interacting with other Canadians.

CMF is not a Conservative party forum. You are going to hear other views, and I go out of my way to describe centrist positions to balance out the strong right-wing bias on this board. This board has a lot of Albertans, oil & gas workers, and older conservative-leaning people... you can get a really skewed picture of Canada by just reading the politics at CMF.

Also, I thought conservatives were the ones who were big on "free speech"?


----------



## sags

humble_pie said:


> scheer was in the news couple days ago promising a gigantic transnational energy corridor to carry oil, gas, hydro & IP/phone across the country, from the atlantic to the pacific
> 
> an energy corridor is an idea that scheer stole from calvin helin, head of the beleaguered Eagle Spirit pipeline proposal. Helin's pipeline was to run through an energy corridor carrying multiple services that would have been built from edmonton to prince rupert on the BC coast.
> 
> in theory, a transnational energy corridor is an appealing election giveaway toy. IIRC the tentative siting is to the north of the existing transCanada mainline.
> 
> in reality, such a project won't happen in canada in anybody's lifetime. Provinces are too fractious.
> 
> china, meanwhile, powers on with the new Silk Road, a goods & shipping complex that now runs all the way from china to the port of piraeus in greece.


Yes, we discussed this energy corridor some time ago, after it was revived in Senate Committee hearings. I agree that it is dead in the water.


----------



## sags

_Also, I thought conservatives were the ones who were big on "free speech"?_ 

Only if you agree with their view of the world. Otherwise......the 70% of people who don't agree with them are naive, stupid, misinformed, greedy, duped voters.


----------



## AltaRed

james4beach said:


> CMF is not a Conservative party forum. You are going to hear other views, and I go out of my way to describe centrist positions to balance out the strong right-wing bias on this board. This board has a lot of Albertans, oil & gas workers, and older conservative-leaning people... you can get a really skewed picture of Canada by just reading the politics at CMF.


It is a matter of perspective. I believe the majority of people who frequent investing forums generally are centrist over a range of values, and believe in fiscal prudence and discipline, and being responsible for themselves in this world. Not the gimme...gimme...gimme nonsense (and taxation that goes along with it) that comes from socialists, and yes, not the extremist views from a few members of the right either. James, I would suggest you really should not be in an investing forum if you do not understand what a centrist view is. The vast majority here are really centrists!


----------



## kelaa

I am speaking as someone who has voted Grit every time since coming of age, someone who shed a tear along with Paul Martin during his concession speech after the NDP pulled the plug on his minority government. I had no illusions about Justin Trudeau's intellect. But I commended him for the energy he brought to the party and I hoped we would be at least sincere. 

I can look past the SNC-Lavalin issue as a matter of political prerogative rather than strictly legal issue. I also view deficit spending to accomplish general goals as acceptable. But even I am getting dismayed by the stupid spending promises coming out of the Liberals. Suspending student loan payments for five years because you choose to have a child (BTW you can already ask for payment relief for 6 month periods at a time)? Government mortgage-sharing for Toronto and Vancouver markets? This is micro-targeting gone mad. It's one thing to make an investment (giving everyone an education/training grant, for instance) or even do something wasteful, but to reward irresponsible behavior is unforgivable. 

On the national energy infrastructure issue, I'd have to say the Liberal government has been a failure. Although not all of the blame is on the federal government, the result is the same: no new pipelines, no new export capacity (other some segments of the Line 3 Replacement Project). On the indigenous affairs issue, despite much apologizing and money expended, I don't see that we are moving any closer to normalization, economic sufficiency, and capable governance.

That said, I will still vote Grit because I want to sent my local candidate to Ottawa to represent our riding. For six parliaments, our riding has had no government or effective opposition representation. But I cannot in good conscience advise anyone to vote Liberal nationally on account of sound fiscal management or social policy.


----------



## sags

Conservatives abandoned the centrist position when the Reform party took over control of the party.

Conservatives are no longer the party of Brian Mulroney, Peter Lougheed, or Hugh Segal. Now they are the party of Jason Kenney, Doug Ford, and Maxime Bernier.

As a Canadian who has followed politics for almost 60 years, it is disappointing to watch the Conservatives tarnish their accomplished past.


----------



## sags

It is apparent that some posters on CMF have difficulty understanding the difference between socialist programs and socialist principles.

I would bet that when the government hands out money......OAS, GIS, child benefits, tax rebates, energy rebates, tax free TFSAs, tax free capital gains, lower interest on Canadian dividends, etc. etc. etc.........they all have their hand out.

They appear to have a religious "holier than thou" mentality.


----------



## MrMatt

kelaa said:


> I am speaking as someone who has voted Grit every time since coming of age, someone who shed a tear along with Paul Martin during his concession speech after the NDP pulled the plug on his minority government. I had no illusions about Justin Trudeau's intellect. But I commended him for the energy he brought to the party and I hoped we would be at least sincere.
> 
> I can look past the SNC-Lavalin issue as a matter of political prerogative rather than strictly legal issue. I also view deficit spending to accomplish general goals as acceptable. But even I am getting dismayed by the stupid spending promises coming out of the Liberals. Suspending student loan payments for five years because you choose to have a child (BTW you can already ask for payment relief for 6 month periods at a time)? Government mortgage-sharing for Toronto and Vancouver markets? This is micro-targeting gone mad. It's one thing to make an investment (giving everyone an education/training grant, for instance) or even do something wasteful, but to reward irresponsible behavior is unforgivable.
> 
> On the national energy infrastructure issue, I'd have to say the Liberal government has been a failure. Although not all of the blame is on the federal government, the result is the same: no new pipelines, no new export capacity (other some segments of the Line 3 Replacement Project). On the indigenous affairs issue, despite much apologizing and money expended, I don't see that we are moving any closer to normalization, economic sufficiency, and capable governance.
> 
> That said, I will still vote Grit because I want to sent my local candidate to Ottawa to represent our riding. For six parliaments, our riding has had no government or effective opposition representation. But I cannot in good conscience advise anyone to vote Liberal nationally on account of sound fiscal management or social policy.


They're planning on a deficit of almost 30 billion dollars, their plan is to put every Canadian in debt at a rate of $1k a year, if you think about the number of full time employed Canadians it is even worse.
They're absolutely burying us in debt.
And the PM thinks we should be spending that money on? Vacations?

I don't know where you get your money management, but when you're pushing bankruptcy, taking extravagant vacations isn't responsible. ($2k is extravagent for many)


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> _Also, I thought conservatives were the ones who were big on "free speech"?_
> 
> Only if you agree with their view of the world. Otherwise......the 70% of people who don't agree with them are naive, stupid, misinformed, greedy, duped voters.


It's the Lefties who are anti-free speech.

https://globalnews.ca/news/5967840/maxime-bernier-hamilton-protesters/

I don't think the right wingers were getting arrested protesting Bernier talking to some gay guy from the US


----------



## sags

All the economists I saw interviewed by the news said the Liberal plan was well within the debt to GDP ratio they are concerned about.

The debt to GDP will continue to decline over the next few years, despite the additional spending.

Conservatives fail to mention the spending has a positive impact on increasing government revenues, which lowers the debt to GDP ratio.

The Conservative theories reveal they really don't understand how economies work. Even the hard line fiscal conservatives in the US have faded away.

The Milton Friedman economics model has been shown to be faulty and led to the Great Recession. Why Conservatives still cling to it is puzzling.

They believe that money spent by the government goes into a blender and is shredded and gone forever. That isn't how it works.


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> All the economists I saw interviewed by the news said the Liberal plan was well within the debt to GDP ratio they are concerned about.


Yes, experts who can't quite explain how a massive debt load is a good thing. 
It's really simple, taking on debt for investments in the country can be okay. 
When you start taking on debt to fund vacations, you have a problem. 

When we have communities without safe drinking water, is it really appropriate to be paying for extravagant vacations with tax dollars? And going into debt to do so?


----------



## sags

The total debt doesn't matter if a country can easily service the debt.

As the debt to GDP is going down, the ability to service the debt becomes easier.

Conservatives focus too much on the wrong metrics.


----------



## sags

Problems arise with the Conservative plan.

Cut taxes (government revenues), cut spending (slow the economy), and somehow everything will come out roses. It doesn't work that way and never has.


----------



## like_to_retire

sags said:


> The total debt doesn't matter if a country can easily service the debt.
> 
> As the debt to GDP is going down, the ability to service the debt becomes easier.
> 
> Conservatives focus too much on the wrong metrics.


Debt to GDP ratio is a terrible metric. 

Your contention is that "_The total debt doesn't matter if a country can easily service the debt._". How can the government service a debt from GDP (which is a measure of the the total dollar value of all goods and services produced in a country in a year). This is basically the country's national income, but the government doesn't have access to all the national income, only the share it collects in taxes. 

Debt to GDP also ignores that during tough times the GDP drops, but the debt remains the same or increases as the government attempts to get the country out of trouble. During good times the government is obliged to reduce the debt or at least not add more such that there is an increasing deficit, yet that is exactly what the Liberals have done and are promising more of the same.

ltr


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> The total debt doesn't matter if a country can easily service the debt.
> 
> As the debt to GDP is going down, the ability to service the debt becomes easier.
> 
> Conservatives focus too much on the wrong metrics.


Sorry, total government debt is way too high. With a debt to GDP ratio in the high 60's,its time to smart up.


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> Problems arise with the Conservative plan.
> 
> Cut taxes (government revenues), cut spending (slow the economy), and somehow everything will come out roses. It doesn't work that way and never has.


You're acting like the government is the only actor in the economy. 
How about take less from the people, and let them spend their own money, instead of taking their money and spending it for them. 

Every dollar not taken by the government is a dollar the citizens are able to spend how they choose. 

The government shouldn't be trying to micromanage the citizens. 
I know if that dollar is better spent on housing, or food, or art, or sports or a vacation. The government wants to make those choices for us because like an overbearing parent, they know better. 

That is a disrespectful and paternalistic way to treat your citizens, and I find it offensive. 

Now tell me I sound like an insolent teenager and complete the circle.


----------



## sags

Canada's debt to GDP ratio is 34% and declining every year. Canada has one of the lowest debt to GDP ratios among developed countries.


----------



## sags

Russia has a low debt to GDP. I wouldn't want to live there.


----------



## sags

_That is a disrespectful and paternalistic way to treat your citizens, and I find it offensive._

What you find disrespectful, paternalistic and offensive, attracts Canadians to vote for them.


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> Canada's debt to GDP ratio is 34% and declining every year. Canada has one of the lowest debt to GDP ratios among developed countries.


Government debt is over 65% of GDP for just fed+prov. 
That doesn't even include Crown corporations, and agencies. 

Remember this is GDP, not government income. 
The government debt /revenue ratio is even scarier.


----------



## sags

Totally different metric.

The 65% compares to 225% for Japan.

Total debt is considered irrelevant now. Even the Conservatives aren't talking about it anymore.

Andrew Scheer is spending more on election promises than Trudeau, and claims he will balance the budget.

At least Trudeau is honest about it.


----------



## sags

Some people get all excited about the national debt.

They don't realize that in a worse case end of the world depression scenario the government would reschedule the debt or default on it.


----------



## like_to_retire

sags said:


> Total debt is considered irrelevant now.


The budget will balance itself.




sags said:


> At least *Trudeau is honest* about it.


Interesting.

ltr


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> Totally different metric.
> 
> The 65% compares to 225% for Japan.
> 
> Total debt is considered irrelevant now. Even the Conservatives aren't talking about it anymore.
> 
> Andrew Scheer is spending more on election promises than Trudeau, and claims he will balance the budget.
> 
> At least Trudeau is honest about it.


Total debt is very relevant, and we are literally talking about it right now.


----------



## andrewf

AltaRed said:


> It is a matter of perspective. I believe the majority of people who frequent investing forums generally are centrist over a range of values, and believe in fiscal prudence and discipline, and being responsible for themselves in this world. Not the gimme...gimme...gimme nonsense (and taxation that goes along with it) that comes from socialists, and yes, not the extremist views from a few members of the right either. James, I would suggest you really should not be in an investing forum if you do not understand what a centrist view is. The vast majority here are really centrists!


Given that the CPC are <30% of popular support, it seems kind of obvious that centrists would tend not to support CPC. Anyone who is firmly CPC supporting is generally not terribly centrist.

And it should hopefully go without saying that not supporting CPC doesn't mean that one is a socialist. I hope it's not controversial to say that james is obviously not a socialist.


----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> Given that the CPC are <30% of popular support, it seems kind of obvious that centrists would tend not to support CPC. Anyone who is firmly CPC supporting is generally not terribly centrist.
> 
> And it should hopefully go without saying that not supporting CPC doesn't mean that one is a socialist. I hope it's not controversial to say that james is obviously not a socialist.


CPC has been polling above 30% for months. See CTVnews.ca home page. Please support you claim to the contrary. 

NDP is clearly socialist. They're actually advocating asset seizure of "the rich", simply because they're rich. 
Liberals are just a mix of bribes and fear mongering about the Republicans taking over.

I think it's interesting that those critical of conservative viewpoints frequently state things that are false, and typically refuse to provide supporting data.


----------



## james4beach

andrewf said:


> Given that the CPC are <30% of popular support, it seems kind of obvious that centrists would tend not to support CPC. Anyone who is firmly CPC supporting is generally not terribly centrist.


Very logical, of course. But don't expect to convince the vocal conservatives around here. They seem to live in a bit of an ideology bubble.



> And it should hopefully go without saying that not supporting CPC doesn't mean that one is a socialist. I hope it's not controversial to say that james is obviously not a socialist.


Obviously, but I think Canadian conservatives are increasingly imitating American politics and that partly explains these kinds of responses.


----------



## AltaRed

Fiscal prudence is centrist. Not that long ago the Liberals believed in that too when they were a centrist party. Now the Butts/Wynne gang that migrated over to Ottawa are trying to do federally the same kind of damage they did to the Ontario balance sheet. Today's Liberals are trying very hard to stake out the ground of the NDP.

There is good debt, like infrastructure and feeding the horse during times of recession, and then there is the wholesale scam they are trying to pull off yet again with $20B deficits. Given the Liberals are deciding to go after luxury vehicles and surtaxes on 'wealthy' individuals, that sounds a lot like NDP mantra. They are copying Horgan's program in BC, including a national speculation tax and more taxes on business and a technology tax aka France that will certainly piss off the Americans. 

Good grief folks. Can't you see where Butts/Wynne are taking this party?


----------



## sags

The CBC is providing stellar coverage of the election, with continuous panel discussions that include supporters of all the major parties.

It appears to date that nothing has changed. The Conservatives and Liberals are basically where they started the campaign.

The election will come down to the 65 individual swing ridings, of which many are in Ontario. 

The "Doug Ford" effect is really hurting Conservative chances of gaining seats in Ontario. 

It is noticeable because normally Provincial and Federal politics don't effect each other. 

Still time left for a party to make a charge, but I would think they are all running out of ammunition.


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> The CBC is providing stellar coverage of the election, with continuous panel discussions that include supporters of all the major parties.
> .


Yup, Trudeau is getting the best press coverage our tax dollars can buy.


----------



## doctrine

What do people think of this?

https://twitter.com/NickKouvalis/status/1178471688415174656

No big deal I guess.


----------



## andrewf

MrMatt said:


> CPC has been polling above 30% for months. See CTVnews.ca home page. Please support you claim to the contrary.
> 
> NDP is clearly socialist. They're actually advocating asset seizure of "the rich", simply because they're rich.
> Liberals are just a mix of bribes and fear mongering about the Republicans taking over.
> 
> I think it's interesting that those critical of conservative viewpoints frequently state things that are false, and typically refuse to provide supporting data.


If the CPC are the 30-ish percent on the right, and the NDP+Greens+BQ are the 30-ish percent on the left, that kind of leaves the Liberals as the 30-ish percent in the middle. That is just the lay of the land. When has the median voter on a left-right spectrum ever voted for a conservative? Many many decades, perhaps?

I think maybe you are getting emotional about team blue losing the election. Keep your head level.


----------



## andrewf

AltaRed said:


> Fiscal prudence is centrist. Not that long ago the Liberals believed in that too when they were a centrist party. Now the Butts/Wynne gang that migrated over to Ottawa are trying to do federally the same kind of damage they did to the Ontario balance sheet. Today's Liberals are trying very hard to stake out the ground of the NDP.
> 
> There is good debt, like infrastructure and feeding the horse during times of recession, and then there is the wholesale scam they are trying to pull off yet again with $20B deficits. Given the Liberals are deciding to go after luxury vehicles and surtaxes on 'wealthy' individuals, that sounds a lot like NDP mantra. They are copying Horgan's program in BC, including a national speculation tax and more taxes on business and a technology tax aka France that will certainly piss off the Americans.
> 
> Good grief folks. Can't you see where Butts/Wynne are taking this party?


Not long ago that Conservatives believed in fiscal prudence. Last two times at bat, they ballooned the debt. You can moan about how it isn't their fault, but those are the facts. They made decisions about managing revenues and expenditures that lead to ballooning of debt. I don't think conservatives are inherently better on debt/deficit. They just prioritize revenue reduction and their own pet project spending initiatives. Neither Sheer nor Ford have made credible plans for how they are going magically make everything better. Ontario is in worse shape than the feds, in general, I think we are fine if debt:GDP is trending down. That puts us ahead of most other advanced economies. I don't think that falling debt is the only priority. Canada should be investing more in infrastructure, particularly when long term borrowing is so cheap.


----------



## MrMatt

None of the 3 main parties in Canada are Fiscal Conservatives.

Look at all the heat Doug Ford is taking, and he hasn't even really cut anything.

Even with the current system, where you only need ~35% support to win, parties feel that major cuts, or even moderate restraint will lose you the election.


----------



## Eder

doctrine said:


> What do people think of this?
> 
> https://twitter.com/NickKouvalis/status/1178471688415174656
> 
> No big deal I guess.


It wouldn't surprise me that JT would get the questions before the debate. It would surprise me if the other candidates had the same service.


----------



## sags

As noted by the former Auditor General on the CBC.......the current debt level is easily serviceable at about 6% of revenues. If there is a depression, interest rates will go down and the debt is even easier to service. Due to lower servicing costs, the government would have room to provide stimulus spending if necessary.

Some compare Canada's finances to a household's finances and they are not anywhere near the same thing.

Canada has a virtual unlimited ability to raise revenues. There are few households that can do that.

The Canadian debt is 70% owned by Canadians in the form of CPP, pension funds, or other fixed income investments. 

The service costs paid the government goes back to Canadians, to be spent today or spent in the future.

President Reagan was a big fan of the type of austerity economics touted by economist Milton Friedman. After he implement austerity measures the US fell into an economic slump and Reagan was very unhappy with the results and threw those ideas out the window. He immediately returned to large spending measures to help balance the economy. Reagan was a smart and practical President who knew what people needed from their President and wasn't afraid to admit a mistake and change course.

The Conservatives in Canada appear to be the last vestiges of the old ideology. They are pretty much alone in their own world of economics.


----------



## Eclectic12

sags said:


> MrMatt said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... When we have communities without safe drinking water, is it really appropriate to be paying for extravagant vacations with tax dollars? And going into debt to do so?
> 
> 
> 
> ... The total debt doesn't matter if a country can easily service the debt ... Conservatives focus too much on the wrong metrics.
Click to expand...

So the message to those without safe drinking water is "you are paying attention to the wrong metrics"?
Not sure those who are pissed at their lack at the same time as it is being spread around how great the water is for other Canadians are going to agree that much.


Cheers


----------



## Userkare

sags said:


> As noted by the former Auditor General on the CBC.......the current debt level is easily serviceable at about 6% of revenues. If there is a depression, interest rates will go down and the debt is even easier to service. Due to lower servicing costs, the government would have room to provide stimulus spending if necessary.
> 
> Some compare Canada's finances to a household's finances and they are not anywhere near the same thing.
> 
> Canada has a virtual unlimited ability to raise revenues. There are few households that can do that.


How, other than from taxpayers? What exactly is the interest on $695B? Would any new lower interest rates, caused by depression, apply to all the money already borrowed or just new debt? If there's a depression, won't there be job losses and therefore lower GDP?

Canadians want to know.


----------



## sags

Eclectic12 said:


> So the message to those without safe drinking water is "you are paying attention to the wrong metrics"?
> Not sure those who are pissed at their lack at the same time as it is being spread around how great the water is for other Canadians are going to agree that much.
> 
> 
> Cheers


I don't think the problem with providing clean water is a lack of money. Billions have been spent and billions more will be spent.

The problem is all the agricultural, and other pollution entering the watersheds and making the water sources toxic. 

Even the best water treatment plants can't filter out every contaminant ever used.

It isn't just on native reserves either. Oil and gas toxins have leached into rivers and streams and are contaminating the water. 

The fresh water supply for Edmonton may be threatened in the future as well.

The answer to clean water is to stop polluting the water sources, not to spend billions trying to filter the water enough to make it drinkable again.


----------



## kcowan

Userkare said:


> How, other than from taxpayers? What exactly is the interest on $695B? Would any new lower interest rates, caused by depression, apply to all the money already borrowed or just new debt? If there's a depression, won't there be job losses and therefore lower GDP?
> 
> Canadians want to know.


The GDP metric is for the financially impaired. Debt is debt and carried by taxation. Higher debt equals higher taxation eventually. There is no other way other than bankruptcy.


----------



## sags

For those who don't understand the transition from the old economic theory of "debt is bad" to the Modern Monetary Theory being adopted around the world........

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/4/16/18251646/modern-monetary-theory-new-moment-explained

Economists also acknowledge that much of the great global wealth such as in the FAANG stocks have their nucleus in government spending.


----------



## Eclectic12

sags said:


> Eclectic12 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the message to those without safe drinking water is "you are paying attention to the wrong metrics"?
> Not sure those who are pissed at their lack at the same time as it is being spread around how great the water is for other Canadians are going to agree that much.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think the problem with providing clean water is a lack of money.
Click to expand...

Odd ... the PBO report on the subject says that combining both the Feds and other sources is 30% short of their cost estimate of what is needed to hit what the Liberals have promised.




sags said:


> ... The problem is all the agricultural, and other pollution entering the watersheds and making the water sources toxic.
> Even the best water treatment plants can't filter out every contaminant ever used.


You mean like mercury in Grassy Narrows that has been been ignored for going on fifty years?
Or do you have some sources saying that any clean up happened before 2018 despite the gov't having reports talking about seeing in the ground mercury decades ago?

BTW the PBO puts the annual spend average at $322 million a year recently so it's taking over three years to hit the $1 billion mark. I suspect if the past numbers are dug into, some previous years like from a twenty years ago will have far less than that spent a year.




sags said:


> ... The answer to clean water is to stop polluting the water sources, not to spend billions trying to filter the water enough to make it drinkable again.


While that is good overall - those First Nations people who aren't counted as having water problems because they don't have running water or have a septic system probably as well as those under boil advisories etc. probably want something to help them out.


Cheers


*PS*
An how much of the billions spent are because of gov't stupidity?

One of the First Nations that has their water treatment system flooded regularly objected to being moved that location by the gov't of the day years ago because they were concerned about ... <insert drum roll here> ... flooding (of all things!).


----------



## james4beach

I'm watching the CBC program, face-to-face interviews with the leaders from undecided voters. Yesterday was Trudeau, today is Scheer. I think Scheer is doing well and my opinion of him is improving as I watch the interview.

When asked about whether the Conservative party will welcome immigrants, Scheer said: yes they are open to immigrants and accepting of new arrivals. When asked how he feels about the _current_ (Trudeau) target of 350K immigrants in 2021, Scheer responded: "that sounds about right".

What this shows is that the Conservative party is on board with current immigration numbers, with similar immigration policies to Trudeau. I like that Scheer isn't proposing any radical changes here. In fact he also talked about how the number should not be politicized, but should be based on needs as identified by economists, and the stats -- and I absolutely agree. This is the correct way to determine immigration policy.

*I am happy hearing this*. But now I'm wondering, how about other conservatives here? Over many years at CMF, I've read many people's opinions that we have too much immigration. It sounds to me that anyone who thinks that we have "mass immigration" or that Trudeau is opening the floodgates, cannot possibly vote Conservative, since Scheer will be accepting the same numbers as Trudeau.

Will this immigration issue cause you to vote for the Peoples Party?


----------



## MrMatt

james4beach said:


> I'm watching the CBC program, face-to-face interviews with the leaders from undecided voters. Yesterday was Trudeau, today is Scheer. I think Scheer is doing well and my opinion of him is improving as I watch the interview.
> 
> When asked about whether the Conservative party will welcome immigrants, Scheer said: yes they are open to immigrants and accepting of new arrivals. When asked how he feels about the _current_ (Trudeau) target of 350K immigrants in 2021, Scheer responded: "that sounds about right".
> 
> What this shows is that the Conservative party is on board with current immigration numbers, with similar immigration policies to Trudeau. I like that Scheer isn't proposing any radical changes here. In fact he also talked about how the number should not be politicized, but should be based on needs as identified by economists, and the stats -- and I absolutely agree. This is the correct way to determine immigration policy.
> 
> *I am happy hearing this*. But now I'm wondering, how about other conservatives here? Over many years at CMF, I've read many people's opinions that we have too much immigration. It sounds to me that anyone who thinks that we have "mass immigration" or that Trudeau is opening the floodgates, cannot possibly vote Conservative, since Scheer will be accepting the same numbers as Trudeau.
> 
> Will this immigration issue cause you to vote for the Peoples Party?


Everyone is okay with the levels about where they are. I said that months ago, and quoted links supporting that.

The issue is with Trudeaus queue jumping fake refugees, and lack of screening.


----------



## kelaa

I would say there is not a lot of harm in appearing to be so tame on the CBC. However, the word on the street is already out: _The Liberals let in too many immigrants who suck up social services, do not integrate, make communities unsafe, and destroy the Canadian standard of living. Vote Conservative._


----------



## kelaa

On the other hand, the Liberals are also rocking the boat in the pointless move to eliminate the fees on citizenship applications.


----------



## james4beach

kelaa said:


> I would say there is not a lot of harm in appearing to be so tame on the CBC. However, the word on the street is already out: _The Liberals let in too many immigrants who suck up social services, do not integrate, make communities unsafe, and destroy the Canadian standard of living. Vote Conservative._


I don't understand. And the Conservatives will accept the same number of immigrants. As I write this, Scheer is also saying that he supports Muslim immigrants and Muslims joining the party.

Are you saying that he's adjusting his message to the CBC audience, and that in other settings, the Conservatives are more critical of immigrants?


----------



## Userkare

james4beach said:


> Are you saying that he's adjusting his message to the CBC audience, and that in other settings, the Conservatives are more critical of immigrants?


No, he's saying that whenever a conservative says something even remotely rational, humane, or compassionate, you have to make something up to refute it.


----------



## MrMatt

james4beach said:


> I don't understand. And the Conservatives will accept the same number of immigrants. As I write this, Scheer is also saying that he supports Muslim immigrants and Muslims joining the party.
> 
> Are you saying that he's adjusting his message to the CBC audience, and that in other settings, the Conservatives are more critical of immigrants?


What ever gave you the idea that Conservatives were anti-Muslim?
The muslim extremists are a problem sure, but so are all the other extremists.


----------



## kelaa

james4beach said:


> I don't understand. And the Conservatives will accept the same number of immigrants. As I write this, Scheer is also saying that he supports Muslim immigrants and Muslims joining the party.
> 
> Are you saying that he's adjusting his message to the CBC audience, and that in other settings, the Conservatives are more critical of immigrants?


Okay, to qualify, it might be a chicken-or-egg issue. While Liberal and NDP supporters are mixed on the issue, majority Conservatives are definitely less enthusiastic about immigration. For instance, 2018 Ipsos poll: _"A full 57% of Canadians agree with the statement that “immigration has placed too much pressure on public services in Canada." That includes 77% of Conservative voters but also 51% of Liberal voters and 48% of NDP voters. _https://torontosun.com/opinion/colu...sts-public-support-for-immigration-is-divided

I had a colleague, an immigrant no less, who more or less said what I had said above. It may not be plastered on the CPC website, but it is in people's minds when they vote. I'm not totally blaming Andrew Sheer or the CPC for every voter's internal thoughts, but to an extent it does fall on them to display moral leadership on the issue and educate the voters.


----------



## andrewf

kelaa said:


> I would say there is not a lot of harm in appearing to be so tame on the CBC. However, the word on the street is already out: _The Liberals let in too many immigrants who suck up social services, do not integrate, make communities unsafe, and destroy the Canadian standard of living. Vote Conservative._


Translation: Sheer is lying.


----------



## Eder

At any rate I'm presently camped next to a guy that owns a trucking company in Brooks....seems the Lib's anti oil squeeze has relocated his 40 man 20 truck business to Texas...more millennial tax dollars vaporized. His wife is still in Alberta but he already moved his office. Some one turn out the lights when Canada runs out of tax payers.


----------



## AltaRed

andrewf said:


> Translation: Sheer is lying.


I don't think so. He's never been hostile towards immigration that I am aware of. It does not matter much what the social conservative wing says. Many of them will migrate to the PPC anyway. The only thing I remember about the CPC is that they wanted rigor in vetting who was immigrating and to manage the numbers so that the system could handle/process applicants. The extra flood of Syrian refugees that JT committed too (my balls are bigger than your balls type of thing) is not acceptable if they cannot be processed properly. Same with the illegals flowing north across the border which will take years to process. Turn them back at the border. 

As a practical matter, we need 300-350k of qualified immigration every year to alleviate the labour shortage that is already here, not just looming as the boomers and senior trade guys retire. Scheer is more pragmatic than the red partisans give him credit for.


----------



## AltaRed

Eder said:


> At any rate I'm presently camped next to a guy that owns a trucking company in Brooks....seems the Lib's anti oil squeeze has relocated his 40 man 20 truck business to Texas...more millennial tax dollars vaporized. His wife is still in Alberta but he already moved his office. Some one turn out the lights when Canada runs out of tax payers.


Canada's loss of GDP is America's gain. Tens of billions of GDP have been squandered (not realized) on an annual basis the last 5 years due to lack of political will to address a plain, old-fashioned logistics problem.


----------



## james4beach

kelaa said:


> Okay, to qualify, it might be a chicken-or-egg issue. While Liberal and NDP supporters are mixed on the issue, majority Conservatives are definitely less enthusiastic about immigration. For instance, 2018 Ipsos poll: _"A full 57% of Canadians agree with the statement that “immigration has placed too much pressure on public services in Canada." That includes 77% of Conservative voters but also 51% of Liberal voters and 48% of NDP voters. _https://torontosun.com/opinion/colu...sts-public-support-for-immigration-is-divided
> 
> I had a colleague, an immigrant no less, who more or less said what I had said above. It may not be plastered on the CPC website, but it is in people's minds when they vote. I'm not totally blaming Andrew Sheer or the CPC for every voter's internal thoughts, but to an extent it does fall on them to display moral leadership on the issue and educate the voters.


Interesting, I see what you mean.

I think Scheer himself is reasonable about these issues (he would be an acceptable PM), but his party has many social conservatives and does appear to have an anti-immigrant streak. Overall the Conservative party is just too socially conservative for my taste. Feels regressive on many fronts.

And on fiscal issues, I think the Conservatives may be a hair more disciplined than Liberals, but not by much. Scheer certainly is throwing around a lot of spending promises

National Post -- Scheer's endless spending promises are giving the Liberals an easy stick to beat him with


----------



## Userkare

Now Andrew Sheer is being criticized, by Elizabeth May, for returning to politics after a term as speaker. Holy crap, was he supposed to retire at 36? Beg for a Senate appointment? What?

I used to respect her, although not agree with her, because I thought she, at least, didn't engage in attacking opponents personally, just their policies. I guess she's getting desperate and joining the mud-slinging fray.


----------



## MrMatt

james4beach said:


> Interesting, I see what you mean.
> 
> I think Scheer himself is reasonable about these issues (he would be an acceptable PM), but his party has many social conservatives and does appear to have an anti-immigrant streak. Overall the Conservative party is just too socially conservative for my taste. Feels regressive on many fronts.
> 
> And on fiscal issues, I think the Conservatives may be a hair more disciplined than Liberals, but not by much. Scheer certainly is throwing around a lot of spending promises
> 
> National Post -- Scheer's endless spending promises are giving the Liberals an easy stick to beat him with


Sure some people are anti-immigration.

However a more realistic framing is that some people have concerns with the levels of immigration, and how they're integrating.
That's a moderate view, and it's shared by many people, even immigrants themselves.

Of course Scheer was going to try playing Liberal to win the election, Canadians want free stuff.
As evil as people want to paint the CPC, the first rule of politics is get elected.


----------



## andrewf

^ So you don't actually care about principle, just winning. So why do you feel it isn't hypocritical to complain about other parties doing the same?


----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> ^ So you don't actually care about principle, just winning. So why do you feel it isn't hypocritical to complain about other parties doing the same?


I care very much about principles. 
However to quote Thomas Sowell, "there are no solutions, there are only trade offs." 
"You try to get the best trade off you can, and that's all you can hope for."

The reality is that none of the politicians or platforms is perfect, and there never will be. 
It's all a question of trade offs. 

I'm willing to accept near Trudeau levels of spending to get someone marginally better in office. I consider that a reasonable trade off. 

I think most Canadians have ethics and they don't like that Trudeau has violated ethics laws, but they consider that an acceptable trade off.


----------



## humble_pie

AltaRed said:


> The extra flood of Syrian refugees that JT committed too (my balls are bigger than your balls type of thing) is not acceptable if they cannot be processed properly.


wondering why the scaremongering language. There is no failure to process syrian refugees. IRCC has even developed an ultra fast protocol to identify & pluck highly qualified refugees - STEM graduates for example - out of the queue & bring them to canada pronto when job openings exist. Thus an ontario tool-&-die maker in Niagara region was able to handpick a young syrian mechanical engineer out of a lebanese refugee camp & put him to work in ontario within a few short months.





> Same with the illegals flowing north across the border which will take years to process. Turn them back at the border.


the right idea, but so much easier said than done. Conservatives have done a lot of shouting in parliament about the lacolle quebec crossings but have precious little to say about how, exactly, to stop them. Cons preaching cost cutting also have nothing to say about hugely increased IIRC border costs, which look to be permanent in today's geopolitic. Surveilling the border today requires increased RCMP & provincial police forces 24/7, plus it's my understanding the air force can be recruited for flyovers & radar control.






> As a practical matter, we need 300-350k of qualified immigration every year to alleviate the labour shortage that is already here, not just looming as the boomers and senior trade guys retire.


conservative politicians appear to have recently learned to speak the above figures & to talk the talk, but none - not even andrew scheer - demonstrate any experience or ability in dealing with this relatively high number of newcomers. Instead it's a commonplace to find conservatives talking about how immigrants & refugees must "integrate" into canada within a few years. 

in reality, not even the first generation of immigrants are likely to melt seamlessly into some kind of pan-canadian cultural melting pot. The most significant steps towards integration will be the work of the 2nd & even the 3rd generation. 

in most canadian cities the cultural communities continue in distinct neighbourhoods. It says a lot of great things about this country that the characteristic neighbourhoods are nearly always so functional, so vital & productive that the cities end up working extra hard to preserve them. 

.


----------



## sags

Scheer has been careful about what he says on immigration, so as not to offend Canadians and hide his core beliefs.

While he supports roughly the same overall numbers of immigrants, he doesn't support the same mix of immigrants and refugees the Liberals presently would. 

It becomes clear when he talks about Canada needing immigrants who can help develop the economy etc. that he isn't talking about terrified refugees arriving with nothing and requiring our help. 

I think some Conservatives could he heard echoing Donald Trump's view on immigration............if only they all came from Belgium.


----------



## Pluto

sags said:


> President Reagan was a big fan of the type of austerity economics touted by economist Milton Friedman. After he implement austerity measures the US fell into an economic slump and Reagan was very unhappy with the results and threw those ideas out the window. He immediately returned to large spending measures to help balance the economy. Reagan was a smart and practical President who knew what people needed from their President and wasn't afraid to admit a mistake and change course.
> 
> The Conservatives in Canada appear to be the last vestiges of the old ideology. They are pretty much alone in their own world of economics.


My recollection is that when Reagan departed he left the US with massive debt and a savings a loan crisis. The republican dominated congress then forced Clinton to deal with the debt.


----------



## sags

Reagan's failed early austerity measures created enormous deficits in the economy that required massive input of government spending to correct. 

Clinton's success at balancing the budget was greatly aided by money spent by Reagan in his last term in office. Reagan's spending enabled Clinton's success.

The Reagan legacy also left a vacuum in regulation oversight that led to the Savings and Loan crisis and some would say the Great Recession.

It is much like in Ontario, where Liberal McGuinty inherited an "austerity" economy mess from the Conservative Harris government.

Public healthcare and education were in a mess. Cost cutting to public inspectors led to a tainted water crisis. It wasn't a good time in Ontario.

The Liberal government had to spend copious amounts of money through the McGuinty/Wynne governments for education, healthcare, and other infrastructure.

It created a huge pile of debt which remains today, but Conservative Doug Ford inherited a Province that was in much better shape than the Liberals had inherited.

The old axiom has always been and is still true today. You can't cut your way to prosperity. It just doesn't work that way.


----------



## MrMatt

Really? You're going back to the Chrétien Martin cuts and the mess it made of Ontario finances?


----------



## sags

It isn't surprising you appear unaware of the legacy of the PC Harris government in Ontario. 

So much a pariah, their name has seldom passed over the lips of a Conservative politician for decades.

The Doug Ford government is about to be cast into the same dark place in history so Conservatives can pretend they never existed.


----------



## MrMatt

It's interesting that whenever people talk about Mike Harris, they always seem to forget it was Martin/Chrétien who actually cut the funding.

It was honestly an amazing trick to slash funding but blame the results on someone else.


----------



## sags

I had an emergency appendectomy for a disintegrated appendix last week and at every step of the way I was treated by healthcare people from all over the world.

Our hospital is a teaching hospital and connected to Western University's medical program. It attracts medical students from all over the world.

From the emergency doctor to nurses to operating room doctors to housecleaning staff, I was helped by people from China, Syria, Uganda and parts unknown.

Some arrived as students and stayed or returned. Others arrived as refugees. Some are still residents, techs or nurses still completing their studies.

It matters nothing where they come from or how they got here when you are sick and they are talking care of you.

Thank goodness for immigration. People who are anti-immigrant have no clue how valuable the immigrant contributions to Canada are.


----------



## MrMatt

Health care is a provincial responsibility.
All 5 main parties want immigration. 

What does your comment on the hospital have to do with the election?


----------



## Userkare

sags said:


> It matters nothing where they come from or how they got here when you are sick and they are talking care of you.


Sounds racist that you want immigrants to be subjugated to taking care of you.


----------



## sags

I think it would be racist if you don't want people of color taking care of you.


----------



## sags

The immigration policies of the political parties are not the same, although Conservatives would like to pretend that they are and hide in the crowd.

The Liberals/NDP/Green are much more agreeable to accepting refugees in addition to normal immigration numbers.

The Conservatives and PPC appear much more interested in maintaining immigration, but only under specified criteria that would exclude many refugee claims.

All one has to do is listen to the rhetoric surrounding the parties to see the difference in tone and substance.


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> The immigration policies of the political parties are not the same, although Conservatives would like to pretend that they are and hide in the crowd.
> 
> The Liberals/NDP/Green are much more agreeable to accepting refugees in addition to normal immigration numbers.
> 
> The Conservatives and PPC appear much more interested in maintaining immigration, but only under specified criteria that would exclude many refugee claims.
> 
> All one has to do is listen to the rhetoric surrounding the parties to see the difference in tone and substance.


Yes, CPC and PPC are interested in accepting a number of refugees we can support properly.

Liberal/NDP/Green are interested in pulling in as many refugees as we can, even if they don't get the support they need once they're here.

I think if we accept a refugee, we have an obligation to help support and take care of them, until they can take care of themself, or they choose to return.

Admitting them, then failing to provide basic necessities and supports is cruel. To do it for simple political points is sociopathic.


----------



## james4beach

Userkare said:


> Sounds racist that you want immigrants to be subjugated to taking care of you.


In my experience this is the kind of snide comment one often hears from racists. Not saying you're a racist, Userkare, but I've interacted with enough racists to know the greatest hits.

Maybe you have some friends or family which are being a bad influence on you? This is worth considering.


----------



## sags

I figure if the Conservatives truly believe in their immigration policies, they should stop trying to shield them from public view.

If they fear they would lose the election because of their policy, maybe they should think about why they are offside with public opinion.


----------



## Userkare

james4beach said:


> In my experience this is the kind of snide comment one often hears from racists. Not saying you're a racist, Userkare, but I've interacted with enough racists to know the greatest hits.
> 
> Maybe you have some friends or family which are being a bad influence on you? This is worth considering.


What I was trying to do - obviously unsuccessfully - was to show sags what it's like to be conservative. To have your words taken out of context and twisted into a meaning that is far from what you intended.

A conservative says that we need immigrants who are serious about being part of Canada, who will stay here and enrich our society by bettering themselves; not go back to their origin country and return to Canada only when there's local conflict, or they need medical care. Maybe that concept is expressed as "Canadian values". That conservative is called a racist.


----------



## james4beach

sags, the deception is necessary to trick enough GTA area immigrants into voting Conservative.

They aren't exactly going to win the election if they come out and say "we are the party of Old Stock Canadians, and we strongly prefer white/European Christian immigration"

Mind you, if they did express their ^ position honestly, they wouldn't necessarily lose too many votes. I think that many recent immigrant groups, including from China and India, could support such a position.


----------



## sags

I don't believe it is an either/or situation. We can accept all the well qualified immigrants in keeping with our needs, while also accepting refugees on a humanitarian basis.

Conservatives....and others, talk about the need for immigrants to fill high skill jobs but in truth the vast majority of job openings are among low skill service jobs. Many refugees without significant other qualifications would be thrilled to work in those jobs, while they have the means to educate themselves and improve their employment opportunities and lives. Many highly successful Canadians today are the children of immigrants or refugees that would be considered as low skilled.

The fact is we need both skilled and unskilled labor, so let's accept them both.


----------



## Userkare

sags said:


> Many refugees without significant other qualifications would be thrilled to work in those jobs, while they have the means *to educate themselves and improve their employment opportunities *and lives.


So basically what I just said 2 post up? Yet if I say it, I'm a racist, when you say it you're progressive?


----------



## MrMatt

Sags, you're missing the point.
It isn't just about jobs, which is an issue in London.
But it is also language and social supports to understand how to function here. 
We need adequate support to succeed, and our system is currently overloaded. We need to stay sustainable. 

Also for entry level jobs, part of the reason we have high unemployment and a labour shortage is because people don't want those jobs. They'd rather be unemployed than work them.


----------



## MrMatt

It's funny, only the lefty goes to the hospital and concerns themselves with the race and immigration history of the staf. 
Do you actually walk around filing everything into little racist bins? 

Isn't that an odd way to experience life?

Do people honestly go around trying to figure out what race everyone is, or if they're "from here"?


----------



## like_to_retire

The English-language debate that all leaders will attend is this Monday October 7. It runs from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. ET. I'll definitely watch.

I'm pleased they allowed Bernier to participate. He's really the only sensible candidate, but I'm afraid he'll split the Conservative vote, so there's that.

The Liberals, through Gerald Butts, already seem to be introducing their influence. Love to be a fly on the wall for that conversation.

Today: "_Election debate moderator had dinner with Trudeau’s disgraced top advisor week before debate._"

"_Huffington Post Canada’s Ottawa bureau chief and upcoming election debate moderator Althia Raj dined with Justin Trudeau’s best friend and disgraced former principal secretary Gerald Butts Sunday evening, a week before the official leaders’ English debate."_

ltr


----------



## Userkare

like_to_retire said:


> The Liberals, through Gerald Butts, already seem to be introducing their influence. Love to be a fly on the wall for that conversation.


Probably an innocent meeting to discuss logistics - like the backlighting of JT to enhance his halo.

It's amazing, though, that the Liberals can be so insensitive to perception ( didn't say 'optics' ) of their own actions; but had that been a Conservative meeting with the moderator, they would probably be screaming bloody murder.


----------



## like_to_retire

Userkare said:


> Probably an innocent meeting to discuss logistics - like the backlighting of JT to enhance his halo.
> 
> It's amazing, though, that the Liberals can be so insensitive to perception ( didn't say 'optics' ) of their own actions; but had that been a Conservative meeting with the moderator, they would probably be screaming bloody murder.


I doubt they felt there would be a perception as you say, since according to the article, the restaurant appeared to be closed for construction with a sign outside.

_"However, upon closer inspection of the sign, it says the front is undergoing renovations so customers can still be served at the back area of the restaurant.

Some online observers noted the restaurant’s outward appearance of looking shuttered would make it an ideal clandestine meeting spot in public."
_

The Liberals, of course will have all sorts of reasons to explain this encounter.................

ltr


----------



## Prairie Guy

Userkare said:


> It's amazing, though, that the Liberals can be so insensitive to perception ( didn't say 'optics' ) of their own actions; but had that been a Conservative meeting with the moderator, they would probably be screaming bloody murder.


It's not a surprise...the left has always felt that they are above the rules. They won't lose many votes over this because those who vote liberal don't really care how corrupt their leaders are.


----------



## james4beach

I think the more corrupt leaders are the ones who are in bed with big corporate interests, notably the energy industry lobby -- which has way too much power in Canada. Harper served the energy corporations, and Scheer is also having secret meetings with the energy lobbyists. He appears to be designing policies to meet their agendas.

More broadly, the Conservatives serve the demands of the ultra-wealthy. They set policies and would determine legislation based on what very wealthy people want (these people are less than 1% of the population... wealthy families, CEOs, etc). Most Canadians are not wealthy, so this is not a party that serves the interest of the public.

Instead, the party pretends to cater to the interests of blue collar workers (guys with trucks etc), but then goes on to serve the needs of the very wealthy, and big energy corporations. That's deep rooted corruption in the Conservative party. Corrupt to the core, and not serving the interests of most Canadians.

The pretense of caring about guys with trucks, rural folks, religious people etc is just a ruse (same trick used by the Republicans) to gain power.


----------



## Userkare

james4beach said:


> I think the more corrupt leaders are the ones who are in bed with big corporate interests, notably the energy industry lobby -- which has way too much power in Canada. Harper served the energy corporations, and Scheer is also having secret meetings with the energy lobbyists. He appears to be designing policies to meet their agendas.
> 
> That's deep rooted corruption in the Conservative party.
> 
> Prairie Guy, since you are so opposed to corruption, I'm sure this rules out the Conservative party for you.


So we should shun the industry that provides about 10% of Canada's GDP, but make sure that a company, that has been identified as corrupt by the World Bank, be given direct access to the PMO because it's HQ'ed in a riding politically sensitive to the PM? Typical "nothingtoseehereism".


----------



## MrMatt

james4beach said:


> I think the more corrupt leaders are the ones who are in bed with big corporate interests, notably the energy industry lobby -- which has way too much power in Canada.


If the "energy lobby" had too much power, we'd have our pipeline, and no carbon tax.
If they're so powerful how did we get a party that wants to "phase out" the entire industry.


----------



## AltaRed

+1 James' response shows yet again his unrelenting bias and irrationality. The energy industry creates orders of magnitude more GDP and jobs, both directly and indirectly, than a certain corrupt engineering firm, never mind a certain former aircraft company at the trough on a regular basis. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.


----------



## james4beach

And AltaRed's response shows that he does not understand what a democracy is (or does not respect democracy).

In a democracy, the government serves the interests of the public. This means that elected officials represent the people -- do what they want. Yes of course some of these people have corporate interests, and those interests should be listened to as well. What AltaRed knows full well, but doesn't seem to have a problem with, is that corporate lobbyists *get special attention and power* within government.

This is undemocratic. When the Liberals did special favours for SNC, that was undemocratic. When the Conservatives do special favours (constantly) for energy corporations, or for an extremely small number of wealthy people, that's also undemocratic.

The favours for the wealthy elite are especially undemocratic. This is not due to the voter base asking the officials to do this. Instead, the deals happen behind closed doors, nothing to do with public demands to cater to their interests.

AltaRed knows this occurs, but he's written before that he has no problem with lobbyists influencing government. I will say it again -- this is a corruption of democracy. It doesn't matter how much GDP an industry is generating... they don't have the authority to instruct government what to do, or get special treatment behind closed doors.


----------



## like_to_retire

james4beach said:


> AltaRed knows this occurs, but he's written before that he has no problem with lobbyists influencing government. I will say it again -- this is a corruption of democracy. It doesn't matter how much GDP an industry is generating... they don't have the authority to instruct government what to do, or get special treatment behind closed doors.


And as MrMatt has already asked, if the industry gets so much special treatment, why can't we get a single pipeline approved?

ltr


----------



## MrMatt

Lobbyists and special interest groups are always trying to influence government.
The role of our elected representatives are to represent our interests and will and act accordingly.

It is completely appropriate to meet with and discuss issues with all sorts of people, in fact as our representatives I believe it is their democratic duty to do so.
I also think they have to hold themselves to a high standard of behavior and ethics.

I don't think it is inappropriate for the government to help where appropriate.
For example, the government should have discussed the deferred prosecution agreement for SNC and they should advocate for projects such as the pipelines which align with Canadian national interests.

What is a problem is if there is any illegal, unethical, or conflict of interest in the behaviour of our politicians.

I agree that this can be difficult, which is why we have guidelines, and have created a commissioner to help with this.

The problem is that for all your whining about Conservative corruption, there is no actual evidence that Scheer is acting unethically.
This is in contrast to Trudeau and his team, where ethical violations are perhaps the only thing more popular than blackface.


----------



## AltaRed

Bull crap James. Every corporate investor and/or industry organization lobbies and informs in one form or another EVERYWHERE in the world. Whether it is banking, insurance, legal profession, medical profession, energy, forestry, whatever... EVERY sector lobbies and informs government. It is as much about keeping government bureaucrats knowledgeable and informed as it is on win-win proposals for that sector AND the federal purse. James simply has no idea what lobbying at government levels, especially in Canada, is about. Been down this road before with James. He is simply out to lunch on this matter.


----------



## Eder

"It would be nice to spend billions on schools and roads, but right now that money is desperately needed for political ads." ~ Andy Borowitz


----------



## james4beach

AltaRed said:


> Bull crap James. Every corporate investor and/or industry organization lobbies and informs in one form or another EVERYWHERE in the world. Whether it is banking, insurance, legal profession, medical profession, energy, forestry, whatever... EVERY sector lobbies and informs government. It is as much about keeping government bureaucrats knowledgeable and informed as it is on win-win proposals for that sector AND the federal purse. James simply has no idea what lobbying at government levels, especially in Canada, is about. Been down this road before with James. He is simply out to lunch on this matter.


Bull crap, eh? I have a different ideology than yours, but it doesn't mean I'm out to lunch.

Yes I know lobbying happens and I realize some of the proposals are win-win. But other proposals are not; corporations are not altruistic entities. They prioritize profits above all else. I think it's a huge mistake to assume that corporations are doing what's in the best interest of the public.

AltaRed, you generally believe that strong corporate presence in public policy is a benefit to the nation and public. *I do not believe this*. We have a difference in ideology.

You describe the corporate lobby influence as educational to civil servants, teaching them things. I saw something very different. I saw marketing and profit interests masquerading as educational messages. I saw facts and statistics manipulated (as marketers tend to do) to convince civil servants to do things _in the best interest of the companies_.

I'm a corporate person too, like you. I've worked in both small firms and giant firms. I've never worked in the public sector. My opinions on this come from my work in the tech sector and US military-industrial complex. I witnessed corporate influence on public policy, on civil servants, and military... and although there were cases where corporations helped inform government, I saw a lot that concerned me.


----------



## Eder

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." ~ Winston Churchill


----------



## james4beach

Eder said:


> "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." ~ Winston Churchill


What I wouldn't give to see you sit at a table with some progressive young adult women, and talk with them. If you have this much trouble with _me_ (a high income / high net worth, capitalist, white male who works in a conservative industry) your head would absolutely explode talking with some other liberals.

Really makes me wonder what kind of people you've been interacting with, your whole life.


----------



## MrMatt

I don't think we should have special interest groups of any type lobbying the government. 

The government should step back and fufil their core responsibilities. 

I do not think the government should be subsidizing luxury cars, or regulating speech, or wasting billions on silly pet projects.


----------



## MrMatt

james4beach said:


> What I wouldn't give to see you sit at a table with some progressive young adult women, and talk with them.
> Really makes me wonder what kind of people you've been interacting with, your whole life.


Having done that makes me wonder what type of people you talk to. 
Though looking online suggests it, they aren't all crazy and illogical.

The biggest issue I have is that many lefty young people don't want to accept they have to make trade offs, which is upsetting. We've told people for their entire lives they are wonderful and you can have it all. 
There is an old set of saying, that runs across industries there are 3 levers choose 2.
Until you realize that there are trade offs with EVERY decision, you're not ready for a serious discussion.


----------



## sags

I think some people have a lot of false impressions and a reliance on antiquated laws and rhetoric.

The world has changed since the US Constitution was written. 

It has changed since slavery was an accepted practice. It has changed since peasants had to pay the master of the realm.

In general, Conservatives seem to look to the past for guidance while Liberals look to the future for optimism.

Sometimes the best answer to "why" is.........because it is 2019.


----------



## MrMatt

I think Conservatives are just a bit more careful about taking care of the fundamental societal structures that support our society.
Progressives seem to be quite dismissive of those foundational principles.

That's why things like human rights, equality and due process are important to Conservatives. While progressives tend to wrap themselves into self destructive contradictions.


----------



## MrMatt

Why does equality not matter? Because it's 2019!
Why isn't due process a thing? Because it is 2019!
Why is it okay to call Jews Nazis,? Because it's 2019!
Why is sexual discrimination ok? Because it's 2015!

Sorry,your answer lacks depth. The answers also suck on basic fairness.


----------



## Userkare

sags said:


> I think some people have a lot of false impressions and a reliance on antiquated laws and rhetoric.
> 
> The world has changed since the US Constitution was written.
> 
> It has changed since slavery was an accepted practice. It has changed since peasants had to pay the master of the realm.
> 
> In general, Conservatives seem to look to the past for guidance while Liberals look to the future for optimism.
> 
> Sometimes the best answer to "why" is.........because it is 2019.


No sags, because it's 2019, the masters of the realm have just found new modern creative ways to extract coin from the peasants. They invent a crisis, then through social media, convince the uninformed masses that they will fix it - if we just give them our money. 

For example, an 'eco-tax' was levied on tires in Ontario; it was collected by the 'stewards of the environment'. When it all came out in the wash, it was revealed that ridiculous amounts of money were spent by board members and their staff on lavish dinners, resort stays, wine tastings, and donations to the Ontario Liberal Party. Meanwhile, hard working small business owners of trucking firms had to bear the cost.

J.T. loves to pick on Doug Ford when he campaigns in Ontario because he believes that Ford has been muzzled by the federal PC party. I think they should let Ford off leash and he can remind the people in Ontario why, in the last election, they reduced the Liberals to a fringe party after years of excesses and corruption.


----------



## AltaRed

james4beach said:


> Bull crap, eh? I have a different ideology than yours, but it doesn't mean I'm out to lunch.
> 
> Yes I know lobbying happens and I realize some of the proposals are win-win. But other proposals are not; corporations are not altruistic entities. They prioritize profits above all else. I think it's a huge mistake to assume that corporations are doing what's in the best interest of the public.
> 
> AltaRed, you generally believe that strong corporate presence in public policy is a benefit to the nation and public. *I do not believe this*. We have a difference in ideology.
> 
> You describe the corporate lobby influence as educational to civil servants, teaching them things. I saw something very different. I saw marketing and profit interests masquerading as educational messages. I saw facts and statistics manipulated (as marketers tend to do) to convince civil servants to do things _in the best interest of the companies_.
> 
> I'm a corporate person too, like you. I've worked in both small firms and giant firms. I've never worked in the public sector. My opinions on this come from my work in the tech sector and US military-industrial complex. I witnessed corporate influence on public policy, on civil servants, and military... and although there were cases where corporations helped inform government, I saw a lot that concerned me.


I beg to differ. You are out of touch with reality. I don't know how and where you got yourself tainted with US style corporate lobbying, but I can see where your ideals likely have been shattered if it is the US military-industrial complex. Other than consumer spending, the military-industrial complex is the backbone of the US economy. 

Nothing like that of similar scale in Canada, except maybe for the financial industry with its banking and insurance lobbies that prevents retail investors from having the same low cost options Americans have. Politics get involved, e.g. Ford oveturning OSC's desire to eliminate trailer fees on mutual funds with discount brokers. And the insurance industry lobby to try and avoid having to move to NVCC compliant capital.

Lobbying has always been a two way street. Whether you believe it or not, much of the lobbying (all types, e.g. corporate, NGOs, taxpayer federation, etc, etc) is actually fact finding and educational initiated at the request of bureaucrats, not just industry associations wanting to get in the door to present their cases on industry activity, and not just individual companies looking to make a deal that will make an investment opportunity more economic AND provide taxes, employment, and GDP to Canada at large. Auto manufacturers have lobbied for decades to get tax relief, and accelerated write offs, etc. in order to make investments more economic and more profitable. Shipbuilding firms have lobbied for coast guard and navy work. On and on it goes. It is a quid pro quo for economic activity and thus GDP growth.

And of course, corporations want to make profit. Their shareholders (pension funds, institutional investing, retail investors) demand it of them or they won't have shareholders. Even wholly owned subsidiaries of foreign companies pay corporate income taxes AND withholding on dividends paid back to their parent company. Maybe you don't understand foreign investment is also good for Canadian GDP and direct and indirect spinoffs. Maybe you don't understand economic modelling and how that is fundamental to getting financing?

I suspect you have never been in charge of developing cost benefit reports, or economic impact reports, or environmental impact reports for an industrial project in order to make a case for why a project is in the public interest. If not, then you really don't know what is all involved in material industrial projects. 

You cannot, or refuse to, connect the dots between the return on your own investments and profitable economic activity. Unlike you, I want a double digit return on my Canadian investments or I will invest where I can get those returns. Have a good day!


----------



## Prairie Guy

sags said:


> I think some people have a lot of false impressions and a reliance on antiquated laws and rhetoric.
> 
> The world has changed since the US Constitution was written.
> 
> It has changed since slavery was an accepted practice. It has changed since peasants had to pay the master of the realm.
> 
> In general, Conservatives seem to look to the past for guidance while Liberals look to the future for optimism.
> 
> Sometimes the best answer to "why" is.........because it is 2019.


The left in the US hates the Constitution because it provides individual rights and limits government power. The excuse that "it's 2019" is just a line used to disguise what their real aim is...more power. But the only way they can do that is by taking away free speech (they're trying) and by taking away guns (they're trying).

Just like all dictators in the past take away free speech and the people's weapons and they can't fight back. It never works out good...just ask those in Nazi Germany or Venezuela how it ended up for them. They start small by banning "hate speech" and "assault weapons", but that's just a start. Hate speech is defined by those who want to silence opposing opinions. Banning weapons is decided by people with 24/7 armed security.


----------



## sags

Andrew Scheer finally made a public announcement that he is pro-life.

_"My personal position has always been open and consistent. I am personally pro-life but I've also made the commitment that as leader of this party it is my responsibility to ensure that we do not re-open this debate, that we focus on issues that unite our party and unite Canadians," Scheer said Thursday at an announcement about tax credits for volunteer firefighters.

"And that's exactly what I'll do and that's why *I'll vote against measures that attempt to re-open this debate.*"_

Scheer would not prohibit free MP votes on the issue, but would personally vote against an attempt to re-open the debate.

I doubt that his announcement will make it any less of an issue for many voters.


----------



## like_to_retire

sags said:


> I doubt that his announcement will make it any less of an issue.


Maybe for you and others who want to perpetuate this issue.

ltr


----------



## Userkare

sags said:


> Andrew Scheer finally made a public announcement that he is pro-life.
> 
> _"My personal position has always been open and consistent. I am personally pro-life but I've also made the commitment that as leader of this party it is my responsibility to ensure that we do not re-open this debate, that we focus on issues that unite our party and unite Canadians," Scheer said Thursday at an announcement about tax credits for volunteer firefighters.
> 
> "And that's exactly what I'll do and that's why *I'll vote against measures that attempt to re-open this debate.*"
> 
> _Scheer would not prohibit free MP votes on the issue, but would personally vote against an attempt to re-open the debate.
> 
> I doubt that his announcement will make it any less of an issue.


Wow, how refreshing - a leader that's not a megalomaniac, who would allow his/her caucus to vote their own conscience. Elizabeth May has pretty much said the same - she would not stop an MP from bringing the issue forward. That eliminates the Greens I guess?


----------



## sags

PM Trudeau said his government will look for ways to improve the medically assisted dying law.

Andrew Scheer voted against the law and said he would appeal it to the Supreme Court.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-medical-assistance-dying-euthanasia-1.5307408

The Liberals are piling up issues that are important to Canadians for which Andrew Scheer is on the wrong side of public opinion.


----------



## Userkare

sags, I have a cousin, retired NYPD, who is bored in his life. He spends all day on Internet forums and chat rooms as various personas. On a forum for active-duty police, he pretends he's an angry young black man ( he's old & white ) calling them names and stirring up trouble; it gets pretty heated! I told him to tone it down before some unfortunate innocent black guy gets hurt or worse. He admitted that the most heated exchanges are actually his friends, who know what he's doing, and are just encouraging him.

So I have to ask.... are you bored, or for real this annoying?


----------



## james4beach

Userkare said:


> On a forum for active-duty police, he pretends he's an angry young black man ( he's old & white ) calling them names and stirring up trouble


A racist cop, what a novelty!


----------



## sags

The media has discovered that Andrew Scheer is a dual US-Canadian citizen.

That by itself isn't a big deal, but as the media are dredging up past comments from Scheer and his Conservative predecessor Harper questioning the loyalty of dual citizens it is going to be an inconvenient discovery in an election campaign.

Once again it isn't about the substance, but about the honesty of disclosure. Scheer seems to have trouble with being open and honest with the Canadian public.

_The leader has faced questions about his past in recent days after it was confirmed Scheer was never actually licensed to sell insurance, even though his party biography cited his past work experience as an "insurance broker."

Scheer has said since he was accredited but never licensed to sell insurance at the Regina firm he worked at for six months before he was elected to Parliament at the age of 25 in 2004. Scheer's private sector experience includes this short stint in the insurance world and waiting tables at restaurants while in university.

Scheer raised concerns about former Governor General Michaëlle Jean holding both Canadian and French passports in a 2005 blog post.

"I have a few quick questions for anyone who thinks that Michaëlle Jean is a good choice to be our next GG," Scheer wrote. "What are her qualifications? What experience does she have that would assist her to carry out her duties as our head of state, including the potential to be a referee in a minority government situation?"

He also asked his constituents if they felt it was appropriate for Jean to maintain her French passport. "Would it bother you if instead of French citizenship, she held U.S. citizenship?" Scheer asked._

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/scheer-has-american-citizenship-1.5307986


----------



## james4beach

Wait. I don't recall Scheer mentioning he was an American before... WTF?



> When asked Thursday why he has not previously disclosed his U.S. ancestry, Scheer said nobody ever asked him.


Whoaaa...


----------



## Userkare

james4beach said:


> A racist cop, what a novelty!


I don't know how you got that from what I said; he does know how to push the buttons of racist cops. I never heard him say any racist things except maybe once, as a rookie in the 60's when he got pelted with bottles and bricks from rooftops while protecting firefighters during race riots. I'll give him a pass on that one, he was quite shaken - not what he signed up for.



james4beach said:


> Wait. I don't recall Scheer mentioning he was an American before... WTF?
> 
> Whoaaa...


I guess nobody bothered to look at his wiki, it's right there... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Scheer I knew it, but was surprised that the Americans didn't strip him of US citizenship when he swore his allegiance to the Queen, becoming a member of a foreign ( to USA ) government - it's in their list of things that get you booted.


----------



## james4beach

Userkare said:


> I guess nobody bothered to look at his wiki, it's right there... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Scheer I knew it, but was surprised that the Americans


Nice try! No, that was only added to wikipedia a day ago. You can see it in the page history.

He absolutely should have disclosed earlier -- but he didn't.


----------



## kelaa

Userkare said:


> I guess nobody bothered to look at his wiki, it's right there... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Scheer


You do know that was edited today, right?

curprev 21:57, 3 October 2019‎ Earl Andrew talk contribs‎ 95,943 bytes +49‎ →‎External links
curprev 21:54, 3 October 2019‎ Mennowiki talk contribs‎ 95,894 bytes +534‎
curprev 21:15, 3 October 2019‎ CFV2 talk contribs‎ m 95,360 bytes +328‎ Added source for US citizenship. https://election.ctvnews.ca/andrew-scheer-has-dual-canadian-u-s-citizenship-party-confirms-1.4623024
curprev 21:07, 3 October 2019‎ CFV2 talk contribs‎ m 95,032 bytes +51‎ Edited to add American citizenship. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/can...-holds-dual-canadian-us-citizenship-plus-the/


----------



## james4beach

Try a google search like this one:
Andrew Scheer "dual citizen"

And then use the Tools button under the google search bar to adjust the date range, from say a year ago until yesterday. This searches for everything in the dates indicated.

You won't find a story where his American citizenship is discussed. He kept it secret. And yes, it is a relevant and significant fact when you're running for Prime Minister!


----------



## MrMatt

Userkare said:


> I don't know how you got that from what I said; he does know how to push the buttons of racist cops. I never heard him say any racist things except maybe once, as a rookie in the 60's when he got pelted with bottles and bricks from rooftops while protecting firefighters during race riots. I'll give him a pass on that one, he was quite shaken - not what he signed up for.
> 
> 
> 
> I guess nobody bothered to look at his wiki, it's right there... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Scheer I knew it, but was surprised that the Americans didn't strip him of US citizenship when he swore his allegiance to the Queen, becoming a member of a foreign ( to USA ) government - it's in their list of things that get you booted.


In their list of things that _may_ get you booted.
Since Canada is a friendly nation it is decided on a case by case basis.

Again, the mainstream media has failed, Scheer has been the leader of the official opposition for several years, and they JUST decided to read his wikipedia page?


"In cases where U.S. nationals are employed in policy-level positions, the Department of State will seek to ascertain the individual's intent to retain or relinquish his or her U.S. nationality upon accepting the policy level position with a foreign government. An individual assuming such a position who wishes to retain U.S. nationality should state clearly to the Department or post that he or she intended to retain U.S. nationality. An individual assuming such a position who wishes to relinquish U.S. nationality may come to Post and follow the required steps to complete the Certificate of Loss of Nationality application process."


----------



## AltaRed

I don't know how any of that matters. A large number of Canadians had prior citizenship of another country, or have dual citizenship still. What matters is he is a citizen of Canada, which I believe (don't know) may be a requirement to be in public office


----------



## Userkare

O.K. Sorry! 

I just finished using the Wiki way-back machine, and even in the panel at the right, the citizenship was added today. I don't know if it was an article, or interview that mentioned his father was an immigrant from the states. Now, I can't find any reference to it; so I can't prove why I think I knew this. It stuck in my head b/c I also went through the US citizenship renouncement, and know of a few 'accidental American' children of US citizen friends in Canada, when the whole FATCA thing hit the fan.


----------



## james4beach

Well the big problem is that he kept it secret. Concealed the information from the public.

Are there any Canadian PMs who were dual citizens? I'd love to know that.


----------



## humble_pie

MrMatt said:


> Again, the mainstream media has failed



you can't be serious.

a candidate running for the highest office in the land - a person who has been panting, drooling, slobbering & slavering to become Prime Minister of canada for the past 30 months - suddenly this person has been outed as the secret citizen of a foreign country & all you have to say is that "the media has failed?"

there is a stultifyingly elaborate, long-drawn-out procedure to surrendering US citizenship. It starts with a formal application & includes a large payment in US dollars. There is no way andrew scheer can complete this procedure within the next 18 days.

presumably the IRS needs to look over every american who applies to quit citizenship before he skips washington's grip, since every US citizen is required to file US tax returns no matter where he lives.

do you suppose andrew scheer's US tax return files are up to date? do you suppose they are all in good order? 


.


----------



## MrMatt

humble_pie said:


> you can't be serious.
> 
> a candidate running for the highest office in the land - a person who has been panting, drooling, slobbering & slavering to become Prime Minister of canada for the past 30 months - suddenly this person has been outed as the secret citizen of a foreign country & all you have to say is that "the media has failed?"
> 
> there is a stultifyingly elaborate, long-drawn-out procedure to surrendering US citizenship. It starts with a formal application & includes a large payment in US dollars. There is no way andrew scheer can complete this procedure within the next 18 days.
> 
> presumably the IRS needs to look over every american who applies to quit citizenship before he skips washington's grip, since every US citizen is required to file US tax returns no matter where he lives.
> 
> do you suppose andrew scheer's US tax return files are up to date? do you suppose they are all in good order?
> 
> 
> .


Yes, the media and the other parties should have caught this already.
It was no secret when the Liberals ran with a French citizen as leader.

Personally I didn't know, and I don't believe that dual citizenship should be permitted.


----------



## AltaRed

It's a stretch to say Scheer kept his dual citizenship secret and concealed it to the public. Best I can tell, he never overtly attempted to conceal anything nor lied about anything about his dual citizenship. Not disclosing because no one asked is a very different thing. The natural tendency of almost any person is not to disclose more than is needed to be disclosed. We all have private lives after all, and that includes our elected officials. 

I am pretty sure many of our early PMs had dual British citizenship, or France, or ? Did anyone care, or should have anyone cared? How many of our PMs were gay or bi-sexual? Does it matter? James, you've turned into a real sensationalist on so many issues. Don't have enough to do to occupy your time?


----------



## humble_pie

MrMatt said:


> Yes, the media and the other parties should have caught this already.



you are quite wrong. In no way does "the media" control, run, govern, vet or operate the government or the canadian electoral or justice systems. It is not the duty of the media to pretend to these powers. All the media do is report the news.

andrew scheer had an obligation to disclose his US citizenship immediately upon becoming leader of the conservative party in may 2017. 

a candidate for prime minister today, who conceals the fact that he is a secret citizen of another country, is far more abhorrent than a youth who attended a few parties in dress costume two decades ago imho.


----------



## andrewf

He clearly didn't tell anyone, or it would have been known.

I don't think it is entirely unreasonable to question the loyalty or attachment a person has to a country when it is not your sole citizenship. This was a topic for Dion and Ignatieff--coming home to roost for CPC?


----------



## Userkare

If someone could find an official document that asked citizenship, and Sheer omitted American, then that would be bad. Telling reporters or not, not a big deal.

If he has to go, then seriously, how many CPC votes in local ridings are because Sheer is the leader? Not many, I'd guess. Probably zero outside his own riding. Let's say I don't think he's attracting many voters from other parties because he's a rock star.

Hey, then maybe the interim leader could be P. Polievre; he's been very public facing lately, so people would recognize him. He's been to my house, and he e-mails me a lot, so I guess then I'd have an "in" to the PMO.

edit: He did tell reporters today that he reports his income to the IRS, so he's at least compliant with that particular (dispicable) law. I'm sure the reporters will be quickly filing freedom of information requests for every document Sheer ever filled-in, right back to pre-school.


----------



## humble_pie

AltaRed said:


> It's a stretch to say Scheer kept his dual citizenship secret and concealed it to the public. Best I can tell, he never overtly attempted to conceal anything



andrew scheer's parents would have had to muster a fair amount of american ID in order to obtain that US passport which andrew scheer apparently carried when he was a child. He's of an age now when that childhood data may or may not have made it into the US data clouds. But if it did, his US citizenship would be known to every american border agent, every time scheer would cross the US border, right up to the present moment.

foreign citizenship is a very serious matter for a candidate for the highest political office. There is no question but that scheer should have disclosed this fact on or before he became leader of the conservative party in may 2017. Not to have disclosed was duplicitous, imho.


----------



## humble_pie

Userkare said:


> edit: He did tell reporters today that he reports his income to the IRS, so he's at least compliant with that particular (dispicable) law


by "he" i take it you mean andrew scheer?

so he dutifully filed his IRS income tax declarations every single year of his life since the age of 18 years. Foreign resident americans have, i believe, until june 15th each year to file, so scheer was duly reminded every june that he owed allegiance to the stars & stripes south of the border.

... but conveniently enough scheer did not feel any obligation, even as candidate for the highest office in this land, to disclose the fact that he was secretly a foreign national to canadian voters? tch

.


----------



## sags

Scheer didn't mention his dual citizenship, even as he publicly questioned the incoming government general's loyalty to Canada because of dual Canadian/French citizenships. It almost looks like he was trying to get a feel for public sentiment on dual citizens way back in 2005.

That is a big problem. Today Scheer was asked about his comments and said he was just asking how people felt about it...........yea, sure.

Scheer has also been questioned by reporters about his claim to be an insurance broker. He was never licensed as one.

(probably one of the adjustments to his Wiki page). Scheer doesn't seem to feel compelled to be honest and open with the public.

_Scheer raised concerns about former Governor General Michaëlle Jean holding both Canadian and French passports in a 2005 blog post.

"I have a few quick questions for anyone who thinks that Michaëlle Jean is a good choice to be our next GG," Scheer wrote. "What are her qualifications? What experience does she have that would assist her to carry out her duties as our head of state, including the potential to be a referee in a minority government situation?"

He also asked his constituents if they felt it was appropriate for Jean to maintain her French passport. "*Would it bother you if instead of French citizenship, she held U.S. citizenship?" Scheer asked.*_


----------



## sags

I find it doubtful if Scheer loses the election that he will complete the process to revoke US citizenship.


----------



## Prairie Guy

humble_pie said:


> a candidate for prime minister today, who conceals the fact that he is a secret citizen of another country, is far more abhorrent than a youth who attended a few parties in dress costume two decades ago imho.


Nice spin...a 29 year old adult man wore blackface on several occasions. So many that he can't/won't say how many times he did so.


----------



## humble_pie

Prairie Guy said:


> a 29 year old adult man wore blackface on several occasions. So many that he can't/won't say how many times he did so.



this ^^ is the spin. It was three occasions. You are inventing the rest.


----------



## Eder

I dont care about blackface....kinda glad its gone on the back burner...the real issue is a guy wants to gas 100 billion dollars of my grand kids money to buy an election.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole

So... we are arguing whether it is worse to be governed by a foreigner or a racist. Both known to be liars. For the love of God, will I ever in my lifetime have a chance to vote with a clear conscience? Why does it always have to be a choice of the lesser of 2 evils? With at least 10 million adults in this country, is there not one honest, intelligent, experienced executive or politician?


----------



## MrMatt

humble_pie said:


> this ^^ is the spin. It was three occasions. You are inventing the rest.


After Trudeau said twice, a third instance was found.
Then Trudeau refuses to say exactly how many.

We have no authoritative source to know how often PM Dressup decided to put on a racist costume.
We know it is more than the 2 Trudeau admits to, but I'd be shocked if it was only 3 times.


Like Eder says it's about the 100 billion he wants to buy the election, I don't know where Eder got that number, Trudeau is planning to spend WAY more than another $100B to win this election.

The Ontario Liberals spent over a billion dollars for a single riding that went NIMBY on a powerplant.


----------



## fstamand

I think Scheer is starting to show his true colors; anyone voting for "him" is clearly partisan voting as he has proven he's just as bad as Turdeau at lying and hiding the truth.


----------



## MrMatt

fstamand said:


> I think Scheer is starting to show his true colors; anyone voting for "him" is clearly partisan voting as he has proven he's just as bad as Turdeau at lying and hiding the truth.


Big difference between 
Lying and not publicizing.


----------



## fstamand

MrMatt said:


> Big difference between
> Lying and not publicizing.


hence my comment "hiding the truth".


----------



## MrMatt

Not publicizing citizenship isn't the same as being a liar and an all round horrible person.


----------



## Eclectic12

Userkare said:


> ... I guess nobody bothered to look at his wiki, it's right there... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Scheer I knew it, but was surprised that the Americans didn't strip him of US citizenship when he swore his allegiance to the Queen, becoming a member of a foreign ( to USA ) government - it's in their list of things that get you booted.


Which list?



> U.S. law does not mention dual nationality or require a person to choose one nationality or another. A U.S. citizen may naturalize in a foreign state without any risk to his or her U.S. citizenship ... U.S. nationals, including dual nationals, must use a U.S. passport to enter and leave the United States ...


https://travel.state.gov/content/tr...nality-Dual-Nationality/Dual-Nationality.html

According to another reference, the laws that banned dual citizenship were struck down by the US Supreme Court in 1967. 


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12

AltaRed said:


> ... I am pretty sure many of our early PMs had dual British citizenship, or France, or ?


Canadian citizenship as part of being a British subject was created in 1910 and did not become a separate, stand alone citizenship until 1947.
It seems that by definition, seven or eight PMs were dual citizens.

Three of the first seven were born in Europe but no one was a Canadian citizen yet.




AltaRed said:


> ... Did anyone care, or should have anyone cared? How many of our PMs were gay or bi-sexual? Does it matter?


I doubt it.


Cheers


----------



## Userkare

Eclectic12 said:


> Which list?
> 
> https://travel.state.gov/content/tr...nality-Dual-Nationality/Dual-Nationality.html
> 
> According to another reference, the laws that banned dual citizenship were struck down by the US Supreme Court in 1967.
> 
> 
> Cheers


From that same website...

_"A U.S. national’s employment, after attaining the age of 18, with the government of a foreign country or a political subdivision thereof is a potentially expatriating act pursuant to Section 349(a)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act if the individual is a citizen of that foreign country or takes an oath of allegiance to that country in connection with such employment. __*Such employment, however, will result in one's expatriation only if done voluntarily with the intention of relinquishing U.S. citizenship. Running for foreign office, even foreign head of state, is not a potentially expatriating act; only accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of a foreign office are potentially expatriating as described above. " 

*_Note: *Bolding *is in original document.

https://travel.state.gov/content/tr...nality/Loss-US-Nationality-Foreign-State.html

It can be very confusing; "voluntarily" becoming head of state - as opposed to what, "tricked into"? "Potentially" ?????. It's difficult to get a definitive answer from anybody. The rules have never been crystal clear.... When I walked into the US Consulate in Toronto in the early 70's, with a simple question - "What will happen to my US citizenship if I become a Canadian citizen?", nobody could give me a straight answer. It seemed to come down to 'intent'. If I were ever to apply for a US passport, for instance, that would show intent to retain US citizenship. But what if I don't do anything to specifically signal intent? Well, then I would still be considered American by default. The only sure way to settle the matter was to renounce US citizenship. At the time it was very simple to do, and cost nothing. Now, it has become a lot more complicated, and could cost a bundle. 

I don't know if Sheer holds a US passport, or if his "intent" was ever to retain US citizenship.


----------



## AltaRed

He says he has never held a US passport since he has been an adult, nor voted in a US election, etc. We all know people (several in fact) who are US citizens 'by accident' merely by being born as a child to an American parent. 

Some renounce once they determine they do not ever want to live/work in the USA and/or tax and financial reporting becomes highly burdensome.

There is nothing sensational about this story, except by those who have a vested interest in making it a story.


----------



## Eclectic12

humble_pie said:


> andrew scheer's parents would have had to muster a fair amount of american ID in order to obtain that US passport which andrew scheer apparently carried when he was a child. He's of an age now when that childhood data may or may not have made it into the US data clouds ...


Applying for baby Andrew Scheer's US passport isn't required - a Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a Citizen of the United States of America (CRBA) is.
The US passport is recommended not required.
https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/international-travel/while-abroad/birth-abroad.html


If his parents did apply for a passport while he was a child, unless the US has recently relaxed what is needed - it doesn't seem all that big a deal.

The list includes standard things like Child’s official long-form provincial birth record, Original marriage certificate, Evidence of parent’s U.S. citizenship (US Passport suffices), Proof of physical presence, Passport/identification document for non-U.S. Citizen parent, Passport photograph and application fee(s).

The closest to difficult would be "Proof of physical presence" which based on Scheer's birth date would be ten years (currently it seems to be five years). The suggested docs include, but are not limited to, current/previous passports (showing entry/exit stamps), high school transcripts, college transcripts, military records, employment records.


But if it did, his US citizenship would be known to every american border agent, every time scheer would cross the US border, right up to the present moment.




humble_pie said:


> ... But if it did, his US citizenship would be known to every american border agent, every time scheer would cross the US border, right up to the present moment.


Yes but irrelevant - unless you believe the US border agents should be calling up Canadian media or gov't officials to report that a leader of a federal party has US citizenship.





humble_pie said:


> ... foreign citizenship is a very serious matter for a candidate for the highest political office. There is no question but that scheer should have disclosed this fact on or before he became leader of the conservative party in may 2017. Not to have disclosed was duplicitous, imho.


So what's next?

US citizens need to identify their US citizenship when they vote?
They might be conspiring to swing the vote to a PM that Trump likes. :rolleyes2:


Cheers


----------



## sags

AltaRed said:


> He says he has never held a US passport since he has been an adult, nor voted in a US election, etc. We all know people (several in fact) who are US citizens 'by accident' merely by being born as a child to an American parent.
> 
> Some renounce once they determine they do not ever want to live/work in the USA and/or tax and financial reporting becomes highly burdensome.
> 
> There is nothing sensational about this story, except by those who have a vested interest in making it a story.


In isolation, it could be considered a small faux pas, but Scheer's failure to reveal things is starting to add up to questions about his honesty.

The gains Conservatives may have made against Trudeau for his idiotic blackface incidents, have been lost by Scheer's lack of full disclosure in these discoveries. 

This whole election is one step forward and two steps back for the Conservatives, largely at the hands of their leader.

One can only wonder how the Conservatives may have fared under the leadership of Rona Ambrose or other leader.


----------



## sags

Conservatives also hoped to chip away at Trudeau's character with the SNC Lavalin incident.

The exact opposite has in fact happened. During the Quebec debates the Bloc leader praised Trudeau for fighting to save Quebec jobs and accused Scheer of not caring.

Quebec voters support Trudeau coming to the defense of Quebec jobs, and the Conservatives should have anticipated that would happen.

They have lost any chance to win seats in Quebec and unless the Conservatives pile up massive victories in Ontario..........this election is already over.


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> Conservatives also hoped to chip away at Trudeau's character with the SNC Lavalin incident.
> 
> The exact opposite has in fact happened. During the Quebec debates the Bloc leader praised Trudeau for fighting to save Quebec jobs and accused Scheer of not caring.
> 
> Quebec voters support Trudeau coming to the defense of Quebec jobs, and the Conservatives should have anticipated that would happen.
> 
> They have lost any chance to win seats in Quebec and unless the Conservatives pile up massive victories in Ontario..........this election is already over.


That's the problem.
Quebec clearly doesn't understand why corruption is a problem.


----------



## james4beach

sags said:


> They have lost any chance to win seats in Quebec and unless the Conservatives pile up massive victories in Ontario..........this election is already over.


Maybe Quebec voters will like the idea of electing an American.

Scheer is an American. He's also registered with the US agency that runs the military draft
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/andrew-scheer-draft-us-selective-service-1.5309002



> Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer is registered with the U.S. Selective Service System, the federal agency that administers that country's military draft, a party spokesperson confirmed Friday.


----------



## Userkare

james4beach said:


> Maybe Quebec voters will like the idea of electing a secret American
> 
> Scheer is an American. He's also registered with the US agency that runs the military draft
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/andrew-scheer-draft-us-selective-service-1.5309002


Thank goodness, because if he didn't, he could be charged with a US federal offense. Keep piling it on, James.


----------



## sags

I don't understand why Scheer wouldn't have just be open about it. Would it have affected his Conservative leadership bid ?

Well now he is caught and there is more reporting about his claims to being an insurance broker. 

It was discovered he wasn't licensed but he said he was accredited but hadn't received his licence. Now it is reported that he was never accredited either.

It now appears that he didn't sell insurance or he did it illegally.

Scheer's credibility factor is taking some big hits these days. Scheer seems like a decent guy who makes bad choices.


----------



## MrMatt

Userkare said:


> Thank goodness, because if he didn't, he could be charged with a US federal offense. Keep piling it on, James.


What offense?
If you actually read the related laws it's not a huge deal.


----------



## Eclectic12

james4beach said:


> Maybe Quebec voters will like the idea of electing an American.
> Scheer is an American ...


A dual citizen who AFAICT has spent almost all of his life in Canada. Seems no different than my co-worker's kids where some were born in California with something like five years in the US while others were born in Canada with no years in the US - all of whom are dual citizens.

Should we start calling them "American" with no acknowledgement they have spent pretty much all their lives in Canada?
Maybe we should start a campaign to turf the one son out of the OPP?




james4beach said:


> ... He's also registered with the US agency that runs the military draft ...


Horrors! He's obeying what he is legally required to do - can't have that in PM, can we?




sags said:


> I don't understand why Scheer wouldn't have just be open about it. Would it have affected his Conservative leadership bid ?


Did Stephane Dion's dual citizenship affect his bid for leadership of the Liberal party?
For that matter did the media publish it or did Dion make an announcement before running for the Liberals?

Somehow I doubt there was an announcement. IIRC there were opinion pieces at the time saying to question one's loyalty to Canada simply based on having it was silly.


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12

james4beach said:


> Try a google search like this one:
> Andrew Scheer "dual citizen" ... You won't find a story where his American citizenship is discussed. He kept it secret. And yes, it is a relevant and significant fact when you're running for Prime Minister!


Remind me again ... how many stories highlighted that John Turner was a dual citizen?
How many times did he announce it so that voters could factor this in?

Apparently he is the most recent dual citizen to be a Canadian PM.


Cheers


*PS*
Misses at becoming PM include Dion and Mulcair. Mulcair is also quoted as saying he has never hidden his dual citizenship.


*PPS*
In 2017, there are at least twenty two MPs or senators confirmed to have dual citizenship.
Should we start booting them out of gov't like Australia has been doing?

There's that nefarious Peter Kent or Tony Clement who could be shifting things around to help the UK.
Or maybe Randall Garrison who has been in Canada forty four years who found out he was still a US citizen in 2017 when he was told at the border he was ineligible to enter the U.S. on a Canadian passport because he was a U.S. citizen.


----------



## AltaRed

Cannot understand how an individual who can be rational in matters in other areas of the forum can be so irrational when it comes to subjects like politics and global warming. Maybe sex, gender and religion are next? If it wasn't for his contributions in financial forums, I'd have him on ignore too.


----------



## MrMatt

Scheer identifies as a Canadian, he's a Canadian.


----------



## kcowan

AltaRed said:


> Cannot understand how an individual who can be rational in matters in other areas of the forum can be so irrational when it comes to subjects like politics and global warming. Maybe sex, gender and religion are next? If it wasn't for his contributions in financial forums, I'd have him on ignore too.


You will catch up when you realize that his financial contributions also show the same kind of myopic world view, e.g. evaluating an ETF by looking at the list of stocks that they claim to mimic. HP who claims to love J4B has explained it in plain English.


----------



## AltaRed

kcowan said:


> You will catch up when you realize that his financial contributions also show the same kind of myopic world view, e.g. evaluating an ETF by looking at the list of stocks that they claim to mimic. HP who claims to love J4B has explained it in plain English.


I was being kind, but he does make worthy contributions in a number of financial areas. Generally when the signal to noise ratio falls below 1, I start to waver. At 0.5 or less, it's 'adios'.


----------



## sags

I suppose the problem is that Scheer publicly criticized the dual citizenship of the incoming Governor General, as his mentor Stephen Harper did with Dion and Ignatieff.

No big deal now.........not like when Harper and Scheer were doing the criticizing.

If anyone doesn't think the hypocrisy is a big deal, they might want to check the media coverage across North America.


----------



## sags

Many conservatives gather together to commiserate around Toronto Sun right wing opinion comments.

Just saying.


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> I suppose the problem is that Scheer publicly criticized the dual citizenship of the incoming Governor General, as his mentor Stephen Harper did with Dion and Ignatieff.
> 
> But let's not think about that. It is different now.


He raised citizenship as an issue, which it is.
He criticized/questioned her qualifications and experience.

This is both entirely appropriate and even a obligation to question the appointment of someone to such an important role in the functioning of our government.
Yes it's largely ceremonial, but there are actual functions that the GG has to hold, and as a government appointment, it should be questioned.

I personally feel that dual-citizens are an insult, and should not be permitted under Canadian law.


----------



## Eder




----------



## Userkare

MrMatt said:


> What offense?
> If you actually read the related laws it's not a huge deal.


If I actually read the laws? Trust me, I'm very familiar with the Selective Service laws. That's all I'm gonna say :^P

This... https://www.sss.gov/Registration/Why-Register 

In a linked document on that web page...

"Failing to register or comply with the Military Selective Service Act is a felony punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 or a prison term of up to five years, or a combination of both."

Not a huge deal?

To be honest, though, I doubt that in instances like Mr Sheer's case, they would not impose the maximum; probably do nothing since he's a political leader of a country. Worse case, they would strip his US citizenship. 

Point is, he complied with the letter of law, so that's one less thing that can be used by the Libs to smear him.


----------



## Spidey

So on point!


----------



## Eder

Good listen thanks. Magnanimity is a term I doubt will be used to describe any of our politicians on the election trail unfortunately.


----------



## MrMatt

Userkare said:


> Point is, he complied with the letter of law, so that's one less thing that can be used by the Libs to smear him.


James was the one trying to smear him FOR complying with US law.

The odd thing is that being fully in compliance with ethics and legal responsibilities, they're on Scheer.
But Trudeau is sketchy AF, breaking ethics laws and possibly criminal laws, and they don't care.


----------



## Eder

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/dorothy-marston-bernier-protest-mohawk-1.5305661

Woman with walker, called 'Nazi scum' by protesters at Bernier event, speaks out. 
I won't link to the video showing who the idiots that did this are though...sick.


----------



## like_to_retire

*"Elizabeth May **promises to plant 10 billion trees over 30 years if Greens elected."*

I remember reading an article by the CBC that surprised me. It said that even though trees absorb carbon when they grow, they emit it when they die and decompose, or burn, so Canada's forests are actually a net carbon generator. I found the article.

*"Canada's forests** actually emit more carbon than they absorb."
*
_Canada has historically excluded its forests when accounting for its total greenhouse emissions to the rest of the world. We had that option, under international agreements, and it was in our interest to leave the trees out of the total tabulation, since they would have boosted our overall emissions.

Canada emits roughly 700 megatonnes of CO2 each year. This does not include any impacts from forests or other parts of our landscape, such as wetlands and farmland. Canada has historically excluded land-use-related emissions and absorptions in its official accounting, and with good reason, if the goal is to reduce emissions on paper.

That's because our trees, in particular, have actually hurt our bottom line.

For the past 15 years, they've been "more of a source than a sink," said Dominique Blain, a director in the science and technology branch of Environment and Climate Change Canada.

Canada's managed forests were a net contributor of roughly 78 megatonnes of emissions in 2016, the most recent year on record._

ltr


----------



## sags

Well, that is too bad. I kind of like trees.


----------



## like_to_retire

sags said:


> Well, that is too bad. I kind of like trees.


Yeah, and so do I, but when it comes to all these silly carbon offsets that "politicians" purchase to justify their massive burning of fossil fuels, their standard offset by planting even more trees is just not going to reduce CO2 over time, since trees are going to die, or burn, or get diseased, and the carbon is simply released back into the atmosphere again.

ltr


----------



## MrMatt

Eder said:


> https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/dorothy-marston-bernier-protest-mohawk-1.5305661
> 
> Woman with walker, called 'Nazi scum' by protesters at Bernier event, speaks out.
> I won't link to the video showing who the idiots that did this are though...sick.


The thing is there are people who defend these people.
I wasn't realizing that Nazis made a habit of going to talks hosted by Jews.


----------



## Userkare

like_to_retire said:


> *"Elizabeth May **promises to plant 10 billion trees over 30 years if Greens elected."*
> 
> I remember reading an article by the CBC that surprised me. It said that even though trees absorb carbon when they grow, they emit it when they die and decompose, or burn, so Canada's forests are actually a net carbon generator. I found the article.


Yes. I read that some time ago. IINM, rotting vegetation might give off methane too in some conditions. That's why clear-cutting forests is not so bad *if *replacement trees are planted, and harvested before they naturally die and rot.


----------



## james4beach

MrMatt said:


> James was the one trying to smear him FOR complying with US law.


Don't be ridiculous, I didn't smear him for anything. I was pointing out that Scheer is a real ol' American citizen -- along with all the rights and responsibilities an American has.

The big problem, of course, is that he concealed his citizenship. He kept it secret from the public. And there is no way he will wash his hands of US citizenship by the time he (may be) elected prime minister. _Why on earth did he not disclose this?_

In my opinion it goes along with that smirk he's always wearing. His secret religious agenda, and secret relationships with corporations who write his policies. He is just not an open and straightforward guy.

If he's elected as PM, he will be a US citizen in our top government position.


----------



## Userkare

james4beach said:


> If he's elected as PM, he will be a US citizen in our top government position.


And then if they invade Canada, he'll surrender to himself?


----------



## james4beach

Userkare said:


> And then if they invade Canada, he'll surrender to himself?


I have no concerns about war. The important question is whether voters are comfortable with a man who concealed his secondary citizenship, who will be taking office still as as full-blown American citizen.

Imagine if it was revealed that Jagmeet had an Indian citizenship that he never disclosed. Do y'all think the Conservatives would have been pretty cool about that?

(the right wingers on this board would be foaming at the mouth in such a situation, let's not kid ourselves)


----------



## like_to_retire

james4beach said:


> I have no concerns about war. The important question is whether voters are comfortable with a man who concealed his secondary citizenship, who will be taking office still as as full-blown American citizen.


Matters not.



james4beach said:


> Imagine if it was revealed that Jagmeet had an Indian citizenship that he never disclosed.


Really? You mean he's not an Indian? I just assumed by the way he presented himself that he was a dual citizen. Oh well, no big deal either way.

ltr


----------



## james4beach

like_to_retire said:


> Really? You mean he's not an Indian? I just assumed by the way he presented himself that he was a dual citizen. Oh well, no big deal either way.


Why on earth would you think Jagmeet was a dual citizen?

Do you think that people who wear crosses around their neck are Italian citizens?


----------



## like_to_retire

james4beach said:


> Why on earth would you think Jagmeet was a dual citizen?


Why would I not think that? 

If I was born in the USA to Canadian citizen parents, then I am automatically a Canadian citizen. I know Singh was born in Scarborough to Harmeet Kaur and Jagtaran Singh, immigrant parents from the Indian state of Punjab. His mother is from Ghudani Khurd, in Punjab's Ludhiana district, while his father is from Thikriwala, in Barnala district. Should I take the time to look into citizenship rules for people born in Canada from citizen parents of the Punjab?

ltr


----------



## MrMatt

james4beach said:


> Don't be ridiculous, I didn't smear him for anything. I was pointing out that Scheer is a real ol' American citizen -- along with all the rights and responsibilities an American has.
> 
> The big problem, of course, is that he concealed his citizenship. He kept it secret from the public. And there is no way he will wash his hands of US citizenship by the time he (may be) elected prime minister. _Why on earth did he not disclose this?_
> 
> In my opinion it goes along with that smirk he's always wearing. His secret religious agenda, and secret relationships with corporations who write his policies. He is just not an open and straightforward guy.
> 
> If he's elected as PM, he will be a US citizen in our top government position.


No, he's already in the process of relinquishing his citizenship.
The Top position is the GG.
And the Liberals ran dual citizens recently. 
For most people this is really a non issue that's being used as a distraction.


Finally I find the concept of dual citizenship insulting and it should be abolished. 

That being said, not holding out a personal fact front and center is just fine.
Knowingly lying about stuff is a different story, a story M Trudeau knows well.


----------



## AltaRed

I agree with MrMatt that dual citizenship should be eliminated. I see James is still relentlessly chasing ghosts. So partisan and so argumentative.


----------



## MrMatt

AltaRed said:


> I agree with MrMatt that dual citizenship should be eliminated. I see James is still relentlessly chasing ghosts. So partisan and so argumentative.


I bet when Ignatieff was just visiting (which he was) and Dion was exposed as a french citizen, he didn't bat an eye.


----------



## james4beach

AltaRed said:


> I agree with MrMatt that dual citizenship should be eliminated. I see James is still relentlessly chasing ghosts. So partisan and so argumentative.


MrMatt is very consistent on his positions and values, which I find admirable.

Chasing "ghosts"? Scheer concealed his dual citizenship. He should have disclosed it -- the public would have accepted it. Instead he's made himself look bad, and Conservatives should be angry at this... he has unnecessarily weakened the party's chances.

As for our differences in views AltaRed, we have various ideological differences, but that's natural in life. You're not going to find yourself always surrounded by people who think exactly like you. Maybe you had too much of that in your working life and forgot what it's like in the real world.

Calling me "argumentative" just because I don't agree with you is pretty weak. I could equally well say you are argumentative and partisan, always defending Conservatives and spinning the facts to make your people look good.


----------



## MrMatt

james4beach said:


> MrMatt is very consistent on his positions and values, which I find admirable.
> 
> Chasing "ghosts"? Scheer concealed his dual citizenship. He should have disclosed it -- the public would have accepted it. Instead he's made himself look bad, and Conservatives should be angry at this... he has unnecessarily weakened the party's chances.
> 
> As for our differences in views AltaRed, we have various ideological differences, but that's natural in life. You're not going to find yourself always surrounded by people who think exactly like you. Maybe you had too much of that in your working life and forgot what it's like in the real world.
> 
> Calling me "argumentative" just because I don't agree with you is pretty weak. I could equally well say you are argumentative and partisan, always defending Conservatives and spinning the facts to make your people look good.


To be fair, it isn't always defending Conservatives, it is at worst very often defending Conservatives.
As for the Liberals, I think they doubly let us down.
1. They put Trudeau in as leader, he delivered the election, but the rest has been a mess.
2. Our elected representatives of all parties had a responsibility to reign him in, and run the country properly. Instead we have this.


----------



## james4beach

I wonder how much of Canada, other than Alberta and rural areas, thinks Trudeau has "been a mess"?


----------



## MrMatt

james4beach said:


> I wonder how much of Canada, other than Alberta and rural areas, thinks Trudeau has "been a mess"?


Well 2/3'rds of the country is planning on voting against him.


----------



## humble_pie

MrMatt said:


> Well 2/3'rds of the country is planning on voting against him.



the latest poll summary early this pm showed Libs leading w 34%, Cons 33.6%, NDP & greens farther behind w 14.2% & 9.6% respectively.

PPC is surprisingly weak at 2.5% while the Bloc is surprisingly strong at 5.2%. The relative Bloc strength vs Bernier weakness suggests that quebec youth are *not* swinging to the far right. We'll see if this becomes a national trend.

oh & mister matt's posted is another twisted piece of manipulation. In this election, there will always be, in the aggregate, a majority of voters from all other political parties who will not be voting for whichever leader gets elected. One can just as easily say that 2/3 of the country is planning on voting against andrew scheer.


.


----------



## Spidey

Trudeau will get in again. Whether he deserves to is another story but c'est la vie. Interesting perspective from abroad:


----------



## sags

People could wonder if Andrew Scheer would be the leader of the Conservatives, if it had been known by his opponents that he had dual citizenship.

The Conservative leadership was a tough one, and Bernier actually gathered more first choice ballots than Scheer. Throw in a little "citizenship question" and Bernier may well be the leader instead of Scheer.

Conservatives say citizenship means nothing now, but they sure thought it valuable and used it against Dion and Ignatieff.

The problem for Scheer is his "lack of transparency until forced" on abortion rights, dual citizenship, and fake job resume makes him look like a shyster or an idiot.

Neither is a good look for someone vying to be PM.


----------



## Spidey

Apologies. Just realized I posted that earlier. Alzheimers must be setting in. However, doesn't seem to be a delete function.


----------



## sags

The Liberals and Conservatives are basically tied in the national popularity polls, but they don't decide elections.

Conservative votes will pile up in the western seats they already control, but it doesn't look like are making any inroads in gaining seats in other Provinces where they desperately need to increase their seat totals.

The Sags Election Predictor is still projecting a Liberal majority with a small chance of a minority if the Bloc do well in Quebec.

Interesting discussion by pollsters that the Bloc may hold the balance of power, rather than the NDP. Political commentary is also that if Conservatives can't win a majority they would be better with a Liberal majority, than a Liberal minority with the NDP/Bloc holding the power that would push the Liberals further to the left.


----------



## humble_pie

btw does anyone know if routine poll figures that we are seeing every single day, are popular vote estimates?

or are the percentages based on successful seat projections?

if the former i don't believe the poll stats matter all that much at the moment, since the figures for the 2 leaders are so finely diced. All that will matter will be the number of ridings each can capture.


----------



## sags

The headline number is nationwide popularity and is basically as meaningful as Clinton winning the popular vote.

Secondarily the pollsters are predicting seat counts based on riding to riding probabilities. 

They currently project the Liberals with twice the % chance of forming a government of some sort.


----------



## humble_pie

Spidey said:


> Apologies. Just realized I posted that earlier. Alzheimers must be setting in. However, doesn't seem to be a delete function.



indeed you did post the same video earlier. But cheer up, the fact that you _remembered_ you'd already posted it indicates that you don't have alzheimers.


----------



## sags

Your Province might well determine the outcome of the election Humble.

What say you on who will win the projected lost NDP seats........Liberal, Bloc or Conservatives ?


----------



## sags

If projections are correct and the Liberals hold on to all the seats in Atlantic Canada, except perhaps for one and then scoop a bunch of NDP seats in Quebec and maintain the status quo in Ontario..........the party will be over for the Conservatives early in the night.

What happens in Quebec is going to be huge.


----------



## humble_pie

sags said:


> the pollsters are predicting seat counts based on riding to riding probabilities. The currently project the Liberals with twice the % of forming a government of some sort.



interesting, thankx

the poll i quoted below w today's figs seemed to be a popular vote estimate. Sags are u you saying that these pollsters are publishing percentages based on number of ridings expected to be won? if you have a different/better poll might you be able to post a link.

after all, as 2016 showed us, a candidate can lead in the popular vote but still lose by electoral college/riding district voting.


----------



## AltaRed

james4beach said:


> I wonder how much of Canada, other than Alberta and rural areas, thinks Trudeau has "been a mess"?


A large percentage of Canadians, at least as many as think JT smells like roses. 

FWIW, I agree Scheer should have/could have been more savvy and disclosed all this when he became leader of the party - because it is NOT a big deal. He will live with that regret/learning and it will likely cost him votes. But it is a severe stretch and bullshit to say he concealed it and absolutely irrational to make dual citizenship an issue for PM like you have...when there is historical precedent. You are way off base in sensationalism that would make tabloids blush.


----------



## sags

The numbers, analysis and possible outcomes are all here and updated continually. It is a "poll of polls" so is considered the most accurate method.

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


----------



## humble_pie

i've seen the following fearsome thought in the media but i don't believe it's been voiced in the forum yet, so here goes.

thought says that unless either the Libs or the Cons win a majority, then transMountain II is doomed.

this hypothesis goes that a minority gummint will have to obtain support from either the NDP or the Greens if it wants to get anything done.

but neither the NDP nor the Greens is likely to be willing to approve TMP II, therefore either party will be able to force ottawa into a pipeline stalemate.

.


----------



## humble_pie

AltaRed said:


> A large percentage of Canadians [think trudeau is a mess]


at the moment the figs are very slightly the other way around. A larger percentage of canadians think andrew scheer is the mess.





> But it is a severe stretch and bullshit to say he concealed it and absolutely irrational to make dual citizenship an issue for PM like you have [altaRed is addressing jas4beach] ... You [altaRed addressing jas4beach]are way off base in sensationalism that would make tabloids blush.



it's long past the hour for altaRed & other blustering aging retirees in this forum to stop bashing & cursing younger males, or women, or persons who happen to prefer different established political parties than the one altaRed keeps insisting is 100% self-righteous at all times.

i for one find the constant sneers & insults & the frequent obscenities to be distasteful.

the fact is that the retirees' generation is winding down. They are not in control anymore. Power transferred a number of years ago to a much younger generation, often now in their mid-30s, often just hitting their peak production years & often with many accurate & valuable brand new things to say. We should listen to them with respect imho.

.


----------



## humble_pie

sags said:


> The numbers, analysis and possible outcomes are all here and updated continually. It is a "poll of polls" so is considered the most accurate method.
> 
> https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/elections/poll-tracker/canada/



hey says that's the same poll i was watching! you're saying that it's a riding poll, not a popular vote poll? glad to know.

as a riding poll, as of today, it does give the Libs a sliver of a lead over the Cons. Only a sliver. Lots of time left to the 21st.


----------



## james4beach

Heck, people can listen to me (or not), but my demographic is in control now. I'm nearing 40.

AltaRed has expressed an increasing amount of anger and frustration as I express positions that oppose his views. It must be horrifying for him, to hear someone younger (and not in oil & gas) hold different opinions. But what I'm writing here are very much mainstream views, especially among city dwellers.

Time to get used to it.


----------



## sags

humble_pie said:


> hey says that's the same poll i was watching! you're saying that it's a riding poll, not a popular vote poll? glad to know.
> 
> as a riding poll, as of today, it does give the Libs a sliver of a lead over the Cons. Only a sliver. Lots of time left to the 21st.


Part way down the page there is a breakdown by ridings wins.


----------



## sags

Interesting show on CNBC the other day James.

They were discussing the death of capitalism as it is currently structured. They say it will be replaced by a new form of socially responsible capitalism, such as is espoused by Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and others. Some CEOs, popular politicians, and economists are also on board.

As one CEO put it......today's capitalism owes all it's allegiance and is structured to enrich a few people. The new social capitalism will return to the day when companies valued employee participation, good stewardship of the environment, and support for their communities above the interests of asset holders.

_“I really strongly believe that capitalism as we know it is dead…that we’re going to see a new kind of capitalism and that new kind of capitalism that’s going to emerge is not the Milton Friedman capitalism that’s just about making money......Marc Benioff_

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/s...s-capitalism-as-we-know-it-is-dead-2019-10-04

_Marc Benioff says "capitalism, as we know it, is dead," and it is time for a new form of capitalism that focuses more on societal good.
_
_"That new kind of capitalism that is going to emerge is not the Milton Friedman capitalism, that's just about making money," the billionaire co-CEO of Salesforce and owner of Time Magazine, said at the TechCrunch Disrupt conference in San Francisco Thursday evening.

The Business Roundtable, an influential group of CEOs, said in August that America's top corporations are responsible for improving society by serving all stakeholders ethically, morally and fairly -- and not just for boosting the stock price for shareholders.

The group is currently led by JPMorgan Chase (JPM) CEO Jamie Dimon. Walmart (WMT) CEO Doug McMillon will take over as chairman of The Business Roundtable in January and will serve a two-year term.
_
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/04/business/marc-benioff-capitalism-dead/index.html

Times they are a'changing in Canada as well and some people aren't going to be happy about it.


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> Interesting show on CNBC the other day James.
> 
> They were discussing the death of capitalism as it is currently structured. They say it will be replaced by a new form of socially responsible capitalism, such as is espoused by Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and others. Some CEOs, popular politicians, and economists are also on board.
> 
> As one CEO put it......today's capitalism owes all it's allegiance and is structured to enrich a few people. The new social capitalism will return to the day when companies valued employee participation, good stewardship of the environment, and support for their communities above the interests of asset holders.
> 
> _“I really strongly believe that capitalism as we know it is dead…that we’re going to see a new kind of capitalism and that new kind of capitalism that’s going to emerge is not the Milton Friedman capitalism that’s just about making money......Marc Benioff_
> 
> https://www.marketwatch.com/story/s...s-capitalism-as-we-know-it-is-dead-2019-10-04
> 
> _Marc Benioff says "capitalism, as we know it, is dead," and it is time for a new form of capitalism that focuses more on societal good.
> _
> _"That new kind of capitalism that is going to emerge is not the Milton Friedman capitalism, that's just about making money," the billionaire co-CEO of Salesforce and owner of Time Magazine, said at the TechCrunch Disrupt conference in San Francisco Thursday evening.
> 
> The Business Roundtable, an influential group of CEOs, said in August that America's top corporations are responsible for improving society by serving all stakeholders ethically, morally and fairly -- and not just for boosting the stock price for shareholders.
> 
> The group is currently led by JPMorgan Chase (JPM) CEO Jamie Dimon. Walmart (WMT) CEO Doug McMillon will take over as chairman of The Business Roundtable in January and will serve a two-year term.
> _
> https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/04/business/marc-benioff-capitalism-dead/index.html
> 
> Times they are a'changing in Canada as well and some people aren't going to be happy about it.


The thing is that all these "new economic" systems, basically rely on someone coming in and redistributing stuff.

The thing is that people who produce a lot of the high value stuff sacrificed a lot to get there.
I'm not just talking the Elon Musks and Steve Jobs, who wouldn't have accomplished what they had without their ability to reinvest.

But what about doctors, or police?
Do you think they'd put in all that effort, or impact on their lives if they didn't get paid well?

Lets say that everyone had their salary capped at $100k, and once they hit their cap they'd stop working.

So by this point all the police supervisors and many detectives are at their cap, the doctors and dentists are at their caps.

What do we do? Don't we need those people?
Why should they keep working?


----------



## sags

I don't think anyone is advocating for capping incomes for working folks. In fact, I see the opposite where corporations will contribute a greater share of the financial success to their employees and communities and less of a contribution to the asset holders and investor class, who are receiving the lion share of the benefits.

In any wealth redistribution model, you have to move wealth from those who have it and give it to those who don't. Such is the basic intent of wealth redistribution.


----------



## like_to_retire

sags said:


> Times they are a'changing in Canada as well and some people aren't going to be happy about it.


You're right (pardon the pun), times are changing. Alberta and P.E.I. are the latest provinces to vote Conservative and now seven of Canada’s ten provinces are led by Conservative parties. Five of Canada’s six most populous provinces, representing roughly 79% of the country’s population, have now elected right of center politicians to govern.





sags said:


> In any wealth redistribution model, you have to move wealth from those who have it and give it to those who don't.


Rather, In any wealth redistribution model, you have to move wealth from those who _earn _it and give it to those who don't.

ltr


----------



## hboy54

humble_pie said:


> it's long past the hour for altaRed & other blustering aging retirees in this forum to stop bashing & cursing younger males, or women, or persons who happen to prefer different established political parties than the one altaRed keeps insisting is 100% self-righteous at all times.
> 
> i for one find the constant sneers & insults & the frequent obscenities to be distasteful.
> 
> the fact is that the retirees' generation is winding down. They are not in control anymore. Power transferred a number of years ago to a much younger generation, often now in their mid-30s, often just hitting their peak production years & often with many accurate & valuable brand new things to say. We should listen to them with respect imho.
> 
> .


We must be reading different stuff. AltaRed is the most balanced, fair poster around here.

Also find the constant sneers and insults from you and sags and James et al to be distasteful. Thus some of you on ignore and I almost never post any more. I mean,  you guys know the truth for sure, so nothing I can add.

Yes, the new generation is on the rise and they are coming for my money. I am on notice to be more aggressive in giving it away to people and institutions meaningful to me before it gets confiscated via taxation.


----------



## sags

The baby boomers are collecting their socialist benefits (free healthcare, free prescriptions, discounted transit, OAS, GIS, tax breaks.....) and heading off to complain about the evils of socialism.


----------



## Spidey

sags said:


> The baby boomers are collecting their socialist benefits (free healthcare, free prescriptions, discounted transit, OAS, GIS, tax breaks.....) and heading off to complain about the evils of socialism.



As you point out, every country, even the US, has social programs. Likewise, Scandinavian countries have thriving free-enterprise systems. The trick is finding the right balance between free-enterprise and social programs and I think this is the type of dialogue that should be happening between the left and the right. However, there seems to be a movement afloat, advocated by mostly young university types, for full-blown socialism and insinuating that capitalism is dreadful. So I think when we complain about the "evils of socialism" most are speaking of full-blown socialism or at least socialism to the point where innovation, ambition and wealth-generation are significantly stagnated.


----------



## humble_pie

really the 2019 election campaign is the trashiest event canada has ever seen bar none. By contrast the trudeau/brazeau prize fight was pure class.

why don't the 2019 candidates don neon shorts & boxing gloves & step into the ring.

flabby Andy would instantly be out like a shot, for a full 10 count.

midget Maxim might last for the first round.

all candidates would be "magnanimous" - Spidey keeps telling us that this election needs to go "magnanimous" - & in their magnanimity all would scrupulously avoid Elizabeth (still dressed in her frumpy midi skirt although she'd managed to get on a sports bra) & of course they'd ignore Yves-Francois, he'd be left talking french to himself in his corner until the referee took him out for failing to participate.

but the biggies. In the ring i wouldn't know where to put the money these days. Jagmeet is looking fit & his french accent is definitely cool ("malade.") Although trudeau easily won over brazeau back in the day, the stress of the entire past year might have left the PM in less than peak form. He certainly hasn't had any time to train.

jagmeet, on the other hand, has never had any significant work to do, so he's had plenty of time to work out in the gym every day.

it's a rigged fight, so they'd have to wake flabby Andy up from the dead & stuff him back into the ring.


----------



## kcowan

MrMatt said:


> James was the one trying to smear him FOR complying with US law.
> 
> The odd thing is that being fully in compliance with ethics and legal responsibilities, they're on Scheer.
> But Trudeau is sketchy AF, breaking ethics laws and possibly criminal laws, and they don't care.


yes I know many people had accidental American children. Sheer was not even born there. Just born to an American dad. Problem is the Liberals seem so shallow and buy the criticism.


----------



## kcowan

humble_pie said:


> btw does anyone know if routine poll figures that we are seeing every single day, are popular vote estimates?
> 
> or are the percentages based on successful seat projections?
> 
> if the former i don't believe the poll stats matter all that much at the moment, since the figures for the 2 leaders are so finely diced. All that will matter will be the number of ridings each can capture.


338canada is forecasting a Liberal majority. Mostly an indication of our bad electoral system!


----------



## humble_pie

kcowan said:


> yes I know many people had accidental American children. Sheer was not even born there. Just born to an American dad. Problem is the Liberals seem so shallow and buy the criticism.



problem is the diehard Cons don't even realize that scheer covered up. There's no way he could have conveniently "forgotten" that he is an american citizen. He was reminded repeatedly, into his adult years. Every time he filed a US tax return. Every time he crossed the border. 

folks in this forum have worked themselves silly over trudeau's blackface costumes, which occurred decades ago. It's a different order of magnitude when candidates for the highest political office in the land cover up their foreign national ID right up to the election month. And cover up scheer certainly did, since he was - as mentioned - reminded of his dual citizenship at least once a year, as recently as US tax filing deadline in june 2019.

the curious thing is that, if scheer had brought his dual nationalities forward to the conservative party hierarchy at the time he was voted leader of the party, it is likely he would still have been elected. It's also likely that canadian voters would have accepted the dual nationalities throughout his leadership of the CP in parliament without a murmur, especially if scheer had commenced renunciation of US citizenship in a timely manner, ie well before the 2019 election year.

but he didn't do any of those things. It's the coverup that's abhorrent, not the dual citizenship, which is common enough. The only words to describe scheer's conduct are "deceitful" & "stupid."

a while ago cmffer andrewf referred to trudeau as a doofus. Andrew scheer is indisputably another doofus. What have we got this election in canada, Two Doofii?

did anybody view that 3-leader french debate on october 2nd? they were all pitiful. Squalling like three-year-olds.

.


----------



## Eder

Thing is all previous governments overcame our electoral system...the Cons are not capitalizing on the election gift given to them by the Liberals...so far the most pathetic election ever. 
Maybe Sheer can promise to import more Syrians than JT to garner favour...oops that's already been done.


----------



## andrewf

hboy54 said:


> We must be reading different stuff. AltaRed is the most balanced, fair poster around here.
> 
> Also find the constant sneers and insults from you and sags and James et al to be distasteful. Thus some of you on ignore and I almost never post any more. I mean, you guys know the truth for sure, so nothing I can add.
> 
> Yes, the new generation is on the rise and they are coming for my money. I am on notice to be more aggressive in giving it away to people and institutions meaningful to me before it gets confiscated via taxation.


Giving money away is probably not a bad thing for economic dynamism.


----------



## andrewf

kcowan said:


> 338canada is forecasting a Liberal majority. Mostly an indication of our bad electoral system!


Any worse than the electoral college system that gave Trump (and Bush Jr) the presidency?

Just asking for consistency folks. I voted for the party last time that promised to introduce a more representative system. The Conservatives opposed it and the LPC gave up (to my consternation).


----------



## andrewf

humble_pie said:


> problem is the diehard Cons don't even realize that scheer covered up. There's no way he could have conveniently "forgotten" that he is an american citizen. He was reminded repeatedly, into his adult years. Every time he filed a US tax return. Every time he crossed the border.
> 
> folks in this forum have worked themselves silly over trudeau's blackface costumes, which occurred decades ago. It's a different order of magnitude when candidates for the highest political office in the land cover up their foreign national ID right up to the election month. And cover up scheer certainly did, since he was - as mentioned - reminded of his dual citizenship at least once a year, as recently as US tax filing deadline in june 2019.
> 
> the curious thing is that, if scheer had brought his dual nationalities forward to the conservative party hierarchy at the time he was voted leader of the party, it is likely he would still have been elected. It's also likely that canadian voters would have accepted the dual nationalities throughout his leadership of the CP in parliament without a murmur, especially if scheer had commenced renunciation of US citizenship in a timely manner, ie well before the 2019 election year.
> 
> but he didn't do any of those things. It's the coverup that's abhorrent, not the dual citizenship, which is common enough. The only words to describe scheer's conduct are "deceitful" & "stupid."
> 
> a while ago cmffer andrewf referred to trudeau as a doofus. Andrew scheer is indisputably another doofus. What have we got this election in canada, Two Doofii?
> 
> did anybody view that 3-leader french debate on october 2nd? they were all pitiful. Squalling like three-year-olds.
> 
> .


If it makes you feel better, I think 'doofus' is a softer condemnation than I would use for Trump, who I would describe as dangerously incompetent and stupid. Trudeau just has a penchant for doing dumb things, but at least he might recognize them as such in retrospect. Trump thinks he's a 'very stable genius'.


----------



## Userkare

andrewf said:


> Any worse than the electoral college system that gave Trump (and Bush Jr) the presidency?
> 
> Just asking for consistency folks. I voted for the party last time that promised to introduce a more representative system. The Conservatives opposed it and the LPC gave up (to my consternation).



Remind me how that went. Right after the 2015 election, Trudeau was asked how he could change our voting system without a referendum. He replied that there already was a referendum; he won the election.

So then, with a majority, and after such a strong statement, why didn't it happen?


----------



## bgc_fan

AltaRed said:


> It's a stretch to say Scheer kept his dual citizenship secret and concealed it to the public. Best I can tell, he never overtly attempted to conceal anything nor lied about anything about his dual citizenship. Not disclosing because no one asked is a very different thing. The natural tendency of almost any person is not to disclose more than is needed to be disclosed. We all have private lives after all, and that includes our elected officials.
> 
> I am pretty sure many of our early PMs had dual British citizenship, or France, or ? Did anyone care, or should have anyone cared? How many of our PMs were gay or bi-sexual? Does it matter? James, you've turned into a real sensationalist on so many issues. Don't have enough to do to occupy your time?


There wouldn't have been an issue if it wasn't for the fact that the Conservatives made it an issue for Muclair and Dion. The fact that Scheer is only now in the process of renouncing his US citizenship is a red flag, in that he doesn't think ahead. He had already brought up the issue about the GG's French dual-citizenship and asked the question "Would it bother you if instead of French citizenship, she held U.S. citizenship?" back in 2005. Maybe he was just testing waters and quite frankly, no one really cared, so he didn't bother to renounce it back then. And you can't say this is something he forgot about since he filled in his tax returns on an annual basis to be compliant with US laws. And yes, the idea that having the PM subject to another country's jurisdiction is an issue, particularly given the relationship with the US and their current president.

Although Scheer said that the Liberals fumbled the NAFTA negotiations (even though Rona Ambrose publicly disagreed with him), we recall that Harper's stance was "sign anything, just get a deal", who is to say Scheer wouldn't have done the same as Harper? Then when you throw in his dual-citizenship, there will always be optics that he is selling out Canada because he is a US citizen.

As a lifelong politician, he should know better; optics is all that matters. The fact that he doesn't even grasp that, and uses the 12-year old child excuse, "no one asked me", is particularly telling (although that applies to Trudeau as well).

For the record, I abhor lifelong politicians like Poilievre. Someone who just gets out of university and jumps into politics has no real world experience and limited skills. This is probably why Scheer made a big deal about being an insurance salesman for the 6 months before jumping into politics



Eclectic12 said:


> A dual citizen who AFAICT has spent almost all of his life in Canada. Seems no different than my co-worker's kids where some were born in California with something like five years in the US while others were born in Canada with no years in the US - all of whom are dual citizens.
> 
> Should we start calling them "American" with no acknowledgement they have spent pretty much all their lives in Canada?
> Maybe we should start a campaign to turf the one son out of the OPP?


We've done it in the past with "undesirables", and in fact the Conservatives were all about stripping Canadian citizenship from dual citizens and deporting them if convicted of certain crimes. Kind of how we're stuck holding the bag with Jihadi Jack. Obviously Conservatives don't care about "others", but if it were to happen to one of them, can you guess how quickly they would circle the wagons?


----------



## like_to_retire

Userkare said:


> Remind me how that went. Right after the 2015 election, Trudeau was asked how he could change our voting system without a referendum. He replied that there already was a referendum; he won the election.
> 
> So then, with a majority, and after such a strong statement, why didn't it happen?


Well, I think we know Trudeau will say just about anything, but as I understand it, since the status quo favours established parties, I think Trudeau probably looked at the latest provincial votes on this and decided he could get away with dropping it.

In Dec last year BC voted on this and they were against it by 61/39.

Then in April when P.E.I voted provincially, they were also asked to vote whether to move to a mixed-member proportional electoral system and a slim majority of 52/48 rejected it.

Trudeau probably decided it wouldn't be a big deal to let that promise go.

ltr


----------



## bgc_fan

Userkare said:


> Remind me how that went. Right after the 2015 election, Trudeau was asked how he could change our voting system without a referendum. He replied that there already was a referendum; he won the election.
> 
> So then, with a majority, and after such a strong statement, why didn't it happen?


Honestly? Probably because we would never get a consensus on a replacement system and the Liberals knew it. If you would place a referendum ballot asking for FPTP, Ranked Balloting, Proportional Representation, you'd probably get a 33% split between the 3 options.


----------



## MrMatt

Userkare said:


> Remind me how that went. Right after the 2015 election, Trudeau was asked how he could change our voting system without a referendum. He replied that there already was a referendum; he won the election.
> 
> So then, with a majority, and after such a strong statement, why didn't it happen?


Because smarter people told him it would be bad for the Liberal party, and he decided to listen.


----------



## james4beach

bgc_fan said:


> And you can't say this is something he forgot about since he filled in his tax returns on an annual basis to be compliant with US laws. And yes, the idea that having the PM subject to another country's jurisdiction is an issue, particularly given the relationship with the US and their current president.
> . . .
> The fact that he doesn't even grasp that, and uses the 12-year old child excuse, "no one asked me", is particularly telling (although that applies to Trudeau as well).


Yes and I want to be clear, I don't think US citizenship or heredity disqualifies someone. I just think it's really bad that he did not tell the public. I call it concealment because (1) he knew it and was _actively_ working on it and (2) this is completely relevant to being Prime Minister.

Someone who forgets about it and is surprised with those 1040 & FBAR filings, yes, I get that -- hell, I sympathize. But someone who is fully aware of the whole situation, is filing taxes, is registered with US military draft office... that's a person who is fully aware and actively engaged with it.

And still not telling the public, *weeks* before he's potentially Prime Minister??

I also question his commitment to give up the citizenship, given the fact he only filed renouncing paperwork in August. This is not a man who planned to give up his citizenship until very recently -- think about that. Started the process in August.


----------



## like_to_retire

james4beach said:


> This is not a man who planned to give up his citizenship before or had any kind of seriousness about becoming a pure Canadian citizen, even as head of the party.


A pure Canadian citizen? 

He was born and raised in Ottawa! 

He only acquired US citizenship by the fact that his father happened to be a US citizen. A stupid US rule that requires him to take action to ameliorate the situation.

So fine, he's doing that.

Why would you assume he is not a pure Canadian citizen?

ltr


----------



## james4beach

like_to_retire said:


> He only acquired US citizenship by the fact that his father happened to be a US citizen. A stupid US rule that requires him to take action to ameliorate the situation.
> 
> So fine, he's doing that.


Yeah. He started that process just two months ago. He's been party leader since 2017.

Even earlier this year, it was obvious he might become PM. And yet, he did not start any process to renounce citizenship.



> Why would you assume he is not a pure Canadian citizen?


Like anyone who has citizenship elsewhere, he has all kinds of obligations to the USA. Arguably, the demands of the USA are more stringent than most nations especially on financial and investment matters.

He may have loyalties to the US. Even if he doesn't feel emotionally loyal, the US has all kinds of strings and controls on him, via taxes and the State department.

And the fact that he never renounced his citizenship until two months ago shows that he was pretty comfortable with American citizenship.


----------



## bgc_fan

like_to_retire said:


> A pure Canadian citizen?
> 
> He was born and raised in Ottawa!
> 
> He only acquired US citizenship by the fact that his father happened to be a US citizen. A stupid US rule that requires him to take action to ameliorate the situation.
> 
> So fine, he's doing that.
> 
> Why would you assume he is not a pure Canadian citizen?
> 
> ltr


Interesting defense. He was around as an MP in 2006 when we had the  Lebanese sea lift to evacuate dual-citizen Canadians who were in Lebanon at the time. The Conservatives were pretty much angling to get rid of dual citizenship at the time, and questioning their loyalty to Canada.


----------



## humble_pie

like_to_retire said:


> Well, I think we know Trudeau will say just about anything, but as I understand it, since the status quo favours established parties, I think Trudeau probably looked at the latest provincial votes on this and decided he could get away with dropping it.
> 
> In Dec last year BC voted on this and they were against it by 61/39.
> 
> Then in April when P.E.I voted provincially, they were also asked to vote whether to move to a mixed-member proportional electoral system and a slim majority of 52/48 rejected it.
> 
> Trudeau probably decided it wouldn't be a big deal to let that promise go.





Userkare said:


> Remind me how that went. Right after the 2015 election, Trudeau was asked how he could change our voting system without a referendum. He replied that there already was a referendum; he won the election.
> 
> So then, with a majority, and after such a strong statement, why didn't it happen?




the above versions ^^ are not what happened at all. Don't you guys remember the recent history?

soon after the october 2015 election, an electoral reform commission headed by cabinet minister maryam monsef toured the whole of canada. Numerous open hearings on electoral reform were held in every major city. Every single canadian was invited. Elaborate, extensive presentations were made. Depositions & testimonies were lodged.

it was an expensive & costly undertaking. Probably almost as costly as a referendum would have been.

in the end, the commission concluded that it could not find any clear mandate from candians that they wanted to reform the electoral system. The decision they had to make was not to recommend electoral reform at that time.

the issue could be revived at any time & for the sake of the green party many hope that it will be revived. But it's fair to say that the issue was well examined across the nation as one of the first items on trudeau's post-election work list. No desire for electoral reform at that time = no action.


----------



## Prairie Guy

andrewf said:


> If it makes you feel better, I think 'doofus' is a softer condemnation than I would use for Trump, who I would describe as dangerously incompetent and stupid.


Funny how a person some keep calling "stupid" won the election for president on his very first try in spite of going against the Clinton political machine and all of the media. And to this day he continually outsmarts them on a daily basis. People now know the media is horribly biased and that the intelligence agencies are corrupt. He exposed the media for what they really are...partisan hacks. Have you ever heard the saying: "Don't fight people who buy ink by the barrel"? Trump took them on and won. No one who is incompetent or stupid could ever pull that off. 



> Trudeau just has a penchant for doing dumb things, but at least he might recognize them as such in retrospect. Trump thinks he's a 'very stable genius'.


Trudeau is more than just dumb...he's also criminal and corrupt. Trump is only being accused of being criminal...but who believes the accusers? They've been wrong every time.


----------



## kcowan

andrewf said:


> I voted for the party last time that promised to introduce a more representative system. The Conservatives opposed it and the LPC gave up (to my consternation).


I did a protest vote last time (Liberal), and I have been disappointed that the party did none of the things they were promising. I suppose the average voter does not pay attention to performance against promises. I agree that a well-structured proportional voting system would be better but the one presented by the NDP in BC last time was highly biased to the party so I voted against.


----------



## kcowan

like_to_retire said:


> In Dec last year BC voted on this and they were against it by 61/39.
> 
> Then in April when P.E.I voted provincially, they were also asked to vote whether to move to a mixed-member proportional electoral system and a slim majority of 52/48 rejected it.
> 
> Trudeau probably decided it wouldn't be a big deal to let that promise go.
> 
> ltr


The NDP had structured the PR system to give the party in power too much power. So I voted against it even though I am in favour of a properly structured PR system. It will reduce the Liberals power and give better representation to the losers. I liked when Harper had a minority government and had to pander to the other parties. When he got a majority, things went south pretty fast.


----------



## sags

Scheer said he has not used his US passport since he became an adult, but he would have had to use it when he visited Washington during the trade negotiations.

Americans say it is required for a dual citizen to identify themselves as such when entering the US.

I don't know if Scheer is just forgetful, thinks it would be bad to admit publicly or doesn't care to be honest.

He should know by now that every answer he gives to the media is going to be thoroughly fact checked.


----------



## kcowan

ltr said:


> A pure Canadian citizen?
> 
> He was born and raised in Ottawa!
> 
> He only acquired US citizenship by the fact that his father happened to be a US citizen. A stupid US rule that requires him to take action to ameliorate the situation.
> 
> So fine, he's doing that.
> 
> Why would you assume he is not a pure Canadian citizen?


Well it tells us more about the poster than Scheer. When I worked in Alberta in the 70s, many of my peers went to Houston on assignment. By the time, they returned they had given birth to Americans. The process to divest is expensive and time-consuming. They all did it during the amnesty period except one who decided to take the risk that the IRS would not find their kids.

Another friend married an American while on assignment, and just did renunciation as they were contemptlating selling their $3 million house in BC (long story).


----------



## humble_pie

kcowan said:


> I did a protest vote last time (Liberal), and I have been disappointed that the party did none of the things they were promising.



oh my, how can you say a thing like that? it's not true in the least

according to a blue-ribbon panel of observers, as published in the anti-trudeau natPost:



> the experts found that by March of this year [2019] Trudeau’s government had entirely followed through on about 50 per cent of its pledges, partially delivered on about 40 per cent and had broken roughly 10 per cent


the above is an excellent performance record.

the article goes on to compare trudeau's record with harper's record & discovered that both prime ministers scored high in keeping or partially succeeding with their campaign promises, compared to their historic peers.

trudeau's promises were & remain more difficult to keep, since many are profoundly "transformative" of society, whereas more of the harper promises were "transactional' in nature & did not require deep reform, said the natPost.

here's just one promise trudeau kept which should warm the memories of many on here: Liberals quickly rolled the OAS eligibility age from 67, where it had been boosted by harper, back down to 65.

https://nationalpost.com/news/polit...nized-by-a-new-book-on-the-trudeau-government


----------



## doctrine

andrewf said:


> Any worse than the electoral college system that gave Trump (and Bush Jr) the presidency?
> 
> Just asking for consistency folks. I voted for the party last time that promised to introduce a more representative system. The Conservatives opposed it and the LPC gave up (to my consternation).


Do you mean is Canada worse than the country that actually elects their leader? When was the last time you cast a vote for a Prime Minister?

Imagine a world where Trump had the power to fire any Republican from the party at will and eliminate them from any and all nomination contests, appoint all Senate vacancies without voting or consultation, appoint all Supreme Court nominees without a vote or consultation, and call an election whenever he felt like it, and effectively have Congress pass every single bill that he decides is important to him. There, that's Canada. Combined legislative and executive branches for the win.


----------



## doctrine

james4beach said:


> Yes and I want to be clear, I don't think US citizenship or heredity disqualifies someone. I just think it's really bad that he did not tell the public. I call it concealment because (1) he knew it and was _actively_ working on it and (2) this is completely relevant to being Prime Minister.
> 
> Someone who forgets about it and is surprised with those 1040 & FBAR filings, yes, I get that -- hell, I sympathize. But someone who is fully aware of the whole situation, is filing taxes, is registered with US military draft office... that's a person who is fully aware and actively engaged with it.
> 
> And still not telling the public, *weeks* before he's potentially Prime Minister??
> 
> I also question his commitment to give up the citizenship, given the fact he only filed renouncing paperwork in August. This is not a man who planned to give up his citizenship until very recently -- think about that. Started the process in August.


Yeah, Scheer the American secretly plotting to hand us over to the US. Maybe he can wear a Yankee Hat for the debate. Trudeau can wear blackface. At least the election is really all about the issues. What were they again?


----------



## humble_pie

doctrine said:


> Yeah, Scheer the American secretly plotting to hand us over to the US. Maybe he can wear a Yankee Hat for the debate. Trudeau can wear blackface. At least the election is really all about the issues. What were they again?



that's what was missing from the october 2nd french debate! scheer didn't wear his MAGA hat! trudeau didn't wear blackface!

i still think my idea is better though. Put em all into neon shorts & boxing gloves & into the ring to duke it out trudeau/brazeau prize fight style.


----------



## sags

My dad used to say that Chretien was the best politician. He just disappeared between elections.

I have a feeling the opposition party leaders might disappear after this election.

Elizabeth May is becoming old and tiresome, Jagmeet will have lost seats, and Andy.....is just Andy.

The good news is they can all chip in and have one big farewell party..........and Justin might show up to perform a little Al Jolson routine.


----------



## bgc_fan

doctrine said:


> Do you mean is Canada worse than the country that actually elects their leader? When was the last time you cast a vote for a Prime Minister?
> 
> Imagine a world where Trump had the power to fire any Republican from the party at will and eliminate them from any and all nomination contests, appoint all Senate vacancies without voting or consultation, appoint all Supreme Court nominees without a vote or consultation, and call an election whenever he felt like it, and effectively have Congress pass every single bill that he decides is important to him. There, that's Canada. Combined legislative and executive branches for the win.


Trump is pretty much doing that. Given that the Republican party is now Trump's party, all the current Republicans are towing the line. As for Supreme Court nominees, did you miss the whole Kavanaugh proceedings? So, what exactly is your point again? Right now, the US is having a constitutional crisis precisely because the Legislative branch is acting as a puppet for the Executive branch.



doctrine said:


> Yeah, Scheer the American secretly plotting to hand us over to the US. Maybe he can wear a Yankee Hat for the debate. Trudeau can wear blackface. At least the election is really all about the issues. What were they again?


Good question, let us know when the Conservatives present their policy documents. I find that historically they don't actually present their policy until just before the election. In the meantime, they just state that working people deserve better and we will do it.


----------



## kcowan

humble_pie said:


> here's just one promise trudeau kept which should warm the memories of many on here: Liberals quickly rolled the OAS eligibility age from 67, where it had been boosted by harper, back down to 65.
> 
> https://nationalpost.com/news/polit...nized-by-a-new-book-on-the-trudeau-government


Yes I agree that a bunch of people tried to sell their book in the National Post. After all, they are a business publication. What I need to know is which of the important ones for me were achieved and which that were socialist giveaways were achieved.

Their tax reforms were bullshite, and they're OAS rollback was regressive. They should have moved it to 75 instead of offering 10% increase to people 75. What amazes me is that you have these assumptions that are pure bullshite about other posters. Where do you get your assumptions. Is it J4B and sags that are polluting your mind?

BTM I love your insights into the investing industry. Stick to that and you will have my continued admiration.


----------



## doctrine

humble_pie said:


> here's just one promise trudeau kept which should warm the memories of many on here: Liberals quickly rolled the OAS eligibility age from 67, where it had been boosted by harper, back down to 65.
> 
> https://nationalpost.com/news/polit...nized-by-a-new-book-on-the-trudeau-government


Always nice to see promises being kept, but I predict this will be back to 67 within 10 years or less, and maybe age 70, if not reduced or cancelled especially for the higher end of the income spectrum (>$70k). Just my opinion. It's going to be awfully expensive in 20 years. And 20 years is a long time for finances to come under strain.


----------



## andrewf

doctrine said:


> Do you mean is Canada worse than the country that actually elects their leader? When was the last time you cast a vote for a Prime Minister?
> 
> Imagine a world where Trump had the power to fire any Republican from the party at will and eliminate them from any and all nomination contests, appoint all Senate vacancies without voting or consultation, appoint all Supreme Court nominees without a vote or consultation, and call an election whenever he felt like it, and effectively have Congress pass every single bill that he decides is important to him. There, that's Canada. Combined legislative and executive branches for the win.


I'm not sure that republics/presidential systems are better than parliamentary democracy. Seems like parliamentary democracies tend to function better. Direct democracy isn't always better, as you can see in local elections in the US like that for sheriff or DA, you get a lot of corruption and abuse of power.

I should also note that Americans don't vote for president. They elect nobody meat puppets to the electoral college, who can vote for whoever they like for president. That is the part I think is absurd.


----------



## james4beach

The RCMP is apparently keeping a closer eye on social media platforms (which I presume includes CMF) for threats to leaders, and implied violence relating to anti-immigration: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/rcmp-violence-campaign-1.5305905

Luckily we haven't had much of that here since the Hot Button area was closed down. I'll bet that a lot of disturbing content shows up on Facebook, though.


----------



## MrMatt

bgc_fan said:


> Trump is pretty much doing that. Given that the Republican party is now Trump's party, all the current Republicans are towing the line. As for Supreme Court nominees, did you miss the whole Kavanaugh proceedings? So, what exactly is your point again? Right now, the US is having a constitutional crisis precisely because the Legislative branch is acting as a puppet for the Executive branch.
> 
> 
> 
> Good question, let us know when the Conservatives present their policy documents. I find that historically they don't actually present their policy until just before the election. In the meantime, they just state that working people deserve better and we will do it.


Yes, did you see the Kavanaugh hearings?
A well respected professional was slammed with fake accusations that threated to destroy his career.
Imagine after decades of hard work, and good treatment of staff, he gets that type of spin from the media.

He had swarms of women stand up and say he was never inappropriate, and one of the most supportive supervisors they ever had, in an industry known for poor treatment of junior staff.

As far as toeing the line, of course Republicans are, because Trump brings votes, that's why nobody is pushing back on Trudeau, he brings votes.

There is a difference though, the President can't actually kick people out of the party, he doesn't personally appoint people to positions.
The PM/Party leader literally can kick people out of the party, without any consultation, and the PM doesn't need anyones approval to appoint most positions.


----------



## sags

I will take our system of government over the Americans. Canadian governments can get things done.

Imagine trying to expand Social Security as Trudeau did to the CPP. Imagine child care benefits being introduced in the US. They can't even pass a universal healthcare program.

The American system is rotten and corrupt and can't get anything done. The only things Trump has accomplished is through executive order which can change with the next President.

Legislatively, the Americans haven't done much of anything for a long time.


----------



## sags

Trudeau and the Liberal government has a long list of accomplishments. Andrew Scheer has no list of accomplishments. 

More important than Trudeau or Scheer are the support they have behind them who initiated and supported their accomplishments. 

The Liberal government is chock full of very capable Ministers.......McKenna, Morneau, Goodale, and Freeland to name a few.

A Conservatives cabinet would look pretty thin against that lineup. Let's face it, the best Harper could do to replace the popular Finance Minister Jim Flaherty was Joe Oliver.


----------



## Eclectic12

james4beach said:


> Heck, people can listen to me (or not), but my demographic is in control now. I'm nearing 40 ... But what I'm writing here are very much mainstream views, especially among city dwellers.
> 
> Time to get used to it.


You've been working in the US for how long with visits to Canada yet somehow know what are mainstream views and what particular groups?
Did you move back to Canada to work for Ipsos or Nielsen or something?

Some of my co-workers who are about the same age as well as city dwellers don't agree with you but I'm not assuming that tells me whom is in control or what the majority opinion is.

There's also the question of how motivated to vote the various groups are.
https://globalnews.ca/news/5938985/millenials-biggest-voting-block-canada-election-2019/

It's one of those things that won't be known until after the fact.


Cheers


----------



## sags

Debate tonight........a huge opportunity for the leaders.

CBC......7 p.m. to 9 p.m. with analysis following.


----------



## Eclectic12

bgc_fan said:


> Eclectic12 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A dual citizen who AFAICT has spent almost all of his life in Canada. Seems no different than my co-worker's kids where some were born in California with something like five years in the US while others were born in Canada with no years in the US - all of whom are dual citizens.
> 
> Should we start calling them "American" with no acknowledgement they have spent pretty much all their lives in Canada?
> Maybe we should start a campaign to turf the one son out of the OPP?
> 
> 
> 
> We've done it in the past with "undesirables", and in fact the Conservatives were all about stripping Canadian citizenship from dual citizens and deporting them if convicted of certain crimes . Kind of how we're stuck holding the bag with Jihadi Jack ...
Click to expand...

Why are you talking the past?



> The Trudeau government used powers granted by the Harper government's controversial citizenship law to make 184 revocation decisions without legal hearings between November 2015 and the end of August. About 90 per cent of the decisions resulted in a negative finding and the loss of a person's citizenship.
> 
> The numbers show that the Trudeau government has used the law far more aggressively than the Harper government itself.


https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/citizenship-revocation-trudeau-harper-1.3795733

The Liberals seemingly felt it important to protect those convicted of terrorism-related crimes from being stripped of their citizenship without a hearing but if there's a misrepresentation on immigration and citizenship applications - that's important time to revoke citizenship without a hearing.

Interestingly - where one is the Liberal Minister of Democratic Institutions whose mother made a misrepresentation on the application, it can all be fixed with a simple update. If you are a member of the public who hasn't been in trouble whose father made a misrepresentation, you get a letter that your Canadian citizenship is revoked, without a hearing.


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12

james4beach said:


> Yes and I want to be clear, I don't think US citizenship or heredity disqualifies someone. I just think it's really bad that he did not tell the public. I call it concealment because (1) he knew it and was _actively_ working on it and (2) this is completely relevant to being Prime Minister ...
> And still not telling the public, *weeks* before he's potentially Prime Minister??


AFAICT, Dion never started the process to revoke his French citizenship. Do you have any reference to him telling the Canadian public he wasn't what you are calling "a pure Canadian citizen"? Or how about Mulcair or Turner?

Why wasn't it relevant for them as well as I don't recall and as of yet, haven't found any references to candidates announcing they had dual citizenship?


Seems weird to me considering I seem to recall in past years and recently comments about a preference for "old stock Canadians" as being bad.




james4beach said:


> ... I also question his commitment to give up the citizenship, given the fact he only filed renouncing paperwork in August. This is not a man who planned to give up his citizenship until very recently -- think about that. Started the process in August.


??? ... if it was someone like the Liberal MP who spent years in the US, this might make some sense. For someone who has lived almost exclusively in Canada, I don't see how commitment to giving up US citizenship matters.

Can one stop the process of revoking US citizenship?




james4beach said:


> ... And the fact that he never renounced his citizenship until two months ago shows that he was pretty comfortable with American citizenship.


Or he didn't want to spend thousands to give up his US citizenship.

Essentially you seem to be advocating for something similar to the US system's restrictions to be eligible to be president. Not as harsh but rather ironic IMO to be preferring US style restrictions while concerned about US influence.


Cheers


----------



## sags

It is all kind of sneaky and creepy like. I blame Stephen Harper.


----------



## AltaRed

Eclectic12 said:


> You've been working in the US for how long with visits to Canada yet somehow know what are mainstream views and what particular groups?
> Did you move back to Canada to work for Ipsos or Nielsen or something?
> 
> Some of my co-workers who are about the same age as well as city dwellers don't agree with you but I'm not assuming that tells me whom is in control or what the majority opinion is.


James doesn't have a crystal ball of prophecies to be making such assumptions because he simply does not know a big enough sample of the population. Only the pollsters have large enough samples. 

All any of us have is limited direct or anecdotal information. We have almost a dozen millenials or Gen-Xers in our family (AB and BC) and their views, opinions and likely voting habits are almost as varied as the number of political parties, with perhaps 2 of them likely voting Green and 0 voting NDP. I suspect the seniors are 2/3rds Conservative, then Liberals and lastly a few NDPers thrown in. They mostly think May has gone off the deep end with no holistic 'forest' level policy package that can remotely work, as radically on the left as Bernier is on the right. A smallish sample, but representative across demographic and standard of living groups. Thus I don't think that is a bad sample through James will no doubt say they are all westerners to stay on his partisan soapbox. It is what it is.

As I already mentioned, Scheer has done himself a disservice by not getting some key facts about himself out of the way shortly after winning the leadership. He had no need to do so of course, but still it was a tactical, if not strategic, error given how many anti-Con partisans have tried to continue to make this an election issue. And they have, at least a distraction from policy issues that SHOULD be the meat of any election campaign. This is about a depressing an election cycle as I've seen for some time.


----------



## Eder

Looks like that creepy grip JT had on the chick in the black face picture may not have been the creepiest act he did as a teacher...lets see if the story comes out or is it Russia interfering in our election?


----------



## james4beach

AltaRed said:


> James doesn't have a crystal ball of prophecies to be making such assumptions because he simply does not know a big enough sample of the population. Only the pollsters have large enough samples.
> 
> All any of us have is limited direct or anecdotal information.


That's true, and I can only speak about what I know within my circles of friends ... nearly all of whom are in Canada. I do not have a big sample size. My friends & family span BC, AB, MB, ON.

As for the election cycle being depressing, I disagree. I've heard excellent enthusiasm and optimism from several political parties, including nice initiatives for how they'd improve Canada. Sadly though, there are a couple parties (the right-leaning ones) who seem to want to fuel their base with anger and rage. The negative emotions seem to be a pillar of the right wing approach. IMO this is an unhealthy way to motivate voters and it's also generally unhealthy for blood pressure and mental well being.


----------



## james4beach

I'll add to the above that CMF is the main venue which has taught me that Conservative supporters are an angry bunch. In my daily life, I never hear the kinds of things that I've read about on CMF. Various people here seem to be _constantly angry_ about Trudeau and energy / climate issues.

This chronic anger in right wing circles has repelled me from Conservatives, even though I prefer fiscal conservatism and am a high income earner who would benefit from lower taxes. But I say to myself, "oh man, I don't want to end up like these guys -- this way of looking at the world isn't healthy." 

So thanks, CMF conservatives, for showing me what Canada's right wing is like.


----------



## Eclectic12

And I know of people who were shouted at by co-workers for failing to commit to voting Liberals at work, before the last election. 
I'm sure they will avoid the topic so I have no way of knowing if it's become worse or better for the current election.


It's a big, wide world out there.


Cheers


----------



## Userkare

Userkare said:


> Remind me how that went. Right after the 2015 election, Trudeau was asked how he could change our voting system without a referendum. He replied that there already was a referendum; he won the election.
> 
> So then, with a majority, and after such a strong statement, why didn't it happen?





humble_pie said:


> the above versions ^^ are not what happened at all. Don't you guys remember the recent history?


House of Commons, May 11 2016... 

Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Outremont, NDP)

Mr. Speaker, as we have just seen, the Liberals have repeated time and time again that the current electoral system is “unfair” and that it produces false majorities, that is until they got elected.
The facts are that over 60% of Canadians did not vote for the Liberal Party. The Prime Minister seemed to acknowledge the problem, but then he stacked the committee so Liberals could, alone, impose the next voting system on everyone.
Will the Prime Minister reverse his undemocratic decision and allow for a fully representative committee, where each member has the right to vote? Is that not the essence of democracy?


_Right Hon. Justin Trudeau (Prime Minister, Lib.)_

_Mr. Speaker, the essence of democracy is that we put forward a very clear plan to ensure that this was the last election—

Some hon. Members
Oh, oh!

_
_Right Hon. Justin Trudeau (Prime Minister, Lib.)_

_Mr. Speaker, Canadians voted overwhelmingly for change in the last election. We proposed real change that would make this the last election under first past the post._
_Our committee is actually the first committee to pull together members from every party. We are going to work seriously and focus in a way that will bring forward a better alternative for Canadians. We trust Canadians in their capacity to get the governments they elect. If you choose—

_
_Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Outremont, NDP)_

_Mr. Speaker, what part of this does the Prime Minister not understand? Members from two of those committees are being denied the right to vote. He has to change that._
_Canadians have a hard time believing that the process is not rigged. The government will have a majority on the committee, and we know that the Liberal Party has already decided on the so-called preferential voting system, which is to the party's advantage._
_Can the Prime Minister reassure Canadians and guarantee that his government will not act unilaterally without the support of all the other parties?_

House of Commons, June 1 2016... 


_Hon. Rona Ambrose (Leader of the Opposition, CPC)

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister continues to ram through his change to our voting system without giving Canadians a voice. He has rigged the process to get the results that he wants. Canadians know that this entire thing is a sham and it shows a complete lack of respect for our democracy.
When is the Prime Minister going to climb down from this mess he has created and give Canadians what they want, which is a referendum?


__Right Hon. Justin Trudeau (Prime Minister, Lib.)

Actually, Mr. Speaker, on October 19 of last year, Canadians indicated what they wanted. The majority voted for parties that were committed to ending first past the post. That is exactly the commitment we made and that is what we are moving forward with._
_Of course, as is our custom and as is our responsibility, unlike the opposition, when it was in government, we will be consulting, working with opposition parties, working with experts, ensuring that we have the best possible electoral system going forward.

_*****************************

TL;DR Basically, it was being challenged mostly by Cons & NDP that a parlimentary committee, dominated by Liberals, could bias things in their own favour. To be truly democratic, a referendum where all Canadians could participate, would be needed. Libs wanted no part of it, saying that b/c they were elected with this platform, they would do it their way! Mulcair's claim that 60% of Canadians did not vote for Liberals is correct; Trudeau's claimed "overwhelmingly voted" was false.

Neat tool to search the commons debates by member, party, topic, date, etc. https://www.lipad.ca/search/


----------



## james4beach

Eclectic12 said:


> And I know of people who were shouted at by co-workers for failing to commit to voting Liberals at work, before the last election.
> 
> I'm sure they will avoid the topic so I have no way of knowing if it's become worse or better.


Well that's very rude behaviour -- nobody should be doing that.

I guess one has to be cautious about reading too much into any given sample. e.g. what I see among friends, or what I see here at CMF (which may not even be representative of conservatives in general). And maybe there are many nasty, angry liberals all over the place that I have had the good fortune of not encountering.


----------



## Userkare

james4beach said:


> I'll add to the above that CMF is the main venue which has taught me that Conservative supporters are an angry bunch. In my daily life, I never hear the kinds of things that I've read about on CMF. Various people here seem to be _constantly angry_ about Trudeau and energy / climate issues.
> 
> This chronic anger in right wing circles has repelled me from Conservatives, even though I prefer fiscal conservatism and am a high income earner who would benefit from lower taxes. But I say to myself, "oh man, I don't want to end up like these guys -- this way of looking at the world isn't healthy."
> 
> So thanks, CMF conservatives, for showing me what Canada's right wing is like.


So then, trying to offer rational counter arguments to left wing policy is angry, unhealthy? This is like trying to talk to my brother who got sucked into Scientology; no matter what you said, it just went back to the almighty leader's divine word must not be challenged.


----------



## sags

The Liberals put together a non partisan panel, including Elizabeth May if memory serves correctly. They crisscrossed the country holding meetings that nobody attended.

There was a complete lack of interest by Canadians in the subject. Every political party wants a system that favors them. Trudeau made the wide decision to chuck the idea.

I doubt Canadians want 2nd or 3rd place candidates to win nominations because of some mathematical magic. You win or you lose.......end of story.


----------



## Eder

Its getting better all the time haah...

*Did Justin Trudeau call Jagmeet Singh “Marge Simpson”?*


----------



## MrMatt

james4beach said:


> I'll add to the above that CMF is the main venue which has taught me that Conservative supporters are an angry bunch. In my daily life, I never hear the kinds of things that I've read about on CMF. Various people here seem to be _constantly angry_ about Trudeau and energy / climate issues.
> 
> This chronic anger in right wing circles has repelled me from Conservatives, even though I prefer fiscal conservatism and am a high income earner who would benefit from lower taxes. But I say to myself, "oh man, I don't want to end up like these guys -- this way of looking at the world isn't healthy."
> 
> So thanks, CMF conservatives, for showing me what Canada's right wing is like.


Interesting, I see those people trying to shut down the roads today, or Greta yelling at the video camera and think they're pretty angry.


----------



## sags

Keep hanging around those websites Eder and your computer will be crawling with viruses.


----------



## AltaRed

MrMatt said:


> Interesting, I see those people trying to shut down the roads today, or Greta yelling at the video camera and think they're pretty angry.


I think there is more social disobedience by the left than there ever has been from the right, and by social disobedience I mean more physically than peaceful protest. Blocking of highways, bridges, construction zones, business operations, physical harm to individuals, etc. The left just doesn't see it because they wrap themselves in a self-defined, self-absorbed blanket of social justice and righteous causes. Never mind why they are (apparently) not making a living for themselves and contributing to the GDP of this country.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

_A new (Leger) poll looking at the virtues of the political leaders spells bad news for Justin Trudeau. Of all the politicians, the Liberal leader was found to be the most elitist, fake, and hypocritical
And when it came to honesty, straight-forwardness and trustworthiness, Conservative leader Andrew Scheer scored better than Trudeau._


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

_More Canadians trust Andrew Scheer to manage Canada’s immigration than Justin Trudeau, and more than half say the Liberals have been too soft on border issues, says new polling from the Angus Reid Institute._


----------



## Userkare

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> _A new (Leger) poll looking at the virtues of the political leaders spells bad news for Justin Trudeau. Of all the politicians, the Liberal leader was found to be the most elitist, fake, and hypocritical
> And when it came to honesty, straight-forwardness and trustworthiness, Conservative leader Andrew Scheer scored better than Trudeau._


That poll was taken before it was revealed that, every morning, Sheer goes into a secret room with a huge American flag, puts his hand on his heart and recites...

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the Unites States of America,
and to the republic for which it stands.
One Nation, including Canada,
with liberty and justice for white heterosexual males.


----------



## bgc_fan

Eclectic12 said:


> Why are you talking the past?
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/citizenship-revocation-trudeau-harper-1.3795733
> 
> The Liberals seemingly felt it important to protect those convicted of terrorism-related crimes from being stripped of their citizenship without a hearing but if there's a misrepresentation on immigration and citizenship applications - that's important time to revoke citizenship without a hearing.
> 
> Interestingly - where one is the Liberal Minister of Democratic Institutions whose mother made a misrepresentation on the application, it can all be fixed with a simple update. If you are a member of the public who hasn't been in trouble whose father made a misrepresentation, you get a letter that your Canadian citizenship is revoked, without a hearing.
> 
> 
> Cheers


Why shouldn't I talk about the past? It's not like it isn't ancient history, a la Trudeau's blackface. And it is relevant as I talked about Jihadi Jack where the UK is doing to us precisely what the Conservatives wanted to do other countries. As for using the powers of revocation, it would be useful to judge each case independently to see what the impact would have been if they knew the information at the time of entry. For the example of the mother of the Liberal Minister of Democratic Institutions, it was putting the Afghanistan vs Iran. Would that have made a difference in accepting her? In one case it was due to the father not revealing that he had a criminal record. I suspect he wouldn't have been accepted at that time, but then you have the follow-on effects. Then there was the woman who didn't state that she was married. Maybe the concern could be that she would later sponsor her husband into Canada?

It's hard to make a blanket statement without knowing all the circumstances.


----------



## sags

So the snowflakes are fighting back and aren't being pushed around anymore.....boo hoo, cry me a river.

If all the polls are showing the Liberals are in dire trouble, the right wing zealots should be able to breathe a lot easier now.

Breathe in through the nose........out through pursed lips........in through the nose........out through pursed lips.........in through the nose.......out through pursed lips........


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

Trudeau lacking self confidence after demonstrating serious errors in judgment. 
Chooses to participate in two french language debates and only one english debate in an attempt to tilt the playing field.


----------



## MrMatt

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> Trudeau lacking self confidence after demonstrating serious errors in judgment.
> Chooses to participate in two french language debates and only one english debate in an attempt to tilt the playing field.


To be fair, Trudeau had a simple role.
Be a smiling pretty face == good.
Start talking == bad.

Maybe in French, as some claim, he's more relatable, but every time he opens his mouth in English, he comes off as a politician who can't deviate from the script, or an elitist %^(^*&.


----------



## MrMatt

AltaRed said:


> I think there is more social disobedience by the left than there ever has been from the right, and by social disobedience I mean more physically than peaceful protest. Blocking of highways, bridges, construction zones, business operations, physical harm to individuals, etc. The left just doesn't see it because they wrap themselves in a self-defined, self-absorbed blanket of social justice and righteous causes. Never mind why they are (apparently) not making a living for themselves and contributing to the GDP of this country.


This is simple, it's a lack of understanding and respect for the fundamental values and institutions that underly our society.
They don't seem to realize that their astonishing standard of living in this great country is due to those same values and institutions.

It's overwhelmingly rude, ignorant and narcissistic, which infuriates Conservatives even more.


----------



## sags

Given the questions by Canadians to the political leaders about their concerns with wage stagnation, income and wealth inequality, home prices and the cost of living.......it appears people are not sharing in the riches of the economy. 

They don't feel they have "an astonishing standard of living", but rather they feel what they are.....the first generation to fall behind their parents in wealth generation and standard of living.

Progress is measured by going forward. The experience of this generation is going backwards, and the facts support their feelings.


----------



## sags

Climate change and wealth redistribution are the two likely most important issues going forward.

Liberals are addressing the issues, but ever so slowly. The Conservatives pretend they don't exist.

The political parties have to change to reflect the concerns of the electorate........not the other way around. 

Parties that don't keep up with the reality of change are destined to become yesterday's fish wrap.


----------



## MrMatt

Wages are stagnating because productivity is stagnating.
If you are working the same job And producing the same amount, why should you get more? 
The only logic is "I want"


----------



## sags

Productivity was flat despite enormous tax cuts to corporations (the job creators). The cuts resulted in what Mark Carney called "dead money", and corporations have spent the money saved on share buybacks, mergers and acquisitions, and increasing executive compensation. They didn't invest in the advanced technology needed to increase productivity.

Companies haven't paid heed to an old business axiom.......companies need to continually move forward or they stagnate, wither and die.

Corporations haven't used the tax savings to create jobs, so we might as well return the corporate tax level back to the historical norm and we can decide where to spend the revenue.


----------



## Eclectic12

bgc_fan said:


> Why shouldn't I talk about the past?


My bad ... the "past" part was to refer to no hearing citizenship stripping process still happening. I didn't mean to suggest the past was irrelevant.



bgc_fan said:


> ... As for using the powers of revocation, it would be useful to judge each case independently to see what the impact would have been if they knew the information at the time of entry ...
> 
> It's hard to make a blanket statement without knowing all the circumstances.


The "no hearing" makes it hard to understand the circumstances at all. 

Since there's been misrepresentation on the application has been illegal for decades - the question is why the Liberals feel the need to keep parts of Harper's legislation around to use the no hearing process more frequently.


However - this is all a side show. 

We are talking about Scheer as well as my co-workers dual citizen kids. AFAICT, none of them have an issue with misrepresentation on applications as in both cases, one parent was born in Canada. They've also spent all of their lives in Canada seemingly without any charges being laid.

One is being viewed as a potential foreign agent while the others likely aren't.


Cheers


----------



## bgc_fan

Eclectic12 said:


> The "no hearing" makes it hard to understand the circumstances at all.
> 
> 
> We are talking about Scheer as well as my co-workers dual citizen kids. AFAICT, none of them have an issue with misrepresentation on applications as in both cases, one parent was born in Canada. They've also spent all of their lives in Canada seemingly without any charges being laid.
> 
> One is being viewed as a potential foreign agent while the others likely aren't.
> 
> Cheers


The "no hearing" is a problem because, like I said, each case needs to be considered on its own basis.

Regarding Scheer being dual-citizen, again, the two issues are that American citizenship has quite a few obligations (I don't know if other citizenships have the same effect) and the Conservatives had brought it up in the past while he was a member of the party. If it wasn't for the latter, it wouldn't be a big deal.


----------



## james4beach

bgc_fan said:


> Regarding Scheer being dual-citizen, again, the two issues are that American citizenship has quite a few obligations (I don't know if other citizenships have the same effect) and the Conservatives had brought it up in the past while he was a member of the party. If it wasn't for the latter, it wouldn't be a big deal.


Citizenships with other countries is also relevant for top positions like Prime Minister -- it's a big deal. It should have been disclosed to the public, and then it's up to the public to decide whether they think it's an issue or not. Scheer did not disclose it, and he should have.

But what he's said about citizenship raises other questions as well: What else has U.S. citizen Scheer not told us?



> Why do you admit that you filed mandatory U.S. tax returns and then refuse to say if you actually paid taxes? In other words, did you send part of your generous government salary to the country that negotiated unfairly and is doing such damage to us in trade? It may be irrational but it sticks in the Canadian craw.
> 
> When you attack Prime Minister Trudeau and say you would have made a different trade deal with the U.S., would it have been a weaker one because you felt sympathy for your “other country?” Did it make you feel ambivalent about tactics and outcome?
> 
> Are you hedging your bets? Do you have a plan in your back pocket to ultimately move to the U.S. if you lose this election and others, and do a Stephen Harper, setting up shop as a lobbyist with the knowledge your former job gave you?


----------



## AltaRed

^ is nothing but a partisan push to try and keep the story alive. Yes, Scheer should have disclosed dual citizenship a year or more ago, if for nothing else but to get ahead of the current story. Terrible error of judgement. It annoys me too. It would not be a subject of discussion now.

A story from the biased Red Star is nothing more than keeping the story alive. If Heather Mallick had done her homework, she'd know that US dual citizens* in Canada almost certainly don't end up paying any US taxes after getting the FTC for Canadian taxes paid. Since Scheer has never lived or worked in the USA before, why would he begin now, even if he left politics? Just another story bordering on the hysterical.

* Several members of my extended family are dual citizens and none of them appear to have a tax obligation to the USA after taking account of tax credits.


----------



## sags

True James.....it is up to the public to decide if Scheer's non-disclosure is important or not, the same as Trudeau's "blackface" incidents.

I suspect neither will be the main reasons people vote for the parties they do. In any voter to leader questions I have seen people ask questions directly relating to their personal situation.

That is what elections boil down to. Everyone votes for the party that gives them what they want........or at least pledges to do so.


----------



## humble_pie

nobody has noticed that elizabeth may also appears to hold US citizenship? may was born in hartford, connecticut, US of A in 1954 & appears to have never renounced american citizenship.

may moved to canada with her family at the age of 19. Already an adult. Became a canadian citizen in 1978 at the age of 24.

that's a fairly ripe yankee biography there. No point asking how ms. May is doing with the tax returns or the passport. But surely canadian voters have a right to know: Is ms May in process of renouncing her US citizenship? does she cross the border with an american passport or a canadian one?


----------



## james4beach

Good points humble_pie. To start with, I'd like clarity on whether or not she is a US citizen currently. After some googling, it sounds to me like she is still an American citizen.

Wow, we sure seem to have a lot of Americans in our federal parties.


----------



## humble_pie

james4beach said:


> Wow, we sure seem to have a lot of Americans in our federal parties.



we do indeed. Not just in federal political parties but everywhere in canadian life. On the whole it's a very fortunate & beneficial thing, imho. 

there are millions of americans married into canadian families. In the US itself there are vast populations of canadians living & working in every city & state. California is said to hold the highest proportion of canadian nationals as immigrants.

just yesterday we read of a canadian-born physicist now teaching at Yale (maybe it was princeton) who has won this year's Nobel prize in physics. 

as with trade, it's impossible to entirely separate the 2 nations.


----------



## kcowan

humble_pie said:


> just yesterday we read of a canadian-born physicist now teaching at Yale (maybe it was princeton) who has won this year's Nobel prize in physics.
> 
> as with trade, it's impossible to entirely separate the 2 nations.


It is instructive to note that famous Canadians who have obtained US citizenship are proud of their heritage, yet how many dual citizens in Canada crow about their roots?


----------



## AltaRed

james4beach said:


> Wow, we sure seem to have a lot of Americans in our federal parties.


We have a significant portion of dual citizens in Canada for many reasons, among them being marriage, dual citizenship of at least one parent, born in another country during an ex-pat assignment of parents, etc. Why would that 'condition' not be reflected in our elected officials, business leaders, regulators, etc? It really is just a matter of circumstance.

Anecdote: Just this past year, a few members of our extended family renounced their American citizenship. The Trump 'condition' was the nudge that finally caused them to undertake the process. It is a cumbersome and costly process to undertake and most people simply put it off, just like people put off making Wills, etc.


----------



## sags

Andrew Scheer was addressing news reports that his campaign paid for services of a company at which the director of his campaign is employed.

Scheer said the director took a leave of absence from the company for the campaign, but as reporters noted he will be returning to the company after the campaign ends.

Scheer says Elections Canada have approved of the situation. I expect reporters will follow up on the story with Elections Canada.


----------



## Eder

Another poll showing the Bloc making strides after the debate...

The pollster said that could translate into a Conservative minority government, with 152 seats for the Tories, 117 for the Liberals, 36 for the Bloc Québécois, 29 for the NDP and four for the Greens.

https://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/poll-predicts-conservative-minority


----------



## AltaRed

Individual polls are volatile and I wouldn't read any conclusions into them. Not surprising though to see the BQ gaining momentum. Bill 21 seems to be a galvanizing pivot point vis-a-vis perceptions of federal interference into its future.


----------



## Eder

I agree...polls can arrive at any desired conclusion. 
I did think Blanchet portrayed the type of person that would make a good respectable Prime Minister...too bad,like Marge,he is in the wrong party.


----------



## Eclectic12

james4beach said:


> Citizenships with other countries is also relevant for top positions like Prime Minister -- it's a big deal. It should have been disclosed to the public, and then it's up to the public to decide whether they think it's an issue or not. Scheer did not disclose it, and he should have ...


So where's the list of PM candidates and PM's with dual citizenship who disclosed they had dual citizenship?

The references I am finding are to the media bringing it up.





james4beach said:


> ... But what he's said about citizenship raises other questions as well ...


Seems rather trashy and irrelevant for the ones you've listed (I'm getting a paywall with little of the article visible beyond the first two sentences.)

Re: Actually paid taxes where part of gov't salary goes to the US.
It seems unlikely since most dual citizens I have talked to say that the Canadian income taxes are higher so that the US FTC wipes out any US taxes owing. The US filing is to get on record nothing is owing, as well as avoid penalties for flouting US law. (Again - how terrible for a potential PM to follow the law.)

As for complaining about no indication of whether US taxes are paid or not - isn't it a US political convention to release tax returns to discuss who paid what? 
The writer seems to want a US custom to be applied while at the same time, fretting about US influences. :rolleyes2:


Re: Would a different NAFTA re-negotiation be weaker because of "other country sympathy"?
Not sure why there would be sympathy for the US when negotiating from someone who seems to have spent little or no time in the US.


Re: Is the US citizenship hedging one's bet to enable a move to the US after politics?
There's lots I know who are keeping their US citizenship to make it easier to work in the US, if they decide to or the right opportunity comes along. If it were me, I wouldn't want the extra paperwork but I'm not seeing anything sinister and with the process to revoke started - it may become irrelevant anyway.

The US has been known to spy on Canada and the World so I'm not sure there would be as much as the writer seems to be worried about for Scheer to spill the beans on.


Cheers


----------



## AltaRed

The writer is just another Red Star partisan with intentional below the belt questions that have no value or substance. These kinds of things are simply meant to be distractions in the opposition's campaign.

Added: Heather Mallick has a history of sensationalist leftist writings, sometimes maliciously targeted, and occasionally getting her paper in 'hot water' needing to issue an apology.


----------



## Eclectic12

james4beach said:


> humble_pie said:
> 
> 
> 
> nobody has noticed that elizabeth may also appears to hold US citizenship?
> 
> 
> 
> Good points humble_pie ...
> After some googling, it sounds to me like she is still an American citizen ...
Click to expand...

If so, I don't recall any sort of an announcement she is a dual citizen. 
Are you going to denounce the lack of an announcement?




humble_pie said:


> ... does she cross the border with an american passport or a canadian one?


If she is a dual citizen then she is required to use a US passport to enter/leave the US.



> U.S. nationals, including dual nationals, must use a U.S. passport to enter and leave the United States.


https://travel.state.gov/content/tr...nality-Dual-Nationality/Dual-Nationality.html

Again ... I'm not sure what's so horrible about dual citizens obeying law, especially where there is no conflict.
I don't believe Canada has ever made an attempt to dictate what other countries accept for entry/exit of their own country.





james4beach said:


> ... Wow, we sure seem to have a lot of Americans in our federal parties.


Is it really a surprise when the two countries are so close together?

I was visiting relatives in California where the family path was UK then the UK thirteen colonies then shoved out as Empire Loyalists and due to no work, emigrations to become US naturalized citizens with future births getting US citizenship. One of my university profs was a US draft dodger who become a Canadian citizen.

There is lots of movement, creating lots of dual citizens on both sides of the border. One of the estimates in 2006 put about seven percent of the census population as American citizens.


Cheers


----------



## james4beach

AltaRed said:


> The writer is just another Red Star partisan with intentional below the belt questions that have no value or substance. These kinds of things are simply meant to be distractions in the opposition's campaign.


If you're referring to the Toronto Star, they are a reputable news source. Lots of value and substance.

Your position appears to be that anything other than right-biased media is garbage. Similar to your general position that _any opinion_ other than right or conservative-biased ones are garbage.


----------



## humble_pie

AltaRed said:


> Not surprising though to see the BQ gaining momentum. Bill 21 seems to be a galvanizing pivot point vis-a-vis perceptions of federal interference into its future.



oh dear. Is altaRed mistakenly thinking that Bill 21 is a Bloc-related initiative.

the bill is a child of the CAQ. The Coaliton is not the Bloc-related Parti Quebecois. They are not even frenemies.


----------



## AltaRed

James, you have to come to terms with yourself. I am equally against right wing columnists. The TO Star is known to almost everyone in Canada as the Red Star with its leftist views. I had almost 10 years of exposure to it when I lived and worked in TO in my 20's and 30s. Did not consider it all that credible then. They are as far left as the Sun chain is to the right. Your perception is colored by your leftist bias.

The only Cdn papers I consider mainstream are the G&M (slightly left) and the National Post (slightly right).

Added: I subscribe to neither the Globe nor the NP. I'd subscribe to the digital G&M if they cut their price by 50%. Instead, I subscribe to the NY Times at a fraction of the cost.


----------



## james4beach

AltaRed said:


> That is not true. I am equally against right wing columnists. The TO Star is known to almost everyone in Canada as the Red Star with its leftist views. I had almost 10 years of exposure to it when I lived and worked in TO in my 20's and 30s. Did not consider it all that credible then. They are as far left as the Sun chain is to the right. Your perception is colored by your leftist bias.


Incorrect, that is not a consensus opinion. They are only slighty left of center and well within centrist norms.



> The only Cdn papers I consider mainstream are the G&M (slightly left) and the National Post (slightly right).


The G&M is center or slightly right, and National Post is far right.

Your calibration is off.


----------



## sags

Scheer vows to stop immigration at the Roxham Road area.

He will wear a crossing guard outfit and hold up a "stop" sign..........in both official languages.


----------



## AltaRed

james4beach said:


> Incorrect, that is not a consensus opinion. They are only slighty left of center and well within centrist norms.
> 
> 
> 
> The G&M is slightly right, and National Post is far right.
> 
> Your calibration is off.



https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/toronto-star/ Centre - Centre Left

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toronto_Star Centre...to centre-left

Okay - the G&M is Centriist to slightly right https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-globe-and-mail/ and the NP is Centre-Right The NP is certainly not Far Right....your bias.


----------



## humble_pie

AltaRed said:


> The writer is just another Red Star partisan with intentional below the belt questions that have no value or substance. These kinds of things are simply meant to be distractions in the opposition's campaign.
> 
> Added: Heather Mallick has a history of sensationalist leftist writings, sometimes maliciously targeted, and occasionally getting her paper in 'hot water' needing to issue an apology.




lol are we having another instant breeze through the google headlines again? mallick was, by her own admission, a left-wing influencer but i believe it was all an entire decade ago .:biggrin:.

the toronto Star is not the Red Star, any more than altaRed is Ezra Levant. The Star is a distinguished media, one of the three crown jewels in the toronto media coronet. 

Star's owner Torstar does happen to be the majority owner of this forum though.


----------



## humble_pie

AltaRed said:


> James, you have to come to terms with yourself.


wochit jas4. One more candid remark & you going to be sent to your room w no supper.


----------



## james4beach

humble_pie said:


> wochit jas4. One more candid remark & you going to be sent to your room w no supper.


Heh. I don't really care that a conservative senior from Alberta thinks I am "too left wing". To him, most of Canada is too left wing.

AltaRed is also the first person I've ever encountered who constantly steps up to defend large corporate interests, to protect them from the horrible injustices and disadvantages they (apparently) always suffer from. I've asked myself if AltaRed is for real, or if he's someone playing with an online persona - like a cariacature.


----------



## Eder

AltaRed said:


> Added: I subscribe to neither the Globe nor the NP. I'd subscribe to the digital G&M if they cut their price by 50%. Instead, I subscribe to the NY Times at a fraction of the cost.


What you need to do is sign up for the $6.95/month special. Phone to cancel before the month is over ...tell them it costs more than its worth...they give yo $6.95/month rest of the year.


----------



## sags

Conservatives remind me of old Walter......


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> Conservatives remind me of old Walter......
> 
> View attachment 19726


Well that's a rather agist, racist and sexier stereotype. 
Of course you're the one who went to the hospital and had to comment on all the different races you saw working there. 


What is it like to be thinking about irrelevant things like people's genitals and skin colour all the time?


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

Amazing!









And do you know that is *exactly* how 
I imagined you would look sags!


----------



## james4beach

I'm kind of relieved to see people here are bickering over puppets. We should wake up thankful every day that we don't have the kinds of political problems the USA does.


----------



## AltaRed

james4beach said:


> Heh. I don't really care that a conservative senior from Alberta thinks I am "too left wing". To him, most of Canada is too left wing.
> 
> AltaRed is also the first person I've ever encountered who constantly steps up to defend large corporate interests, to protect them from the horrible injustices and disadvantages they (apparently) always suffer from. I've asked myself if AltaRed is for real, or if he's someone playing with an online persona - like a cariacature.


I am a strong believer that business in general, and in particular corporations of all sizes, are the ones taking the risk of capital investments on the presumption/assumption of a satisfactory return on investment over the longer term. They are primarily responsible for the standard of living we have by investing in the initial and ongoing capital to produce goods and services for which there is a demand, and they pay operating costs for labour, goods and services for everyone else to have a job and put food on the table. Without that investment, there would be no economy. It is a delicate balance between a profitable investment and leaving the country for greener pastures. The more attractive the opportunity, the more capital investment will be made.

I particularly like the Canadian balance rather than the rampant capitalism that exists in the USA because while I am a fiscal conservative, I am also a pragmatic social liberal. Every survey I've ever taken that tests these things has been consistently that way. But I also know we cannot have robust social policies if we cannot pay for them. Thus I will ALWAYS champion for successful business outcomes, so that I can collect rewards that comes from them, i.e. social benefits, infrastructure, and personal income (share capital appreciation and investment income). It is no more complicated than that.


----------



## james4beach

I agree that the Canadian brand of capitalism is more moderate, more sustainable and ultimately better for society than what's found in the US.


----------



## Eclectic12

bgc_fan said:


> The "no hearing" is a problem because, like I said, each case needs to be considered on its own basis ...


Agreed ... with laws already on the books for misrepresentations on immigration applications, I wonder why the Liberals felt the need to change who was subject to them and keep them.




bgc_fan said:


> ... Regarding Scheer being dual-citizen, again, the two issues are that American citizenship has quite a few obligations (I don't know if other citizenships have the same effect) ...


The Americans do like to be different. They are, after all one of I believe two nations that tax based on citizenship, not residency.

I'm not seeing what ... other than possibly being called up for the draft the might have influence on a PM's decisions. Regardless of the political systems, there's lot of mixing of people on both sides of the border.




bgc_fan said:


> ... the Conservatives had brought it up in the past while he was a member of the party. If it wasn't for the latter, it wouldn't be a big deal.


To me, this is the bigger issue than shouting it from the rooftops or being quiet about it - but some see it differently.




james4beach said:


> Citizenships with other countries is also relevant for top positions like Prime Minister -- it's a big deal. It should have been disclosed to the public, and then it's up to the public to decide whether they think it's an issue or not. Scheer did not disclose it, and he should have ...


If it's as big as you say - why hasn't Parliament or the parties made disclosures of dual citizenship a requirement?


Cheers


----------



## bgc_fan

Eclectic12 said:


> The Americans do like to be different. They are, after all one of I believe two nations that tax based on citizenship, not residency.
> 
> I'm not seeing what ... other than possibly being called up for the draft the might have influence on a PM's decisions. Regardless of the political systems, there's lot of mixing of people on both sides of the border.


Here's the government's list of rights and obligations: https://www.uscis.gov/citizenship/learners/citizenship-rights-and-responsibilities
Yeah, taxes and called up for draft are the ones already discussed. The only other one that would be interesting is being called for jury duty.


----------



## Eclectic12

If it's anything like the Canadian process - I doubt any lists Scheer or my co-workers wife/kids are on would be used. :biggrin:


Cheers


----------



## sags

The NDP set a list of conditions that would have to be met for them to support the Liberals in a minority government. They won't support the Conservatives.

Singh said that, while today's announcement isn't about a formal coalition, any such negotiation with another party would have to cover his six "urgent priorities":

1) A national, single-payer universal pharmacare plan and a national dental care plan.
2) Investments in housing.
3) A plan to waive interest on student loans.
4) A commitment to reduce emissions, to end subsidies for oil companies and to deliver aid to oilpatch workers to transition them out of fossil fuel industries.
5) The introduction of a "super wealth" tax and a commitment to closing tax loopholes.
6) Reducing cellphone bills.

He also said his party will continue to push for reconciliation and proportional representation.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

Nobody cares what Singh says or demands.


----------



## AltaRed

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> Nobody cares what Singh says or demands.


JT will care some about what Singh says in a minority Lib gov't but JT will stick handle the most egregious and ridiculous of NDP policy by soliciting the Conservative vote. That is how it has worked in the past in minority gov'ts. JT simply won't bring up legislation that neither the NDP or the Cons can support.... and that may make it a better than average Lib gov't. Seems pretty clear on 338canada.com that we are most likely looking at a Liberal minority.


----------



## sags

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> Nobody cares what Singh says or demands.[/QUOTE
> 
> I guess you don't know how minority governments work.
> 
> I doubt a Liberal/NDP government would care what the Conservatives want. They will be focused on implementing their own agendas.


----------



## james4beach

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...urprise-gain-in-september?srnd=premium-canada

Copy & pasting. In Trudeau's last few months of his term, Canada has now had the strongest year-to-date jobs addition since 2002. Wage growth is up strongly as well.


The economy added 53,700 jobs last month, Statistics Canada said Friday in Ottawa, following a gain of 81,100 in August. Canada has now added 358,100 since December, the most in the first nine months of a year since 2002.
. . .
“Canada’s labor market seems to have been vaccinated against the global economic flu going around,” Avery Shenfeld, chief economist at CIBC World Markets Inc., said in a note to investors.


----------



## sags

Trudeau and Morneau have done an excellent job of rebuilding the economy. Government spending in the right places has provided the fuel for a strong economy.

Also of note, government revenues have risen to the point that deficits could be erased if that were the priority. Right now, the government wants to keep the economy chugging along.

Now is not the time for Conservative spending cuts to programs and services. Scheer is supposed to announce his election platform today....just as advance polls will soon open.

Trudeau is right....good news isn't announced on the Friday before a holiday weekend. It will be interesting to see what "cuts" the Conservatives would make to "balance" the budget.


----------



## Emjay85

james4beach said:


> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...urprise-gain-in-september?srnd=premium-canada
> 
> Copy & pasting. In Trudeau's last few months of his term, Canada has now had the strongest year-to-date jobs addition since 2002. Wage growth is up strongly as well.
> 
> 
> The economy added 53,700 jobs last month, Statistics Canada said Friday in Ottawa, following a gain of 81,100 in August. Canada has now added 358,100 since December, the most in the first nine months of a year since 2002.
> . . .
> “Canada’s labor market seems to have been vaccinated against the global economic flu going around,” Avery Shenfeld, chief economist at CIBC World Markets Inc., said in a note to investors.





> The underlying details of the report were not as strong as the headline number. While the gains were all full-time, they were entirely public-sector positions and self-employed. Private sector jobs dropped by 21,000, with continued weakness in goods-producing industries.


 Sounds about right.....


----------



## Eder

I guess with that headline most people won't read the story lol.


----------



## james4beach

Thank goodness the Liberals strengthened public sector, as these are critical jobs that are benefitting the country. Trudeau has steadily built these areas back up, strengthening many services and departments.

The public sector offers many excellent jobs and it would be disastrous to elect Conservatives, who would slash the public sector just like Harper did.


----------



## AltaRed

But are those jobs actually productive, increasing GDP per capita as much as private industry? Where are they? Many public sector jobs are more of a burden than a benefit to GDP and that should be a worry. 

It should always be concerning in any economy when public sector jobs grow disproportionately relative to the private sector.


----------



## like_to_retire

james4beach said:


> Thank goodness the Liberals strengthened public sector, as these are critical jobs that are benefitting the country. Trudeau has steadily built these areas back up, strengthening many services and departments.
> 
> The public sector offers many excellent jobs and it would be disastrous to elect Conservatives, who would slash the public sector just like Harper did.



Oh my goodness James, I'm thinking perhaps you've never worked in the public sector. 

I was fortunate to work in the public sector for 22 of my 35 years before retirement. It's like winning the lottery.

Disregard that public sector unions protect even the bad employees, and that's it's pretty much impossible to fire anyone, if you had ever worked in the public sector, you would know that your statement is silly. The things I've seen would curl your toes. Please stop with your crazy talk.

ltr


----------



## james4beach

I have friends who work in the public sector and many seem to enjoy their jobs, probably a higher proportion who like their jobs than in the private sector.

The jobs give them income, build families, buy homes, and let them be contributing members of society. They are providing vital services that all of us need. I really don't see what the problem is.

In fact, after working in the US as a private contractor who partners with the government, I saw that really great work actually happens within the public sector. And yes, I worked with the Canadian government too. There are excellent parts of government out there, with dedicated people who really improve the country and society in general.

This part is US-centric I realize, but, I saw people in the US civil service who were more dedicated to helping society, and better long term thinkers than anything I have ever seen in private industry. What I see in the private sector are short term thinkers, executives obsessed with quarterly results (who can barely look 1 year out, let alone 10) and such high turnover than long term strategies are non existent. Plus, such extreme greed in the private sector that everyone only does whatever is in their own best interests with little regard for much else. And that includes executives and owners.

The US civil service is, in reality, far more effective and important than you'd believe by listening to all the right wing politicians who constantly bash government workers. I am assuming that the Canadian public service has similar characteristics to what I saw in the US. I don't see why it wouldn't.

Business people tend to not respect or appreciate government workers.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

A gain of 41,000 mostly full-time positions in Ontario. 
A big thank you owed to Doug Ford there eh!


----------



## like_to_retire

james4beach said:


> I have friends who work in the public sector and many seem to enjoy their jobs, probably a higher proportion who like their jobs than in the private sector.


Yeah, of course they do.............................

ltr


----------



## andrewf

james4beach said:


> I have friends who work in the public sector and many seem to enjoy their jobs, probably a higher proportion who like their jobs than in the private sector.
> 
> The jobs give them income, build families, buy homes, and let them be contributing members of society. They are providing vital services that all of us need. I really don't see what the problem is.
> 
> In fact, after working in the US as a private contractor who partners with the government, I saw that really great work actually happens within the public sector. And yes, I worked with the Canadian government too. There are excellent parts of government out there, with dedicated people who really improve the country and society in general.
> 
> This part is US-centric I realize, but, I saw people in the US civil service who were more dedicated to helping society, and better long term thinkers than anything I have ever seen in private industry. What I see in the private sector are short term thinkers, executives obsessed with quarterly results (who can barely look 1 year out, let alone 10) and such high turnover than long term strategies are non existent. Plus, such extreme greed in the private sector that everyone only does whatever is in their own best interests with little regard for much else. And that includes executives and owners.
> 
> The US civil service is, in reality, far more effective and important than you'd believe by listening to all the right wing politicians who constantly bash government workers. I am assuming that the Canadian public service has similar characteristics to what I saw in the US. I don't see why it wouldn't.
> 
> Business people tend to not respect or appreciate government workers.


I don't subscribe to the idea that we should give people jobs they 'deserve'/are entitled to. Government should be paying market rates and holding people accountable. Government jobs are not elaborate welfare programs. If you want to give people cash, do it explicitly.


----------



## Userkare

Why does my local Conservative MP office keep phoning and e-mailing me to go vote early? Is Andy going to reveal some platform item next week that I'll probably not like, or another party's going to promise to tax seniors at 0%? Sheesh, enough already; I'll vote when I vote.


----------



## andrewf

It's just GOTV. They want to lock in anyone who is likely to vote for them. 'Put it in the bank'.


----------



## sags

Userkare said:


> Why does my local Conservative MP office keep phoning and e-mailing me to go vote early? Is Andy going to reveal some platform item next week that I'll probably not like, or another party's going to promise to tax seniors at 0%? Sheesh, enough already; I'll vote when I vote.


Maybe they want people to vote before they can mull over how the proposed $53 billion in spending cuts by the Conservatives will affect them.

Announced late Friday afternoon just before a holiday weekend, reporters knew it wasn't going to be good news.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

*Liberals tied with Conservatives in seats*
_From a high of 166 seats in the national projection in the days following the French-language TVA debate, before the fallout from that contest was being registered in the polls, the Liberals have plummeted nearly 30 seats to 139. That puts them just two ahead of the Conservatives.
The close race in the national polls has now become a close race in the seat projections — meaning this election has become even more of a toss-up._

That red liberal line at the end of this graph has sure gone limp.


----------



## sags

A Liberal/NDP coalition government might be just what the doctor ordered. The NDP will push the Liberals in the right direction.......or should I say in the "left" direction.


----------



## james4beach

sags said:


> A Liberal/NDP coalition government might be just what the doctor ordered. The NDP will push the Liberals in the right direction.......or should I say in the "left" direction.


The conservative / corporate crowd on this board is so clueless about what is happening in society. As is the oil & gas crowd.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

Thanks for your profound and superior insight into our society. 

You are correct, anyone in Alberta or in the corporate world is not part of society and so by definition is clueless about what is happening. 

Now if this opinion was coming from an embittered 30 something whose educational and career choices had found them unemployed or bouncing around without a good job in a respected corporate setting I'd be dubious. But coming from an unbiased source, I am quick to agree.


----------



## james4beach

If you're unable to read the writing on the wall, that's not my fault.

If you only hang out in conservative corners of the internet, you're going to end up very disconnected from what most of Canada thinks & wants.


----------



## AltaRed

james4beach said:


> If you're unable to read the writing on the wall, that's not my fault.
> 
> If you only hang out in conservative corners of the internet, you're going to end up very disconnected from what most of Canada thinks & wants.


That is a pretty dumb comment. Polls show a tie between the Libs and Cons. Consider that you may be out of touch. Out here in BC, housing affordability is the key (and in many cases, the only) issue. The NDP is, as usual, devoid of ever having studied Econ101. The Libs don't need to be pushed around by the NDP. 

Each vote by the minority gov't will be designed to attract one, or the other, of the major opposition parties, even the Cons or Libs as the case may be! There will be no formal coalition.


----------



## james4beach

AltaRed, curious what % chance you think it will be a minority government.

Also, is there any betting market for Canadian political outcomes? In the US, they have the Iowa Electronic Markets which have been quite an interesting project.


----------



## AltaRed

At this point, probably 99% chance it will be a minority gov't, either Libs or Cons... Canada poll tracker has Libs at 139 seats I think and Cons at 137. I expect a minority gov't to work just like all those that preceded it. Support by one of the main opposition parties on a bill by bill basis. I suspect the Libs and Cons will support each other on the bulk of the bills through back room negotiating. The NDP nor BQ won't want another election quickly either.....so if one of the Libs or Cons simply cannot support a particular bill, the BQ or NDP will step up. 

Often the best legislation is one of compromise language and intent, and not the hard wired ideology of the gov't (whichever one it is).


Added: That all said though, a lot can still change in 10 days.


----------



## james4beach

I'm curious how all this goes. The Liberals and Conservatives are not too different in actual legislation. They just make a big show with all this pandering to different groups. There are some differences in underlying ideology, though, such as environmental positions.


----------



## AltaRed

james4beach said:


> I'm curious how all this goes. The Liberals and Conservatives are not too different in actual legislation. They just make a big show with all this pandering to different groups. There are some differences in underlying ideology, though, such as environmental positions.


That is why I say, with some tinkering and compromise on legislation in order to gain opposition support, the Libs and Cons can support most bills and leave the fringe parties as bridesmaids. Some items will never make it out of committee because the minority gov't will recognize when they don't have enough support. Environmentally, there may be things the Libs can count on NDP or BQ support on.. whereas if the Cons get in, there won't be a scrap of the carbon tax. 

But we are ahead of ourselves. A lot can still change in 10 days.


----------



## sags

The Sags Electionmeter still predicts a probable Liberal majority.

If the Liberals maintain the seats they already have they will form another majority government.

I just don't see where the Liberals are going to lose a bunch of ridings.


----------



## jargey3000

sags said:


> The Sags Electionmeter still predicts a probable Liberal majority.
> 
> If the Liberals maintain the seats they already have they will form another majority government.
> 
> I just don't see where the Liberals are going to lose a bunch of ridings.


....saggy, curious.....what's your meter reading for St. John's East?....:tongue:


----------



## sags

The Sags Electionmeter says the NDP and Liberals are locked in a Titanic struggle and the race is closer than 2 cod in a skillet.

It says this riding may be one the Liberals could lose. The rest of Atlantic Canada looks safe for the Liberals.


----------



## sags

Jargey........I am thinking people in the Atlantic Provinces may have lingering memories of how Harper screwed over seasonal workers collecting Employment Insurance.

If I recall correctly, that was one of the reasons for the Liberal sweep in the east. Do people still harken back to the days of darkness or is it......bygones be bygones ?


----------



## jargey3000

sags said:


> Jargey........I am thinking people in the Atlantic Provinces may have lingering memories of how Harper screwed over seasonal workers collecting Employment Insurance.
> 
> If I recall correctly, that was one of the reasons for the Liberal sweep in the east. Do people still harken back to the days of darkness or is it......bygones be bygones ?


...we have long memories for shi...er...stuff like that...
...provincially, most NLers are dyed in the wool Libs or PC s...

good call on SJE.... the yuppies / rubber booters in the downtown area put the ndp Harris in 2 or 3 times , but he got turfed out in the liberal tide last timr. hes taking another stab at it & i wouldnt be surprised at all if he goes back in.

Danny's old chant "ABC" -anything but conservatives -still resonates with some...


----------



## AltaRed

IIRC, Danny Williams ABC campaign was mostly about considering, or not, NF's oil resources in the equalization formula. DW, of course, should stand up for his province but there was no provincial support to exclude energy resources (except hydro in Quebec) from the equalization formula. Thus, NF, like AB, was going to have to pay into the equalization pool. I think the mistake was that Harper floated that pre-election 2005? but then could not get any agreement from the likes of 'recipient' provinces for that exclusion. Objectively, I think fault resided on both sides but it will likely never be remembered that way.

I don't know anything about Atlantic EI adjustments (or not) but one has to wonder why EI rules should be regionally based. It is a federal program after all.


----------



## bgc_fan

AltaRed said:


> IIRC, Danny Williams ABC campaign was mostly about considering, or not, NF's oil resources in the equalization formula. DW, of course, should stand up for his province but there was no provincial support to exclude energy resources (except hydro in Quebec) from the equalization formula. Thus, NF, like AB, was going to have to pay into the equalization pool. I think the mistake was that Harper floated that pre-election 2005? but then could not get any agreement from the likes of 'recipient' provinces for that exclusion. Objectively, I think fault resided on both sides but it will likely never be remembered that way.


To be clear, the equalization formula is skewed when it comes to hydro revenues, and Manitoba is also a beneficiary of this. It is something that probably should be looked at, but never was.

Regarding oil revenues, I though it was decided only 50% was going to be counted for equalization calculations and then Alberta wanted the same thing. To be honest, I don't recall what came of the discussions. I do recall a Rick Mercer bit where he discussed it and (at the time), it would have resulted that only Ontario would have not be benefiting from equalization payments, as only Alberta and Ontario weren't receiving any in 2005.


----------



## AltaRed

I am not aware of the detailed specifics. My post was more about what I thought was the root of the Williams - Harper spat and from what I recall, perhaps an unreasonable position on Danny's part given the formula that was already in place. Some ~15 years later, it should all be water under the bridge at this point.


----------



## Eder

JT was wearing a bullet proof vest tonite in Mississauga...I guess he heard some guys from Calgary were attending his rally?
To his credit he still went out there.


----------



## AltaRed

We'll never know what the 'credible' threat was, or whether there was an abundance of caution. Sad when there are 'credible' threats to a public figure's safety.

Added: CBC said something to the effect that in recent weeks, the RCMP has indicated there has been an increasing level of 'anger' being vocalized on social media against some? all? of the party leaders.


----------



## james4beach

Eder said:


> JT was wearing a bullet proof vest tonite in Mississauga...I guess he heard some guys from Calgary were attending his rally?


That's a rather flippant remark about potential violence.

Yes the media had reported that RCMP had stepped up social media monitoring due to more threats of violence.

I think it's a wise precaution. The reckless, sensationalist material being put out in the corners on the web (and frankly by these outlets like Rebel and even some opposing politicians) is inflaming emotions and mobilizing emotionally disturbed individuals. Personally I do not believe that these violent themes come out naturally and unprovoked out of people.

Instead I think it's deliberately fueled by inflammatory rhetoric and political manipulation of the public. It's one of the oldest tricks in politics but unfortunately I think it's going to a new level with the modern internet. I have written for a long time how I fear that political violence will occur in Canada, mirroring current trends in the US & Europe.

For example, I have been watching one very inflammatory tabloid web site. On their main page, you will see a scary story about Sharia law coming to Canada (the story blames Liberals), a story about Trudeau welcoming crimes committed by immigrants, and various stories making Trudeau look like a villain. The same media group has also been propagating a fictitious story about a Trudeau sex scandal. One of their "reporters" is a mentally ill man with a failed political career who now writes conspiracy theories for a living.

IMO that's the kind of right wing extremist material that fuels intense anger and motivates people to commit acts of violence.

I would not at all be surprised if we get a shooter, a mentally unbalanced man who absorbs enough of this, until he's radicalized to the point of violence.

*Facebook Tip*

If you notice someone in your circles starting to really go off the rails with crazy rants about foreigners/muslims/Trudeau along with wording about how he is going to do something or he's going to take action, you should pick up the phone and report it to the RCMP. Especially if the person also shows an interest in guns or weapons. There have now been a series of attackers in multiple countries who fit this pattern, and many people have died as a result (about 75 people killed in this style of attack over the last 2-3 years). You could save lives by reporting it.

Attackers fitting this profile have been males ranging from age 27 to age 52 so don't dismiss someone's insane ramblings if they are older.

To clarify: casual interest in weapons or hunting is normal. Complaining about a politician is normal. But expressing constant anger + calling a politician an enemy/traitor + interest in weapons or violence is abnormal and dangerous.


----------



## sags

The Sags Electionmeter is making a bold prediction.

Neither the Green or PPC will win a majority government.


----------



## humble_pie

james4beach said:


> I would not at all be surprised if we get a shooter, a mentally unbalanced man who absorbs enough of this, until he's radicalized to the point of violence



we already have them in canada. Bibeau, Bissonette, Minassian, they all came from the internet. 

it's a grey zone where rage shades into violence shades into terrorism. The above 3 all killed deliberately & self-righteously in the name of some unspeakable political movement, which they had joined via the internet. All 3 left social media traces which police later found.


----------



## AltaRed

james4beach said:


> IMO that's the kind of [...] extremist material *from both ends of the spectrum* that fuels intense anger and motivates people to commit acts of violence.


I fixed this statement for you to provide more balanced objectivity.


----------



## humble_pie

sags said:


> The Sags Electionmeter is making a bold prediction.
> 
> Neither the Green or PPC will win a majority government.



there's not much to be grateful for about this election even though tomorrow is the official day for giving thanks

one thing to appreciate this election though are the minority parties. They are speaking up. They are talking about the issues canadians are interested in. Three out of the four are speaking directly from the heart while the 4th - bernier - is sincere enough whenever he manages to stop interrupting.

meanwhile the 2 leaders drone on & on with their pablum. A few $$ for every taxpayer.


----------



## humble_pie

AltaRed said:


> I fixed this statement for you to provide more balanced objectivity.



gosh, is altaRed making a critical slip there?

the statement that was "fixed" after a moderator complained came from cmf member Eder.

how did altaRed come to be editing Eder's post?


----------



## Eder

Who are the guys in the back packs? Not RCMP.

Oh...This is Alta Red editing my post again lol.


update...news that the security force was JTF2 Canada's NATO Gladio.Scary stuff! Surprised the event wasn't cancelled if these guys were needed...I'm sure all attending the event are happy they didn't get in the line of fire.


----------



## Prairie Guy

Trudeau was told he can't dress up anymore so he got some of his friends to dress up instead? And what's in the backpacks?

At this point it wouldn't surprise me if the whole thing was faked to elicit sympathy.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

Prairie Guy said:


> ... At this point it wouldn't surprise me if the whole thing was faked to elicit sympathy.


I don't believe they would have faked a threat and brought in the heavy security without a bonafide reason (in spite of Trudeau's poor past judgement and drama background).

But it is interesting that "_Senior Liberal sources tell CBC, Justin Trudeau was wearing a bullet proof vest on stage for tonight’s rally, after a security threat_".
IOW, the liberals were quick to proactively point out that he wore a vest (but no other details of course) knowing it would garner lots of press coverage and help change the channel on their declining prospects. Any other party would probably do the same though.


----------



## AltaRed

Eder said:


> Oh...This is Alta Red editing my post again lol.


I edited what? I did a 'fix' on J4b's post #817....????


----------



## humble_pie

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> I don't believe they would have faked a threat and brought in the heavy security without a bonafide reason (in spite of Trudeau's poor past judgement and drama background).
> 
> But it is interesting that "_Senior Liberal sources tell CBC, Justin Trudeau was wearing a bullet proof vest on stage for tonight’s rally, after a security threat_".
> IOW, the liberals were quick to proactively point out that he wore a vest (but no other details of course) knowing it would garner lots of press coverage and help change the channel on their declining prospects. Any other party would probably do the same though.




Sophie had been scheduled to speak at that event but evidently the threat was serious enough that they had to remove Sophie from the venue.

for most of this year, Sophie & the trudeau children have been deliberately kept out of the news for security reasons. I mentioned this fact recently since i don't believe such a thing has ever happened in canadian history, that a prime minister's young children & their mother have been at such risk.

i continue to think this is a shameful circumstance & i continue to regard the abusers in this forum who post blind hatred for trudeau, rage against eastern canada & fury against the few remaining cmffers who dare to disagree with their opinions as troubling.


----------



## james4beach

AltaRed said:


> I fixed this statement for you to provide more balanced objectivity.


I know you feel the need to even it out (a natural inclination), but the political violence in western countries resulting in death has overwhelmingly been on the right wing / anti-immigration side in the last couple years. The number of violent incidents has not been "balanced", as you and Eder insist.

And I still can't tell where you get this idea that those threats are anywhere near comparable levels. There aren't any "pro-immigration" leftists running around killing anyone or any "anti-conservative" leftists running around killing anyone.

The right wing extremists are the people racking up the body count in the last 2 years. Close to 75 killed by my count. Have left wing extremists killed _anyone_ at all? To any rational person, that indicates that we need to dedicate more attention and resources to stopping far right violence.

IMO it's been a blind spot of security services and intelligence agencies. For example, though they raided the home of an armed neo-nazi in Manitoba a few weeks ago, he immediately slipped by the police and is now missing. They didn't arrest or even detain him, and now he's gone.


----------



## Prairie Guy

james4beach said:


> I know you feel the need to even it out (a natural inclination), but the political violence in western countries resulting in death has overwhelmingly been on the right wing / anti-immigration side in the last couple years. The number of violent incidents has not been "balanced", as you and Eder insist.


You keep repeating that same old falsehood. The only overwhelming difference is with lack of media coverage of leftist violence.


----------



## AltaRed

You will have to enlighten me about 75 deaths by right wing extremists in Canada. 

As to left wing extremism, we had a party leader arrested in Burnaby some time ago and a number of protestors destroying private property along pipeline right of way on 2 pipeline projects resulting in a number of arrests.

There is plenty of violence to go around from both extremes.


----------



## james4beach

Prairie Guy said:


> You keep repeating that same old falsehood. The only overwhelming difference is with lack of media coverage of leftist violence.


Absolute lie. You're way out of touch with reality PG.


----------



## james4beach

AltaRed said:


> You will have to enlighten me about 75 deaths by right wing extremists in Canada.


I didn't say Canada. I said in political/ideological violence across western countries in the last 2-3 years. Canada, New Zealand, UK, Germany, US.

- Quebec City massacre
- Christchurch massacre
- UK political assassination of MP
- German political assassination (very recent)
- black church massacre at Charleston
- Pittsburgh synagogue bombing
- Poway synagogue shooting (very recent)
- and of course, the 2 men stabbed on my commuter train in Portland

I'm pretty sure this adds up to over 75 killed. Closer to 90 perhaps.

*Has anyone been killed by any far left (liberal) extremist? How many are dead?*



> As to left wing extremism, we had a party leader arrested in Burnaby some time ago and a number of protestors destroying private property along pipeline... There is plenty of violence to go around from both extremes.


False equivalency. I'm listing massacres and assassinations of government officials, and you're listing protest nuisances and property damage.

Show me the deaths compared to that ~ 75 by right wing extremists. You can't seriously think that property damage has anywhere close to the severity of those massacres.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

humble_pie said:


> ... i continue to think this is a shameful circumstance & i continue to regard the abusers in this forum who post blind hatred for trudeau, rage against eastern canada & fury against the few remaining cmffers who dare to disagree with their opinions as troubling.


This is your response to my post?

Since you are replying directly to my post, we can confidently assume that you are referring to me as an 'abuser in this forum'.

What you characterize as blind hatred against Trudeau, I characterize as having the opinion that he is priviliged, narcissitic, hypocritical individual lacking the judgment necessary to be a competent PM. Apparently I'm not supposed to express that however.

What you characterize as rage against eastern Canada, I call a gross generalization that is simply incorrect. Not surprising since you know very little about me.

What you characterize as fury against cmf members who disagree, I call a reference to an individual who has never contributed to this financial forum, and who - by generally accepted definition - is simply a troll.

I will now however take my permanent leave from CMF so that you and others of such shared opinion can enjoy yourselves unchallenged.

Oh, and have a nice Thanksgiving weekend.


----------



## Eder

AltaRed said:


> I edited what? I did a 'fix' on J4b's post #817....????


I was joking...alluding to our resident psychotic's allegation above lol.



Anyway I would support some kind of tax increase to allow our finest to buy better back packs...my grandkid wears the same kind as in the picture I think.


----------



## humble_pie

AltaRed said:


> You will have to enlighten me about 75 deaths by right wing extremists in Canada.
> 
> As to left wing extremism, we had a party leader arrested in Burnaby some time ago and a number of protestors destroying private property along pipeline right of way on 2 pipeline projects resulting in a number of arrests.
> 
> There is plenty of violence to go around from both extremes.



my takeaway was that jas4 was referring to 75 deaths from rightwing extremists, worldwide

as for "left wing extremism," what you're describing is run-of-the-mill local BC opposition to TMP II & it is precisely why voters with a naiive believe that the Cons under andrew scheer will be able to get that pipeline built like yesterday are contradicting themselves.

nobody, not even scheer, is going to build that pipeline behind a fortified electrified fence, with the army standing guard all along the route in perpetuity to prevent sabotage.

either canadians come together with a national consensus to built TMP II - thus neutralizing the opposition - or the pipeline won't get built at all. The national consensus is what the liberals have been building, one indigenous community at a time.


----------



## james4beach

Eder said:


> I was joking...alluding to our resident psychotic's allegation above lol.


Eder you are actually one of the more psychotic individuals on this board, given how often you have poked fun at violent incidents.

It takes a certain level of ideological delusion (common among MAGA folks by the way) to be so blind to the incredible violence being carried out by far right extremists. You have also made significant efforts to distract from any of these incidents.

It's also very suspicious that you take such offence to when I raise the history of right wing violence and murders. Always acting as the apologist, always making light of the murders.

Why is that?


----------



## humble_pie

Eder said:


> I was joking...alluding to our resident psychotic's allegation above



jas4's link abovethread goes from altaRed's fix straight to *your* ugly calgary threat, so ask jas4 why he linked the 2


----------



## humble_pie

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> I will now however take my permanent leave from CMF


each: how many times have you formally taken permanent leave from cmf forum in the past though


----------



## AltaRed

James, I really only care about Canada, so I don't care what you want to post about International stuff. Your post above is just noise to me. I think the USA is a very dysfunctional and scary place, and on par, absent armed militia, with some of the other strongmen countries of the world. If you want to use the USA as the primary basis for the basing and formulation of your views, that is something you have to deal with yourself. It skews your posts.

But if you want to talk about the broader global community, populism is on the rise along with centrist and centre-right governments because the socialists and leftists f*cked them up. Citizens of these countries have gotten fed up with the left and are voting in centrist, and centre-right gov'ts. It's a trend that is working in some places, but is indeed a bit scary in places like Turkey, Philippines and Brazil. And yet when I spend considerable time with my DIL who has Brazilian citizenship, it is clear the prior socialist government was going to make Brazil another IMF bailout and someone had to come in to knock heads. It's an unstoppable trend globally so just maybe weeping liberals need to sort out what they are doing wrong. Just maybe, political correctness has gotten so far out of line that extremists both right and left get offended at the slightest slight. A country that I think has got it about right is Australia. I'd sue like to see Canada follow suit.

Getting back to Canada, it is my view that the left has been far more disruptive than the right. There is a lot of rhetoric out of the right, but little violence and disruptive behaviour that we see coming from the left. Protests, property destruction and civil disobedience over sometimes the most benign things. It is time to take a no nonsense attitude and do what is right for the country as a whole rather than catering to whining special interest groups.


----------



## Eder

Ahh...I get it. I have James on ignore so had to click "view post". Btw it was you I was calling psychotic as I read *"how did altaRed come to be editing Eder's post?"*


----------



## humble_pie

james4beach said:


> Absolute lie. You're way out of touch with reality PG.



this is so repetitive that it has become a bore. Prairie is also cmf member tygrus. It looks like he was permanentlly banned bass player as well. All he does in cmf forum is foment hatred under each of these usernames. He doesn't have a word to say in finance.

aren't there rules against multiple IDs in cmf forum?

jas4 u were too slow with nellie/big kahuna. I remember posting as soon as kahuna started hollering her alt-right BS that she was nellie the worshipper of donald trump from the 2016 election chronicles. For that matter she appeared at the exact same 2016 moment as bass player & soon the alt-right duo came to be known as the 2 ess aitch eye tee posters.

but you let nellie/big kahna rant on for months & years.

PS you yourself might not have been on cmf forum long enough to remember the forum's all-time champion multiple ID winner. He had 4 usernames. A psycho in toronto who variously called himself newbie, thenegotiator, moneyisfornothing & syllyconvalley.

it was challenging for Canadian Capitalist because newbie et al kept changing his IP addy. But eventually CC was able to turn him off.


----------



## humble_pie

AltaRed said:


> Protests, property destruction and civil disobedience over sometimes the most benign things. It is time to take a no nonsense attitude and do what is right for the country as a whole rather than catering to whining special interest groups.



me i think it's time for altaRed to go talk to his BC neighbours about quitting their opposition to TMP II

we can leave the indigenous communities up to federal liberals, they're making headway in neutralizing opposition 

but rank & file big-G & small-g greens in BC are adamant about No Pipe. Y'll saw elizabeth may these past 2 debates. It's they who have to be won over. Why doesn't BC resident altaRed get involved with them instead of cursing ottawa, quebec & eastern canada for the umpteenth time?

the whole of canada paid to buy TMP II as a gift to alberta. We'll gladly pay to build the expanded pipeline. It's pugilistic me-first me-only pro-albertans with logs on their shoulders who are causing all the trouble imho.


----------



## Topo

Over the years, I have rarely (if ever) come across an election where the stakes were high (at least from my perspective). Taxes go up a bit, or down a bit. Immigration goes up a tad or down a tad. It's hard to tell if the economy does better under which party, etc.

It seems to largely come down to personality preferences or ideological principles.

It's nice entertainment to watch though. Same goes for the US election, which is often more bare knuckle.


----------



## kcowan

humble_pie said:


> the whole of canada paid to buy TMP II as a gift to alberta. We'll gladly pay to build the expanded pipeline. It's pugilistic me-first me-only pro-albertans with logs on their shoulders who are causing all the trouble imho.


You are so out of line, that you are not worthy of a response! It was a calculated move by Morneau that has backfired in his face.


----------



## humble_pie

kcowan said:


> You are so out of line, that you are not worthy of a response! It was a calculated move by Morneau that has backfired in his face.



won't you kindly stop passing out repulsive personal insults & twisted fake histories to parties who question the angry western oil lobby. It was not any calculated move by any canadian politician.

kinder morgan announced that they were selling transMountain. They gave many months notice. There were no buyers. They extended their notice & repeated that they needed to sell to satisfy their shareholders. There were still no buyers.

finally, to save jobs & to help the oil industry in western canada, in the face of grave criticism that their action was rash, the Liberal government generously rescued transMountain from certain death. The project became a high-risk gamble, that trudeau could steer through approval & construction of the expanded pipeline. In the meantime, it's the taxpayers of entire canada who are paying for the pipeline. AFAIK we are very happy to do this.

why don't you address your efforts to your fellow residents & neighbours in BC. Get them to accept the pipeline & it's done. Ottawa is more than ready with construction at the edmonton end.

it's time for you & others to stop with the peevish, ill-tempered insults against parties like myself who have done nothing but support transMountain II from Day One. IIRC i was onto pipelines for alberta dilbit while you were merely cranking up your bile register.


----------



## kcowan

We will see next week how bad the decision was politically.


----------



## Eder

So was there any enlightenment on the nature of the threat to JT? Apparently Butts phoned it in to police? Many people seem outraged that the lives of attending people were apparently unworthy of protection. Seems threat is over as our Prime Minister is again prancing vest free and most media is strangely quiet about this. I would have thought a real threat would be treated more seriously and perpetrator brought to justice.


----------



## sags

A message in my soup from the spirit world.........


----------



## jargey3000

sags said:


> A message in my soup from the spirit world.........
> 
> View attachment 19744


...you need to buy a new soup bowl saggy....&#55356;&#57210;


----------



## james4beach

Scheer recently said: "only a Conservative majority government can prevent a government with Justin Trudeau as the spokesman but the NDP calling the shots."

That actually sounds pretty good to me. Bring it on! By the way, the NDP wants to raise the capital gains tax (inclusion rate). Wouldn't that be interesting tho!

I bet Andy is regretting not coming up with dirty attacks on Singh. All this time spent whipping up anger at Trudeau, and Hamish & the party forgot to beat up on Singh!


----------



## AltaRed

Best tactic is for Singh and JT to slug that out.


----------



## Topo

james4beach said:


> ...the NDP wants to raise the capital gains tax (inclusion rate). Wouldn't that be interesting tho!


It would not. Seriously.


----------



## Eder

Oops...after being excited about Sheer being a dual citizen it seems strange that the JT and the Libs are beneficiary of a New York City election fundraiser. What a joke.

https://www.blacklocks.ca/had-private-nyc-fundraiser/


----------



## james4beach

Obama has said nice things about Trudeau. Remember that Trump also has a good working relationship with Trudeau. On the global stage, Canada has been able to maintain a good relationship with the US, and I absolutely do credit Trudeau and his team with managing this relationship well. It's one of their biggest successes along with the tremendously strong economic results.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...eau-ahead-of-closely-fought-canadian-election



> “I was proud to work with Justin Trudeau as President. He’s a hard-working, effective leader who takes on big issues like climate change,” Obama tweeted on Wednesday. “The world needs his progressive leadership now, and I hope our neighbors to the north support him for another term.”


Wow!


----------



## sags

Trudeau is widely acknowledged by world leaders as a great leader for Canada. We were indeed lucky to have JT rescue us from the dark depths of Harperism.

Now voters have to make sure we don't backslide into the gurgling stew of Conservative rancor and ineptitude.

Always vigilant. Always on guard.........always forward.


----------



## MrMatt

james4beach said:


> Obama has said nice things about Trudeau. Remember that Trump also has a good working relationship with Trudeau. On the global stage, Canada has been able to maintain a good relationship with the US, and I absolutely do credit Trudeau and his team with managing this relationship well. It's one of their biggest successes along with the tremendously strong economic results.
> 
> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...eau-ahead-of-closely-fought-canadian-election
> 
> 
> 
> Wow!


You mean like ministers going to anti-Trump events during NAFTA negotiations?
They're not even pretending to cultivate the relationship with Trump.

That being said, Canada has very deep relationships throughout the US irrespective of political party.
But Trudeau-Trump has been bad,


----------



## sags

Trump is loony tunes and soon all will be revealed on how nuts and evil he actually is.

Rudy Guiliani has been under investigation since last year. There are several investigations on him and his connections to foreign governments.

One report says that Guiliani is suspected of being a foreign agent with direct access to the White House. Aiding and abetting a foreign country against the US is treason.

Guiliani is going to spill the beans trying to save his own butt. Both Trump and Guiliani will be able to make google eyes at Manafort in prison soon.

It was a good thing that Trudeau set Trump in his place.


----------



## james4beach

I was in the US for the last few years. Not only that, but I worked with US government people, and quite a few US military people as well including conservative military people.

I can tell you that the perception in the US was that Trudeau has been a solid neighbour and friend, and quite cooperative with the US. Working well with Trump. Working well with US states, which is just as important.

You have to take this in context of all the other countries, and many relationships going horribly wrong. In the US, there is a *very* positive perception of Trudeau and the resulting Canada/US relationship.

Trudeau has handled the relationship with Trump very well. Didn't suck up to him, but also didn't get in any serious fights with him. If you think there was some conflict... oh man, it was nothing compared to the trouble brewing between Trump and other world leaders. Trump has stated something to effect that it's always a big relief, a comfortable time with Trudeau.

Looking from a distance, at the time, gave me a certain perspective on this. Trudeau has been an excellent representative of Canada and it's come off very well, just about everywhere else in the world. During NAFTA and trade negotiations, Canadians were seen as well intentioned friends and allies, not foes.

Of course our long history plays into this but getting along well with Trump is not a "given". And remember, Trudeau got along well with Obama too. He is a professional statesman. This is what you want a Prime Minister to be.

For anyone who values Canada's position in the world, the combination of good relationships with Obama and Trump, diversification of our global trade (which is new under Trudeau), plus the fact we really are one of the global leaders in policy on climate change should seal the deal...

This is what I want, anyway. And don't forget that RT, the Russian state, and related outlets (ZH) are running anti Trudeau propaganda that mirrors the attacks from the domestic right wing. Think carefully about what that indicates.


----------



## Danny

*election*

Let me start by saying I really don't care who wins the election as long as its liberals or conservatives. The other choices scare me. I must say its quite amusing reading thru these posts. My God people wander how humans can be lead into a cult. Just read these posts :On all sides".. Just a fee thoughts that went thru my head tonight. Obama comes out and says Trudeau is a great guy, very professional, well liked (this is not election meddling by a foreign power.... If Trump was to come out tomorrow and say Trudeau was not a good guy and was a bad negotiator, this would be election meddling.. I always loved the saying "An idol mind is a playground for the media" Everyone stand up and follow your leader now as everything they say is 100% correct and has to be defended to the end. Until they get replaced then you can say that you did not really like him... )


----------



## humble_pie

Danny said:


> Let me start by saying I really don't care who wins the election as long as its liberals or conservatives. The other choices scare me. I must say its quite amusing reading thru these posts. My God people wander how humans can be lead into a cult. Just read these posts :On all sides".. Just a fee thoughts that went thru my head tonight. Obama comes out and says Trudeau is a great guy, very professional, well liked (this is not election meddling by a foreign power.... If Trump was to come out tomorrow and say Trudeau was not a good guy and was a bad negotiator, this would be election meddling.. I always loved the saying "An idol mind is a playground for the media" Everyone stand up and follow your leader now as everything they say is 100% correct and has to be defended to the end. Until they get replaced then you can say that you did not really like him... )



yea u are so correct, idol minds have fee thoughts


----------



## sags

Stories online are that President Trump called the Italian President ....President Mozzarella and said Italy and the US have been close allies since ancient Rome.

And some people are worried about PM Trudeau's image on the world stage ............LOL.


----------



## sags

What happens if Andrew Scheer becomes the PM and travels to Washington to meet Trump ?

How does Trump introduce him..........Welcome to Prime Minister Scheer, a great American who is doing a terrific job for Canadians ?


----------



## sags

The Editor in Chief Emeritus of Bloomberg News penned this glowing article about how well Justin Trudeau has managed the Canadian economy.

_The Canadian election on Monday may be too close to call. But no one can say Canada hasn't changed for the better in the past four years._

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-canada-s-economy-humming?srnd=premium-canada

Canadians should remember the old adage........_.if it ain't broke don't fix it._


----------



## bgc_fan

sags said:


> Stories online are that President Trump called the Italian President ....President Mozzarella and said Italy and the US have been close allies since ancient Rome.
> 
> And some people are worried about PM Trudeau's image on the world stage ............LOL.


You really shouldn't be spreading untrue things like this. Trump does enough questionable things that you don't need to propagate fake stories.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-italy-mozzarella-president/


----------



## Danny

Sags you sound like you would be a great candidate for a cult.Just curious what you do for a living.. Are you a government worker? Not being sarcastic just curious on your career.


----------



## Ag Driver

Deleted.


----------



## AltaRed

It is my understanding Sags spends his time as a retired autoworker in his condo/townhouse on a keyboard lobbing as much crap at the wall as time permits.


----------



## bgc_fan

Ag Driver said:


> What about Jagmeet Singh? His mother is Indian. His father is Indian. His wife is Indian. His wife has a business in India. In early childhood he was RAISED in India by a grandparent. He went to school in America.
> 
> He is more Indian than Sheer is American. But you don't have anything to say about that?


It seems a little odd to talk about Singh, considering that he doesn't hold Indian citizenship and in fact was denied a visa for entry into India due to his political views. He was only with his grandparents for 1 year, that hardly counts as raising.

OTOH Scheer's sisters are living in America, so maybe he has more closer ties to America than Singh does to India? 

Mind you, this whole American thing is being a bit blown out of proportion but Scheer isn't doing himself any favours by refusing to answer how he travels to the States without a valid US passport.


----------



## james4beach

Ag Driver said:


> What about Jagmeet Singh? His mother is Indian . . . He is more Indian than Sheer is American. But you don't have anything to say about that?


Incorrect. As far as we know, Jagmeet is only a Canadian citizen. He is not a citizen of India.

Andrew Scheer, on the other hand, is an American citizen.


----------



## james4beach

The economy isn't everything, but for those who do care about economic results: the Canadian economy has been performing spectacularly well under Trudeau. The economy has diversified into other sectors, so we're no longer a petro nation (nor is the loonie a petro dollar any more).

Canada has stronger economic metrics than just about all other developed nations, except for the USA. But you wouldn't know it reading posts from the right wing partisans on this board.


----------



## Ag Driver

Deleted.


----------



## james4beach

Ag Driver said:


> James. I did not state that. Do not put words in my mouth. Those were all facts. I was contrasting how outrageous it is to give one single care about Sheers PARENTS choice to follow a formality to get a perk for their kid but Jagmeets parents did not. It is not a care or concern for either party to me. But this is a crisis for team Red!
> 
> It is apparent that if it doesn't fit the Liberal agenda and can be used as perceived leverage/an attack... then all hands on deck!
> 
> Liberals claim to be pro multiculturalism, immigration, diversity, inclusion, LGBQTR-LMNOP ... Until it doesn't suite their agenda. Hippocrates. Give it a rest. Pro immigration...but don't ever put them in charge even though they're a born natural citizen.


I'm not following your logic. I didn't put words in your mouth, I quoted directly from your post.

The issue, as I understand it, is that Scheer failed to be transparent about his citizenship and this has raised a number of follow-on questions. I don't think people are criticizing his parents or the specific citizenship. The issue is that he's not being transparent and open.

Jagmeet does not have Indian citizenship. I really don't know what point you're making. The fact he had cultural ties to India is completely irrelevant regarding citizenship and he never concealed anything.

Ag Driver, you're all over the place and you're not making much sense with your strange rant about hippocrates.


----------



## Ag Driver

Deleted


----------



## james4beach

What time he wakes up has no relevance to international relations, negotiations, and having obligations to a foreign government. His citizenship does have relevance... including to loyalty.


----------



## sags

The Bloomberg editorial on Trudeau's economic accomplishments was very interesting, especially as it is a pro-business website.

The article listed in detail the many metrics that show Canada is in much better economic shape than it was when Trudeau took office and is among the strongest in the world.

Andrew Scheer should step up and tell Canadians which services and programs he will cut to eliminate $53 billion in spending.


----------



## Retired Peasant

AltaRed said:


> It is my understanding Sags spends his time as a retired autoworker/*local union president* in his condo/townhouse on a keyboard lobbing as much crap at the wall as time permits.


FTFY


----------



## Eclectic12

james4beach said:


> ... I don't think people are criticizing his parents or the specific citizenship. The issue is that he's not being transparent and open ...





james4beach said:


> ... His citizenship does have relevance ... including to loyalty.


Gee ... the statement is that no one is criticizing the specific citizenship. 

Yet several times, you've complained that the US citizenship is still held, that the obligations to the USA are more stringent than most nations and talked about loyalty to the US, whether intentional or not. AFAICT you *are criticizing* the US citizenship, contrary to your claim.


If it's really only about being transparent and open ... why so little talk about that with so much more criticism of having it and guessing about loyalty?


Cheers


*PS*
Is it because you don't think May has a chance at being PM that you are interested in knowing about her potential dual citizenship but aren't all that worked up about it?


----------



## Userkare

bgc_fan said:


> Mind you, this whole American thing is being a bit blown out of proportion but Scheer isn't doing himself any favours by refusing to answer how he travels to the States without a valid US passport.


I don't know if Sheer has a US passport or not. It's probably one of those uninforced rules that Sheer would probably comply with because he's very ethical. Let's hold that against him?

From personal experience, I have crosssed the border many times with a Canadian passport clearly showing place of birth as USA. I was only asked one time why I didn't have a US passport. I told the agent that I had lived exclusively in Canada over 50 years; he said I could still get a US passport, but didn't refuse me entry. Also, some friends whose kids, born in Canada, with dual US citizenship, travel to the US on Canadian passports and aren't even asked about it because birthplace is 'Canada', as would be the case with Sheer.

Why that's even being mentioned is ridiculous; and shows how the 'progressives', who firmly believe in acceptance, accomodation, and tolerance are such phonies.


----------



## bgc_fan

Userkare said:


> I don't know if Sheer has a US passport or not. It's probably one of those uninforced rules that Sheer would probably comply with because he's very ethical. Let's hold that against him?
> 
> From personal experience, I have crosssed the border many times with a Canadian passport clearly showing place of birth as USA. I was only asked one time why I didn't have a US passport. I told the agent that I had lived exclusively in Canada over 50 years; he said I could still get a US passport, but didn't refuse me entry. Also, some friends whose kids, born in Canada, with dual US citizenship, travel to the US on Canadian passports and aren't even asked about it because birthplace is 'Canada', as would be the case with Sheer.
> 
> Why that's even being mentioned is ridiculous; and shows how the 'progressives', who firmly believe in acceptance, accomodation, and tolerance are such phonies.


Here's the thing. He has stated that he hasn't had a US passport since he was a child and he has gone to the States recently:


> Scheer has discussed visiting the United States in recent years, both on family trips and getaways with friends on his quest to visit every NFL stadium in the country.


 Global News

Instead of easily explaining that either: US customs accepted his using a Canadian passport, or that he did use a US passport (even though denying he had a valid one), he decided not to answer. The problem with that kind of response is that it feeds the narrative that he is hiding something which kind of undermines his talking point that you can't trust Trudeau.


----------



## Userkare

bgc_fan said:


> The problem with that kind of response is that it feeds the narrative that he is hiding something which kind of undermines his talking point that you can't trust Trudeau.


It just shows how desperate the liberals are to smear Sheer. He says that you can't trust Trudeau based on actual violations of ethics, according to the ethics commissioner, while in office as the PM, and also for photos showing racial insensitivity as a 29 y/o teacher. All they can counter with is how Sheer complies with every law as a US citizen, until he renounces it.


----------



## Eder

Heres a more suitable endorsement from past US presidents.


----------



## bgc_fan

Userkare said:


> It just shows how desperate the liberals are to smear Sheer. He says that you can't trust Trudeau based on actual violations of ethics, according to the ethics commissioner, while in office as the PM, and also for photos showing racial insensitivity as a 29 y/o teacher. All they can counter with is how Sheer complies with every law as a US citizen, until he renounces it.


Well, no. You didn't read what I wrote did you? Scheer isn't complying with the law if he isn't using a US passport to cross the border.


----------



## Userkare

bgc_fan said:


> Well, no. You didn't read what I wrote did you? Scheer isn't complying with the law if he isn't using a US passport to cross the border.


Although it is US policy that American citizens present a US passport, I don't believe that it is an indictable federal offence - unlike the Selective Service Act that Sheer got crapped on by libs for complying with. 

I may be wrong, but I couldn't find any references to specific punishment for not having a US passport; probably just being denied entry?


----------



## Userkare

Eder said:


> Heres a more suitable endorsement from past US presidents.


Worse than that! He was hand-picked by Nixon to become PM.... https://www.thestar.com/news/federa...xon-predicted-justin-trudeau-would-be-pm.html


----------



## AltaRed

This whole discussion continues to be bizarre. Scheer is a US citizen only by the weird provisions of US law, not anything else. It has nothing to do with him specifically. J4B simply insists on exhibiting obsessive, compulsive and irrational behaviour. The story is long gone......


----------



## sags

The most recent polling show the Liberals have vaulted back into the lead by about 7 seats. 

The chance of a Conservative majority is now set at 2%. The odds of a Conservative minority government are 0%.

It looks like Andrew Scheer is going to win a participation ribbon. Oh well...........Doug Ford will be looking for a new job.


----------



## Userkare

Why is Elizabeth May's US citizenship not an issue? She was born in US to both US parents, came to Canada at 18. Did she renounce it yet, or in process of doing it? Why does she get a pass?

Given EM or JT, I have a lot more respect for Ms May, a person with strong convictions. She has been very active as an environmentalist for a very long time; did some great work actually on Ozone depletion in Mulroney PC gov't. JT became an instant environmentalist and feminist after entering politics. Can anybody find me any speech, or anything written by him ( not his sock-puppet master, Butts ) before 2000, or so, that shows JT expressing any interest at all in either environment or feminist issues? If so, I will change my opinion of him, but for now I think he's a lying phony opportunist.


----------



## bgc_fan

Userkare said:


> Why is Elizabeth May's US citizenship not an issue? She was born in US to both US parents, came to Canada at 18. Did she renounce it yet, or in process of doing it? Why does she get a pass?
> 
> Given EM or JT, I have a lot more respect for Ms May, a person with strong convictions. She has been very active as an environmentalist for a very long time; did some great work actually on Ozone depletion in Mulroney PC gov't. JT became an instant environmentalist and feminist after entering politics. Can anybody find me any speech, or anything written by him ( not his sock-puppet master, Butts ) before 2000, or so, that shows JT expressing any interest at all in either environment or feminist issues? If so, I will change my opinion of him, but for now I think he's a lying phony opportunist.


So May's status is kind of interesting. She is of the belief that she renounced US citizenship back in 1978 when she became a Canadian citizen. I think I read at one point in time, that may have been sufficient, although she should have done a formal renunciation at a consular office. She may still be a US citizen, and worse yet, hasn't filed US taxes because she didn't think she was a US citizen. But, then again, what are the chances that she'll be PM?

Any reason why you pick 2000? Trudeau wasn't in politics until 2007. He only came to stage in 2000 because of his eulogy for his father.


----------



## Userkare

bgc_fan said:


> So May's status is kind of interesting. She is of the belief that she renounced US citizenship back in 1978 when she became a Canadian citizen. I think I read at one point in time, that may have been sufficient, although she should have done a formal renunciation at a consular office. She may still be a US citizen, and worse yet, hasn't filed US taxes because she didn't think she was a US citizen. But, then again, what are the chances that she'll be PM?
> 
> Any reason why you pick 2000? Trudeau wasn't in politics until 2007. He only came to stage in 2000 because of his eulogy for his father.



I don't have any ill-will towards Ms May; but you have to be pretty foolish to think that you automatically lose US citizenship simply by becoming Canadian without verifying that at a US Consulate, as I did in '70's. Anyway, I hope she can resolve the US tax issue, and it isn't used against her politically. I just wondered why what's so terrible for Sheer isn't bad for May.

I picked 2000 exactly for the reason you say - his father's eulogy. It started out as some childish story about his dad taking him to the N. Pole, and seeing Santa in a secret bunker,. At the time I thought WTF?, but then it morphed into a tear invoking speech about his dad that seemed to come from the heart. It probably came more from Gerry Butts, who he admitted "was there" when the speech was written. That speech moved the country, and the backroom Liberals saw that they could take an empty suit with a famous brand label, put a puppet in it, mold it, and make it dance to their tune. Hence, I ask, is there any evidence that JT had any interest in the very things he claims to be his core values prior to this, or was he trained to parrot the feminist/environmentalist beliefs b/c it was 2015?


----------



## bgc_fan

Userkare said:


> I picked 2000 exactly for the reason you say - his father's eulogy. It started out as some childish story about his dad taking him to the N. Pole, and seeing Santa in a secret bunker,. At the time I thought WTF?, but then it morphed into a tear invoking speech about his dad that seemed to come from the heart. It probably came more from Gerry Butts, who he admitted "was there" when the speech was written. That speech moved the country, and the backroom Liberals saw that they could take an empty suit with a famous brand label, put a puppet in it, mold it, and make it dance to their tune. Hence, I ask, is there any evidence that JT had any interest in the very things he claims to be his core values prior to this, or was he trained to parrot the feminist/environmentalist beliefs b/c it was 2015?


Honestly, unless you were in the public eye, I doubt that you'd find any sort of evidence. Even using 2000 as your baseline date, it was another 7 years before he actually entered politics, although he was active with the party. He was back in school for 2 years after that, so I doubt there is much you can find in support or against his core values. It's not like these days where people post on instagram and facebook all their thoughts.


----------



## james4beach

May's thoughts on US citizenship are strange, and I think she was clueless at the time she made those statements. As I've written before, the US citizenship matter reflects badly on both her and Scheer. I have criticized both of them in these threads -- they're in the same boat. May and Scheer are both American citizens, but Scheer is the only one in the running for PM, so it obviously matters more in his case.

As for Userkare's comments about Trudeau, I think this reflects the same cynicism that seems to run rampant within modern Conservative circles. What makes you think Trudeau does not have interest in the things he espouses as values?

I assume Trudeau does believe in these values of social progressiveness. It takes a lot of cynicism to keep finding faults. The fact a guy once wore a Halloween costume based on norms of the time does not mean he doesn't believe in the rights and freedoms of visible minorities today, for example.

In fact one of the biggest reasons I dislike the Conservatives and their world view is this rampant cynicism and negativity. Including cynicism about the role of government itself. It's very unhealthy, and it's bad for the country.

I suspect it's partly due to age, with more cynicism and pessimism among older people -- something I see in my own family as well. The same goes for this fatalistic thinking about climate change, that there's nothing we can do, so we might as well not take any policy measures.


----------



## AltaRed

james4beach said:


> The same goes for this fatalistic thinking about climate change, that there's nothing we can do, so we might as well not take any policy measures.


Sorry, but you get that quite wrong on a regular and frequent basis. Us older folk with wisdom have seen this movie many times before. Very few, if any, ever say NOT to take ANY policy measures. The key from us older, wiser folk is to be practical and pragmatic about the measures one takes. We already know Canada's efforts won't do squat for slowing climate change but it makes economic and pragmatic sense to undertake well thought out, reasoned measures and to have some good standing in the International community. There is a huge difference between that and the 'sky is falling' frenzy of the zealots.


----------



## james4beach

Sure, be practical about policy measures. Such as adopting a carbon tax, which is almost universally endorsed by conservative thinkers around the world (and even billionaires) because it's actually a pricing-based approach, and probably one of the approaches that is easiest for businesses to deal with.

Carbon taxes make sense to most conservatives worldwide including oil giants, except, for some reason, Canadian conservatives. On the world stage, this actually makes Alberta and Canadian Conservatives look very backward and out of touch with the times.

Trudeau's plan may not be a perfect implementation of carbon taxes but it's a fine way to start. Such major shifts in policy take a while to get right. Ideally the carbon tax should be higher, but the Liberals have a pragmatic approach. Start small, because outlandish measures like the Greens' clearly is not doable.


----------



## Userkare

bgc_fan said:


> Honestly, unless you were in the public eye, I doubt that you'd find any sort of evidence. Even using 2000 as your baseline date, it was another 7 years before he actually entered politics, although he was active with the party. He was back in school for 2 years after that, so I doubt there is much you can find in support or against his core values. It's not like these days where people post on instagram and facebook all their thoughts.


True, there was no social media, but there was media. 

With no effort, I found that Ms May had been a volunteer leader in protest movement against spraying insecticide on trees in Cape Breton. Her family literally lost the farm in a suit against Scott paper over herbicide spraying. At the time, she was a 'nobody' newsworthy.

For Justin, on the other hand, a well known person, I can't find anything. There were the odd interviews where he said he wasn't interested in politics. He did some fund raising for avalance victims. Then, after being accussed of groping a female reporter, said he wouldn't have done it if he knew she was a reporter. Wow, that puts #metoo in it's place! Anything goes if I'm famous, and you're not.


----------



## AltaRed

James, I agree there is a lot of hysteria about the carbon tax in Canada, but there is reason to be highly suspicious due to the way the tax revenue is handled and dispersed. The current federal program has many inequities about how it is returned to families and how much in each province, and it is a slippery slope when politicians start to put their hands into the cookie jar and either start funding ideological projects (rather than the most economic), or start sliding revenue into general revenues. 

It is exactly what is now happening in BC. The NDP/Green alliance how have their hands into the cookie jar removing the commitment to be revenue neutral. IF there is going to be a carbon tax, then an independent board like CPPIB, distant from government, needs to be making and managing the outflows for optimum gain (CO2 reduction with economic overtones).


----------



## Userkare

I would be on-board with a carbon tax if the revenue was exclusively used to mitigate the inevitable effects of climate change, not give the money back to people. Climate change will happen regardless of what we do, so let's get ready for it.

Punative taxes can work to stop alcohol ,tobacco, or even sugar consumption; we have a choice to quit. How can we quit heating our homes, buying food, etc? If anything, it will just drive the cost of everything up, causing unionized labour to demand higher wages to compensate; rinse and repeat.

What works in other countries does not necessarily work in Canada. It gets really cold here, although some of our CMF expatriats might not remember that. Our cities are spread out to the point where public transit can't service everybody, and not everyone can get to work on a bicycle. 

I do want a cleaner environment. I'm way more concerned with the toxic pollutants that are being dumped into the air and water. Sometimes I wonder if the CO2 hysteria is really meant just to distract us from the more immediate toxicity problems.


----------



## Eclectic12

james4beach said:


> ... As I've written before, the US citizenship matter reflects badly on both her and Scheer. I have criticized both of them in these threads -- they're in the same boat.


Can you help me out by pointing to which posts were critical of May for having US citizenship?

What I've found below does not read to me to be critical of May.


james4beach said:


> humble_pie said:
> 
> 
> 
> nobody has noticed that elizabeth may also appears to hold US citizenship? ...
> 
> 
> 
> Good points humble_pie. To start with, I'd like clarity on whether or not she is a US citizen currently. After some googling, it sounds to me like she is still an American citizen.
> 
> Wow, we sure seem to have a lot of Americans in our federal parties.
Click to expand...

I'm not seeing anything in the "Alberta starts to fight back" nor the "Foreign election interference" threads so I'm not clear where and when the alleged criticisms were made.




james4beach said:


> ... May and Scheer are both American citizens, but Scheer is the only one in the running for PM, so it obviously matters more in his case.


But the issue is transparency, not citizenship, right?

It's bad to be a PM that's "loyal to the US" but okay to potentially be a swing vote for a minority gov't that is "loyal to the US"?
Seems to me that where one imagines loyalty issues - being in a different country's gov't is an issue.


Cheers


----------



## Eder

Userkare said:


> I do want a cleaner environment. I'm way more concerned with the toxic pollutants that are being dumped into the air and water. Sometimes I wonder if the CO2 hysteria is really meant just to distract us from the more immediate toxicity problems.


It takes a lot of gullibility to think the Liberal government can do anything about the effects of climate change when they can't even supply non toxic water to our reserves, solve our drug addiction troubles ( I think they have added to it), find home care for our mental patients roaming the streets and sleeping in parks, or stop supporting regimes that stone women & jail or kill gay people. When was the last time JT tweeted 60 million of our money to a Salvation Army homeless shelter?


----------



## bgc_fan

Userkare said:


> True, there was no social media, but there was media.
> 
> With no effort, I found that Ms May had been a volunteer leader in protest movement against spraying insecticide on trees in Cape Breton. Her family literally lost the farm in a suit against Scott paper over herbicide spraying. At the time, she was a 'nobody' newsworthy.
> 
> For Justin, on the other hand, a well known person, I can't find anything. There were the odd interviews where he said he wasn't interested in politics. He did some fund raising for avalance victims. Then, after being accussed of groping a female reporter, said he wouldn't have done it if he knew she was a reporter. Wow, that puts #metoo in it's place! Anything goes if I'm famous, and you're not.


I would disagree that Justin was a well-known person back then still working as a teacher and before that, he was in university. Yes he was the son of a former Prime Minister, but not exactly someone an everyday person would track, on a regular basis. For example, how much of Caroline Mulroney did you track before she entered provincial politics? We probably know more about Ben Mulroney, but then he has been working as a television personality since the early 2000. 

Ms. May was involved in various levels of politics in the 1980s and was founding member of the Sierra club in 1989. That's a lot higher profile than someone who was just exiting high school.


----------



## Userkare

james4beach said:


> As for Userkare's comments about Trudeau, I think this reflects the same cynicism that seems to run rampant within modern Conservative circles. What makes you think Trudeau does not have interest in the things he espouses as values?


Political cynicism comes from experiencing years of disapointments with being let down. I was a Liberal voter back in the Chretien era because he seemed to be promoting Canada's high-tech industry (my profession) abroad. His smiling face was on every news release about trade missions to China; taking credit for this because of his gov't policies. Then, when the industry went in the crapper, and he was asked what he would do to help. He shrugged his shoulders and said something about how business is business and government is government what does one have to do with the other. When I was self-employed, paying 2x CPP, no company pension, no paid vacations, he stood up in the Commons and said "Madam speaker, these people are robbing the Canadian taxpayer" referring to my ability to write off a lunch with clients. Meanwhile he's up to his *** in Shawinigate and the Sponsorship Scandal. I haven't voted Liberal since.

As for JT, I don't know what were his interests prior to political life, that's why I asked. You would think that anybody, so famous, with strong convictions would leave some kind of trail. Find it, and I'll humbly admit I was wrong.


----------



## Userkare

bgc_fan said:


> I would disagree that Justin was a well-known person back then still working as a teacher and before that, he was in university. Yes he was the son of a former Prime Minister, but not exactly someone an everyday person would track, on a regular basis.


If you're of an age that you were an adult while baby Justin was running around 24 Sussex, his name would be very familiar to you. I honestly don't remember seeing the Mulroney children in the public eye so much. If, at some point in his adult life, JT had chained himself to a tree to stop logging, or done anything that even remotely looked like activism of any kind, for any cause, don't you think that the media would have covered it? Same would be true of any offspring of any past or present political leader, even if we didn't follow their everyday lives.


----------



## AltaRed

Userkare said:


> As for JT, I don't know what were his interests prior to political life, that's why I asked. You would think that anybody, so famous, with strong convictions would leave some kind of trail. Find it, and I'll humbly admit I was wrong.


What is clear from the little that is public is an entitled, spoiled, silver spoon fed brat who was slow to mature, never having to be responsible or accountable for his actions. People mature by having to suffer life's lumps, inequities and hardships along the way. One might argue his maturity level was closer to that of a 27 year old than a 47 year old and has been 'growing up' on the job. He clearly does not yet understand what being accountable really means.


----------



## james4beach

AltaRed said:


> What is clear from the little that is public is an entitled, spoiled, silver spoon fed brat who was slow to mature, never having to be responsible or accountable for his actions. People mature by having to suffer life's lumps, inequities and hardships along the way.


What a clueless assessment. You don't know what difficulties or challenges he may have encountered. Plus, someone doesn't have to live a life of hardship to become a good leader.


----------



## AltaRed

james4beach said:


> What a clueless assessment. You don't know what difficulties or challenges he may have encountered. Plus, someone doesn't have to live a life of hardship to become a good leader.


It is common among the entitled and privileged group and it has shown in his immature behaviour on several occasions. So no, it is not a clueless assessment. Besides, hypocrites make really poor leaders. They have to walk the talk. That is Leadership101, the very first thing taught in leadership courses. You just have to take your blinders off, but I know you won't do that. You've bought in to the drama show.

Bill Morneau also has shown privileged immaturity from time to time, at least in the first few years as Finance Minister. As have the Westons, etc, etc. Trump shows similar signs with his entitled upbringing, but he also brings a host of other gross behaviours that mask some of that behaviour.


----------



## Userkare

I do find it disturbing that we must, on both sides, attack the leader of the political party that we don't support. Political parties are supposed to be an association of like-minded persons about issues under the particular level of the government's control, not a religious cult that blindly follows the leader, even if he was born on Christmas day. The leader is simply the public facing mouthpiece of the party. Do you think that they alone dictate party policy, or maybe it's more of a backroom cabinet & advisor consensus process?

I don't always agree with every single platform plank of a party that I decide to support, nor disagree with every plank of the parties that I don't support. It's about weighing, based on how strongly I feel about each issue. For example, a balanced budget won't affect me, I'll be long dead before it needs to be paid back, yet, for the good of the country's future, I think it's important.

If the Conservatives do poorly in the election, and decide to turf Sheer, I won't really care. I'll feel sorry for the guy as a person, but accept that he wasn't the best spokeperson for the party's policies.

I'll lead by example.. I'm not saying anything more about JT. Can liberal supporters say the same for Sheer please?


----------



## MrMatt

AltaRed said:


> James, I agree there is a lot of hysteria about the carbon tax in Canada, but there is reason to be highly suspicious due to the way the tax revenue is handled and dispersed. The current federal program has many inequities about how it is returned to families and how much in each province, and it is a slippery slope when politicians start to put their hands into the cookie jar and either start funding ideological projects (rather than the most economic), or start sliding revenue into general revenues.
> 
> It is exactly what is now happening in BC. The NDP/Green alliance how have their hands into the cookie jar removing the commitment to be revenue neutral. IF there is going to be a carbon tax, then an independent board like CPPIB, distant from government, needs to be making and managing the outflows for optimum gain (CO2 reduction with economic overtones).


Actually that's my opposition, it isn't about climate change, it's just a silly money shuffle for political gain.

They want to create the illusion of "doing something" but they know to actually accomplish something would require a behaviour change.
Something that nobody is really willing to accept, particularly a jet setter like Trudeau, he's campaigning with 2 planes FFS.


----------



## sags

Justin Trudeau's past accomplishments.........seriously ? 

Andrew Scheer has never had a job outside of politics. His "insurance broker" resume was a lie to give him some credibility, but he does have a tendency to be less than honest.

Andrew Scheer earns much more than the average Canadian, has a full array of health and other benefits, and will retire with a big fat government pension. 

He even lives in big house in an exclusive area of Ottawa rent free.

At least Trudeau worked for a living in real jobs. What has Scheer ever done ?


----------



## james4beach

Exactly. Trudeau worked in real jobs, even low paid jobs... he has much more in common with the average working person than someone like Scheer or Harper.

The range of jobs Trudeau worked in gives him unique insight and connection with the average Canadian experience. I don't think there's been a PM in the last few decades that even comes close. They are all lawyers, professional politicians, or whatever the heck Scheer was.


----------



## Ag Driver

Deleted


----------



## bgc_fan

Userkare said:


> If you're of an age that you were an adult while baby Justin was running around 24 Sussex, his name would be very familiar to you. I honestly don't remember seeing the Mulroney children in the public eye so much. If, at some point in his adult life, JT had chained himself to a tree to stop logging, or done anything that even remotely looked like activism of any kind, for any cause, don't you think that the media would have covered it? Same would be true of any offspring of any past or present political leader, even if we didn't follow their everyday lives.


I wasn't, so I couldn't say how much in the public eye he was in. But why should you expect him to have done any activism to be supportive of either feminism or environmental causes? Just because people haven't in the past doesn't mean they can't support them in the future. For example, I'm not one to chain myself to a tree, but I'm supportive of environmental issues. Maybe that means I'm not as committed, but does that mean I don't care? Obviously he wasn't in much of a microscope after leaving 24 Sussex, otherwise these incidents of blackface or inappropriate touching would have been in the news at that point. I mean there was some old video footage, but I don't know where it came from, but it didn't seem to be from a news report. 
In comparison, remember Prince Harry and the outcry when he dressed up as a Nazi?

I would think that up until the eulogy and some increase push towards politics from the Liberal party, he was probably fine with being anonymous and keeping a low profile.


----------



## bgc_fan

AltaRed said:


> What is clear from the little that is public is an entitled, spoiled, silver spoon fed brat who was slow to mature, never having to be responsible or accountable for his actions. People mature by having to suffer life's lumps, inequities and hardships along the way. One might argue his maturity level was closer to that of a 27 year old than a 47 year old and has been 'growing up' on the job. He clearly does not yet understand what being accountable really means.


Come now, we were talking about Trudeau, not Trump. Although you have over-estimated his maturity level by about 20 years.


----------



## AltaRed

Ag Driver said:


> james4beach said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. Trudeau worked in real jobs, even low paid jobs... he has much more in common with the average working person than someone like Scheer or Harper.
> 
> The range of jobs Trudeau worked in gives him unique insight and connection with the average Canadian experience. I don't think there's been a PM in the last few decades that even comes close. They are all lawyers, professional politicians, or whatever the heck Scheer was.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL Connection with the average Canadian. I love a good joke! Floating around attempting to be an academic, dropping out left right and centre, collecting credits at various Universities to complete various degrees. All while picking up Snowboarding gigs for fun... because you don't actually need to work as a trust fund baby. Have a teachers gig handed to you at a private school for a few years maybe. All while driving around in your freshly restored Mercedes Benz 300SL that you paid someone else so handsomely to bring back that 1960s inheritance to life. When you've got cash to blow and you didn't learn anything about hard work and dedication to get you there....why not, right?
> 
> I don't know what average you're talking about, but have you read the news about Canadians and the cost of education, debt levels, and real life struggles?
> 
> There is no average comparison between myself and Trudeau or the vast majority of Canadians.
> 
> Delusional.
Click to expand...

I agree completely. James is rationalizing JT the way he wants too rather than how it really is. The privileged simply get whatever doors they want opened without paying any dues. He really didn't have to work at anything until he became Liberal leader. There is nothing average, or middle class, about his formative years, nor his first 20 years or adulthood. It has showed in the several years since then as he has gone through a steep learning curve. Getting better over time for sure, but serious missteps along the way.


----------



## humble_pie

bgc_fan said:


> In comparison, remember Prince Harry and the outcry when he dressed up as a Nazi?



as with trudeau, it was decades ago. Today a mature Harry is blissing around the world in a frenzy of adoration, accompanied by his TV star wife & his adorable bi-racial baby son.

meanwhile - speaking of cultural costumes - his older brother William & the beautiful Kate have just returned from an official visit to Pakistan where kate wore kalmar shameez every day & her husband wore formal pakistani long tunic coats & narrow trousers.

bref, theirs was a repeat of Trudeau & Sophie's costumed visit to india. But the effects, as the media have been fast to point out, have been polar opposites.

hosannas of praise for the british royal couple's attire have exploded all over the south asian press. So far, not one word of complaint that the RC were expropriatring authentic cultural gear to which they are not entitled. So far, nothing but repeated grateful adoration that the royal couple were "honouring" their pakistani hosts by wearing the traditional dress of pakistan night & day.

social commentators in the media are comparing kate/will's costume success in south asia to sophie/justin's failure, also in south asia. Nobody can figure out why one hit the popularity bulls-eye while the other was a dud. Go figure.


----------



## humble_pie

Userkare said:


> I'll lead by example.. I'm not saying anything more about JT. Can liberal supporters say the same for Sheer please?




are you serious? you'll leave off maligning justin trudeau? you'll exit the backwater of mean, vindictive old men who have drifted together in cmf forum, who have nothing better to do than hurl insults at parties who don't agree with their all-controlling agendas?

what a breath of fresh air. As for andrew scheer, the first thing is for canadians to leave his american citizenship behind. Just zip the lip. The Conservative leader is a 100% functioning canadian. Nothing can be done to tweak vague ancestral ties to the US of A prior to the election, so the topic should be ruled off-limits. What scheer does with the issue after the election should remain his business.

likewise for scheer's accent in french. He is to be commended for learning the second official language so well. It's clear that scheer understands everything in french perfectly. No one could ask for anything more.

userKare if you happen to succeed in shutting down the filth, you should head up a new party. The pan canadian fresh air party. Standing up for clean air, more local grown food, more bicycles, more technology, more urban parks with trees, more green roofs, less oil, more young families, multi-lingual, strong foreign trade relations.


----------



## james4beach

There is something suspicious about the political posts on this board, and it's not unique to CMF. This happens everywhere in social media. For example if you pull up any item regarding Trudeau or Singh on youtube or twitter, you will likely find hostility, insults, threats, and racist content.

What's suspicious is how much hostility (political attacks) are here, for example, the many months of _endless _whining about Trudeau, and extreme interest in every single Conservative-defined "scandal". This does not occur among regular people in the regular population. I think most people are interested in the party platforms, what policies they have, not hearing another attack. If you watch TV coverage of discussions with voters, they don't express interest in the never-ending attacks either.

There are a few possible explanations for this unusually hostile political posting at CMF. One possibility is that the loudest political voices at CMF are people who are particularly angry (more than the usual Canadian), and with the anonymity of a message board, they simply let loose. Maybe we just have a very angry group of people here. Similar to the user base that makes twitter, and even youtube comments, absolutely disgusting.

Another possibility is that people are just a little bit less polite online, and more freely speak what's on their mind. Especially after a few drinks.

Yet another possibility is that there are paid agents of political groups who are active here, perhaps with the job description of representing Conservative opinions and trying to sway public opinion.

... I have no idea which is the case, but I've found the endless personal and character attacks on Trudeau (over these months) to be very ugly and tiring. The endless efforts to play up scandals that aren't. It has turned me off from the Conservative party myself because I really can't get on board with these kinds of anger and emotion-based political views. The Conservative party has made it even worse in the last couple weeks by escalating to some truly bizarre conspiracy theories (a made-up sex scandal).


----------



## AltaRed

Have you taken equivalent time to objectively pull up items about Scheer or any other party leader? How about any of the provincial premiers? Why would you only look at Trudeau and Singh? Your post is telling just in the very first sentence. You have no intention of being objective or balanced. You are making yourself your own fool and it's all in CMF for anyone to see.


----------



## james4beach

AltaRed said:


> Have you taken equivalent time to objectively pull up items about Scheer or any other party leader? How about any of the provincial premiers? Why would you only look at Trudeau and Singh? Your post is telling just in the very first sentence. You have no intention of being objective or balanced. You are making yourself your own fool and it's all in CMF for anyone to see.


So you're telling me that social media is full of constant attacks and threats against Scheer?

And yes I have looked at the comment section under videos of Scheer. They are far milder than what appears about Trudeau. The aggressive commenters on social media appear to be strongly skewed to the right wing.

You lack any objectivity, AltaRed. It's just like how you try to make false equivalency comparisons between right and left wing radicals. You basically ignore the fact that right wing radicals are murdering people (including political assassinations), and you think that minor property damage and a bunch of screaming lefties are equivalent. I have seen you and Eder constantly do this... you automatically diminish conservative aggressiveness and hostility, and exaggerate liberal aggressiveness.


----------



## AltaRed

james4beach said:


> So you're telling me that social media is full of constant attacks and threats against Scheer?


There certainly have been a number of them on a number of issues: abortion, gay marriage, his broker credentials, his dual citizenship.... some of them right here, and especially by you and Sags. Try doing some googling and FB searches.

P.S. Party leaders in positions of power such as PMs and Premiers are going to get more vitriol than bridesmaids so that needs to be taken into account.

Added: For a fair comparison, do you not remember all the hatred thrown at Harper when he was PM? Consider digging around a bit more.


----------



## AltaRed

A few other things James.

1. I do not much care what happens outside of Canada though I do recognize the USA is one screwed up place and the alt right are really really scary, violent, angry and self-possessed courtesy of Trump. But I care not about populist rises in Poland, Hungary, Turkey, Philippines, etc. If voters choose to elect them, it is because they want them over the alternative.

2. You may not have realized this but your highly biased partisanship has to be challenged by someone. I choose to do so sometimes. I suspect so does Eder. I have chosen so far to not put you on ignore like I have Sags, HP and folks like Prairie Guy. I actually have more folks like PG on ignore than I have those on the left. I dont want, or need, to read all that crap. Life is too short.

3. I suggest you need to lighten up because I sense you get all wound up about all this stuff. If true, it is not good for one's health. You are not going to change anything or anyone. There is nothing to be won or lost. It's not worth bursting an aorta over. Put folks on ignore instead.


----------



## Userkare

humble_pie said:


> are you serious? you'll leave off maligning justin trudeau?


Yes, I'm serious. It's not that I've had an epiphany or anything. It just seems fruitless to attempt to change anyone's mind by beating my own head against a wall. I'm resigning my position in the Forlorn Hope Brigade.




> userKare if you happen to succeed in shutting down the filth, you should head up a new party.



I doubt that I have any influence to change the behaviour of anyone on CMF. The posts following yours give testament to that.

I've already submitted my name for nomination as leader of a new political party, the OCPC... Old Curmudgeon Party of Canada. We're still developing our platform for the next election. So far we propose... reducing the speed limits on all raods and highways to 30km/h.... All dinner all-you-can-eat buffets must open no later than 4:30pm... and senior discounts shall be mandatory on all purchases. We have chosen grey as our party colour, and have decided on our slogan for lawn signs in the next campaign.... "Get off my lawn!"

pax vobiscum.


----------



## Topo

The National Post has endorsed the Conservatives:



> Canada deserves better, because better is, after all, always possible. Our democracy permits us the chance to choose a new leader when the current one falls short of even his own stated ideals, as Trudeau repeatedly has.


The main theme is a need for change, not due to economic or geopolitical conditions, but Trudeau's style of governance. The reception of Scheer is, however, lukewarm.



> Scheer needed some time to hit his stride on the campaign trail. He also has taken too long to answer some questions about his past positions, to his own disadvantage. But Scheer and the Conservatives are offering up a desperately needed change from the status quo.



https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/election-2019/np-view-canada-needs-a-conservative-government


----------



## humble_pie

here is a parable about a grandfather. In his heyday he was ambitious, aggressive, enormously talented. He founded an industry that is today a global leader in intelligent design. Few could stand in his way.

by his 70s this grandfather was a tyrant. Everything was his-way-or-the-highway. He was rigid. He had to be in total control of everything, 100% of the time. The grandkids learned to smile knowingly, pat him on the head, slightly roll an eye behind his back, just the way m3s describes with some of the old codgers in cmf forum.

flash forward another 20 years & this grandfather is still going strong at 97. But an epiphany has happened. He's discovered that the grandkids are in control now & they are amazing beyond belief. Among them he counts a medical doctor, a journalist, a cinematographer, not one but two Olympic athletes, a dedicated green environmental engineer, not one but two industrial designers, several fashion designers (family is arty + sporty, exactly as he was himself at 30 years of age.)

he's interested in the grandkids, in young people everywhere. To the marrow of his bones, he understands that it is they who are the future. He has Let Go Control. It goes without saying that, with his splendid memory, he is now a magnet & they cluster around him happily to hear another piece of canadian history.

yea he's the World War II RCAF fighter pilot hero who was shot down in his Spitfire over north africa in the Rommel campaign. 1943. He's probably the oldest WW II pilot still alive in canada.


----------



## bgc_fan

Topo said:


> The National Post has endorsed the Conservatives:
> 
> The main theme is a need for change, not due to economic or geopolitical conditions, but Trudeau's style of governance. The reception of Scheer is, however, lukewarm.
> 
> https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/election-2019/np-view-canada-needs-a-conservative-government


Funny, sounds like last election where the Globe and Mail endorsed the Conservatives and said to do so despite Harper being the leader of the Conservatives.

BTW, if you all recall, most newspapers did endorse the Conservatives last election.


----------



## james4beach

Post Media (owners of National Post) even wants to join Kenney's energy 'war room'. So it should not surprise anyone that they endorse the Conservatives.

Just think about how biased the paper's management has to be, to voluntarily join a conservative propaganda effort to act as a mouthpiece for oil & gas companies.


----------



## MrMatt

james4beach said:


> Post Media (owners of National Post) even wants to join Kenney's energy 'war room'. So it should not surprise anyone that they endorse the Conservatives.
> 
> Just think about how biased the paper's management has to be, to voluntarily join a conservative propaganda effort to act as a mouthpiece for oil & gas companies.


Just think how biased the media must be to accept millions in bribes from the Liberal government.


----------



## sags

James.......

How ironic it is that when considered without prejudice, the Liberal government should be easily winning a majority government based on their list of major accomplishments and economic conditions in Canada. As noted in the Bloomberg editorial, Canada is the envy of other developed countries after 4 years of a Liberal government.

Instead, the Conservatives have lost the election because of their policy on climate change, and their leader's proclivity of being less than forthright with the public on a number of issues.

As a result, Canadians will likely end up with a Liberal/NDP government which will make for an interesting Parliament. 

It could also provide a real time test for a future merger of the Liberals and NDP, which likely would have taken place had it not been for the resurgence of the NDP under Jack Layton.


----------



## humble_pie

james4beach said:


> Post Media (owners of National Post) even wants to join Kenney's energy 'war room'. So it should not surprise anyone that they endorse the Conservatives.
> 
> Just think about how biased the paper's management has to be, to voluntarily join a conservative propaganda effort to act as a mouthpiece for oil & gas companies.




it's no longer the "war room."

last week alberta energy minister sonya savage re-named the initiative the "Canadian Energy Centre," naming veteran alberta PR spokesman tom olsen as its managing director.

in its quest to be first, rapid, timely & foremost with oil industry news, alberta will try to get the new organization on its feet before the end of the year, the minister said. Now that's timely.

retired national Post journo Claudia Cattaneo was first named to the helm of the fledgling PR unit, when it was still known as jason kenney's war room. Cattaneo has disappeared. No word on why.

in between PR gigs olsen heads a country western band called The Wreckage. Here he sings I'll Take Despair. Now would that be an omen. PS surely he's not picking his nose.


----------



## Topo

sags said:


> How ironic it is that when considered without prejudice, the Liberal government should be easily winning a majority government based on their list of major accomplishments and economic conditions in Canada.


We are drowning in debt. Only a small shock to the economic system will have the house of cards falling....hard.


----------



## sags

People seem to be making the last minute decision to stick with the Liberals.

Both the CBC and 338 polls show the Liberals stretching their lead in ridings in recent days. They now lead by 14 seats in both polls.

A minority government still looks likely, but it is the Liberals who now appear to be the party that wins the most seats.


----------



## humble_pie

Topo said:


> We are drowning in debt. Only a small shock to the economic system will have the house of cards falling....hard.



what western country isn't though

IIRC the name of the new pan-north-american post-collapse devalued currency is supposed to be the Amero. Like weimar geermany. One Amero = one thousand dollar, something like that.

wait didn't that happen to the drachma


----------



## sags

The CBC just released another poll for today. The Liberals have extended their lead to more than 20 seats and doubled their chance of a majority.

This is a colossal collapse of support for the Conservatives. Andrew Scheer must feel like the punch bowl was snatched out of his hands just as he was about to take a sip.


----------



## AltaRed

bgc_fan said:


> Funny, sounds like last election where the Globe and Mail endorsed the Conservatives and said to do so despite Harper being the leader of the Conservatives.
> 
> BTW, if you all recall, most newspapers did endorse the Conservatives last election.


I am not sure media endorsement of any party means anything to the voting public. The polls are drifting to the Libs so I am hoping they get enough seats to be able to play the BQ as much as they play the NDP for moving policy. Some of the NDP policies would be devastating to investors and business specifically. Anyone who has an investment portfolio or rental real estate should be really, really scared of a change in capital gains inclusion rate, and should be scared of an uptick in corporate income tax rate. Those would be significant GDP headwinds.

My take going into this weekend is one of despair. Andrew Coyne sums it up pretty well for me https://nationalpost.com/news/polit...cant-the-liberals-and-conservatives-both-lose


----------



## humble_pie

AltaRed said:


> Anyone who has an investment portfolio or rental real estate should be really, really scared of a change in capital gains inclusion rate, and should be scared of an uptick in corporate income tax rate.


why scared? canada has prospered under the Liberals & prosperity will continue as best it can in a highly fraught world






> My take going into this weekend is one of despair


but you of all people should cheer up. Only with the NDP do you stand a prayer of a chance that your program to buy 100 new warships for canada might actually launch.

it would be an accident. The $10 trillion dollar new warships would be an accidental hiccup from the NDP as they truly, madly, deeply launch billions in social largesse on a debt scale never before seen upon the planet.

they'd be at a bit of a loss to find an invading armada of course. But hey 33 new icebreakers - that's a brand new icebreaker every 150 nautical miles - can't hurt in the Northwest Passage. Just in case some ships might try to pass through.


.


----------



## Topo

humble_pie said:


> what western country isn't though
> 
> IIRC the name of the new pan-north-american post-collapse devalued currency is supposed to be the Amero. Like weimar geermany. One Amero = one thousand dollar, something like that.
> 
> wait didn't that happen to the drachma


None of the parties seem to have a solution for the debt problem.


----------



## humble_pie

*vu du québec*

maxim Bernier is not only in trouble with his sinking federal ratings, he's in deep trouble right in his own Quebec rural riding of Beace, immediately south of quebec city.

the issue is supply management. Bernier wants to end it. Beauce dairy farmers are unanimously saying Non. The farmers are favouring richard Lehoux, the Conservative candidate in Beace riding.

still in his 20s, Remi Busque is a 3rd generation Beauce dairy farmer who works his grandfather's homestead in st-simon-les-mines. Busque says dairy farmers require supply management to stabilize revenues.

"We won’t be voting for him," says busque. "Bernier is going to wake up fired."


in other news, a recent poll by Forum Research has placed the Bloc Quebecois at a stunning 37 seats out of quebec's 78, only slightly below the Liberal party which is the projected leader.

barely scoring in terms of projected quebec seats were the Conservative party & the NDP, although the NDP scored 2nd highest when it came to the popular vote.


----------



## Eder

We all know unless we get the naval capacity to patrol our north we'll lose it. Maybe we can take the Alberta billions going to welfare Quebec to start buying some...at least we would feel like we got something for our money.


----------



## AltaRed

Topo said:


> None of the parties seem to have a solution for the debt problem.


No, and that is hugely problematic. Another recession like 2008-2009 and it will be brutal. Most likely deficits over $50B per year for a few years. I feel for both my children and grandchildren having to carry an increasing debt servicing costs. Servicing the current federal debt of almost $700B is closing in on $30B per year, about the same amount as total health transfers to provinces, or the OAS program.


----------



## humble_pie

Eder said:


> Maybe we can take the Alberta billions going to welfare Quebec to start buying some...at least we would feel like we got something for our money.



alberta is not paying one penny to quebec. Alberta delivers payments to ottawa which apportions them out to whatever provinces qualify under the constitutional formulas.

at some time in the future it may even happen that alberta will go back to being the have-not province it was pre-Leduc. The ROC would stand by to bail out, hopefully with none of the churlishness that is this cmffer's trademark.

meanwhile the ROC is paying for TMP & will pay more for TMP II expansion when expansion gets underway. It's a free gift to the alberta oil industry, which some say should have looked after itself long time ago. No strings attached. Although the ROC does wince when albertans whine on & on & on & on. And on.


----------



## Topo

AltaRed said:


> No, and that is hugely problematic. Another recession like 2008-2009 and it will be brutal. Most likely deficits over $50B per year for a few years. I feel for both my children and grandchildren having to carry an increasing debt servicing costs. Servicing the current federal debt of almost $700B is closing in on $30B per year, about the same amount as total health transfers to provinces, or the OAS program.


Agree. Plus, there is household debt that will come due at the most unfortunate time. It's a vicious cycle: the solution to a household debt blow up is the feds injecting more money into the system, thus going into more debt. The more the feds pour money into the economy, the easier and cheaper borrowing becomes for the consumer.


----------



## sags

You do realize that servicing costs on the debt requires 6.7% of government revenues and it was in the mid 30% in the 1980s ?

The debt to GDP ratio used by economists to judge the health of an economy is also declining every year.

A $700 billion dollar Canadian debt is equal to a $7 Trillion American debt. They owe $25 Trillion plus Trillions more in unfunded Social Security and Medicare......just as an example.

Government revenues are increasing every year by $20-$25 billion. A spending freeze or tax hikes would quickly eliminate the deficit without major cuts to spending.

If people are that concerned about the debt, they should support raising taxes on the wealthiest Canadians and corporations. They currently enjoy historically low tax rates.


----------



## AltaRed

We haven't even counted provincial debt yet. Per IMF, Canada's total government debt/GDP ratio is about 88% when all government debt is included. https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/[email protected]/OEMDC/ADVEC/WEOWORLD Better than some OECD countries, but worse than others. As Fitch said earlier this year, we are at risk of losing our AAA credit rating being on the cusp for a downgrade.


----------



## Topo

AltaRed said:


> We haven't even counted provincial debt yet. Per IMF, Canada's total government debt/GDP ratio is about 88% when all government debt is included. https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/[email protected]/OEMDC/ADVEC/WEOWORLD Better than some OECD countries, but worse than others. As Fitch said earlier this year, we are at risk of losing our AAA credit rating being on the cusp for a downgrade.


If our debt gets downgraded, it is likely the cost to service that debt would go up.


----------



## AltaRed

Topo said:


> If our debt gets downgraded, it is likely the cost to service that debt would go up.


Perhaps 25-50 bp going to AA+. Not as significant as what bond yield curves overall can do.


----------



## james4beach

The media is starting to expose just how nasty the Conservative Party has been, including public manipulation on social media.

An ex employee has said that the Conservatives hired former politician Kinsella (who runs the Daisy Group) to discredit and sling mud at Bernier's party; a covert campaign on social media.

However I strongly suspect that as they dig further, journalists will find that the Conservatives have launched similar attacks on more than just Bernier. For example there is even a poster on this board who was linking to smear and outrage articles against Trudeau, also at Kinsella's web site.

The Conservatives have been fighting a very nasty election campaign. It will be great to get more info on what exactly Kinsella was doing for the Conservatives, and what kinds of public manipulation campaigns Scheer has been orchestrating. Remember that Scheer's campaign manager is Hamish Marshall, formerly of The Rebel, and alt-right nutcase media outlet. He knows a thing or too about conducting smear campaigns and conspiracy theory peddling through the media.


----------



## sags

Andrew Scheer should do the honorable thing and resign immediately. An RCMP investigation needs to be launched to protect the integrity of the democratic process.

Canadians don't want these types of alt right smear tactics brought to Canadian elections. Scheer refused to answer reporter questions so that pretty much tells the story.


----------



## james4beach

I don't think the accusation about hiring Kinsella has been confirmed yet. Scheer has been evading all the questions asked about this so far.

sags: I don't think he should resign just because the accusation came out. But if the accusation is confirmed, that's another matter. This could be the end of Scheer.

Last thing we need in this country are politicians running secret, covert online operations of this type. I truly hope that Scheer did not do this.


----------



## sags

If Scheer wasn't guilty he would have categorically denied the report. As it is, he refused to answer when asked several times.

_In a statement to CBC News on Friday, the executive director of the PPC said, "It hardly comes as a surprise that the Conservative Party of Canada would be behind such disgraceful and cowardly tactics."

"As our Leader Maxime Bernier stated when he left the CPC and repeated on numerous occasions since then, they are 'morally and intellectually corrupt.' And today, this story proves it without a doubt," Johanne Mennie said in an email._


----------



## Prairie Guy

sags said:


> An RCMP investigation needs to be launched to protect the integrity of the democratic process.


I agree. The very first place they should look is at the $600 million bribe Trudeau paid to the media. Then they can investigate his discussions with social media leaders and his desire to have them suppress opposing points of view.


----------



## humble_pie

Prairie Guy said:


> I agree. The very first place they should look is at the $600 million bribe Trudeau paid to the media. Then they can investigate his discussions with social media leaders and his desire to have them suppress opposing points of view.



what preposterous lies. The gummint offered grants to mainstream media to help them transition the difficult bridge between hard copy subsistence & the online growth which is their only hope for survival. Otherwise the media would disappear. The majority recipients - globe & mail, all post media papers including the flagship natPost - were Conservative Party supporters.

as for "discussions with social media leaders," this is even more preposterous. They are all in the US. There is no evidence trudeau is acquainted with or has ever communicated with any of them.


----------



## Synergy

Trudeau and the liberals play fair. What a joke. You guys are being brain washed. All the parties are doing to same ****.


----------



## Prairie Guy

Synergy said:


> Trudeau and the liberals play fair. What a joke. You guys are being brain washed. All the parties are doing to same ****.


Oh...are the Conservatives giving $600 million to "party approved" media too? I must have missed the press release


----------



## sags

Sad......it was a good race for awhile but Scheer kind of petered out in the end. He just isn't PM material.


----------



## humble_pie

another ^^ preposterous. They weren't "party-approved media." They were every media over a certain circulation size. They received the federal aid they deserved.

it was gummint money. Cons aren't the gummint so officially they had nothing to give.

tygrus just mad because his own web page was ignored. Gee it's hard trying to earn a living as a punk alt-right troll these days. When not even a faith goldy will stand by.


----------



## humble_pie

love the explosion of sudden scares coming from guess who:

"libs/jag gonna tax yr home sale"

"libs/jag gonna tax capital gains"

"libs/jag gonna end TFSAs & RRSPs"

"libs/jag gonna eliminate dividend tax credit"


----------



## sags

If the polling is accurate, I find it an odd situation that the Conservatives will likely sweep all the ridings in Alberta, sending a strong message of support for the TM expansion but likely result in no MP representation in the government that is elected. A sweep will likely facilitate a Liberal/NDP coalition which could make it more difficult for Trudeau to get the TM pipeline built.

The key question for Alberta could become..........will the NDP support the Liberals to build the TM expansion ?

Jagmeet Singh has indicated tepid support for completing the TM project but will have to deal with his own caucus and members who may not be as supportive.

The good news is that if the NDP agree to build the pipeline, it will make it easier for Trudeau to claim it is a bi-partisan decision among all parties........except the Green.


----------



## MrMatt

humble_pie said:


> what preposterous lies. The gummint offered grants to mainstream media to help them transition the difficult bridge between hard copy subsistence & the online growth which is their only hope for survival. Otherwise the media would disappear. The majority recipients - globe & mail, all post media papers including the flagship natPost - were Conservative Party supporters.
> 
> as for "discussions with social media leaders," this is even more preposterous. They are all in the US. There is no evidence trudeau is acquainted with or has ever communicated with any of them.


Media won't disappear, there is more news and more media than ever before out there.
Maybe some current publications/companies would disappear, but that's been going on forever.

Government controlled media is a problem.
The government dumps millions in bribes to the media, filtered through the labour unions, and you don't think this is a problem?

Do you think when they do more than token attacks on bad policies or lean anti-union they'll keep their funding?


----------



## Prairie Guy

humble_pie said:


> another ^^ preposterous. They weren't "party-approved media." They were every media over a certain circulation size. They received the federal aid they deserved.


It looks like it was money well spent by Trudeau....you're acting exactly like they want you to. Thankfully not all of Canada is quite so gullible.


----------



## humble_pie

i was going to write how, to me, the real value of this election has been the contributions by all four minority parties. Unlike the 2 leaders, the 4 minority leaders all spoke from the heart & they all spoke passionately about what they perceive to be the real issues affecting canadian voters. The four don't agree - instead they go from one end of the spectrum to the extreme opposite end - but that's democracy for you.

however there's been a postscript, so i'll write the postscript first. I saw the video of maxime bernier speaking in outraged fury yesterday about a hate campaign against him in his own riding of Beauce, which bernier believes has been orchestrated by warren kinsella on the payroll of andrew scheer's Conservative party.

i personally might not agree with a single issue bernier holds dear, but throughut the debates & the media coverage last few weeks i could see that bernier has thought deeply, he has conviction, he is speaking about issues that involve many canadians & in a democracy it is always a plus to have political candidates who speak out so boldly.

therefore i was horrified to hear what has transpired in the Beauce. Somebody at the last minute has entered another candidate with the same name - Maxime Bernier - as candidate for the Rhinocerus party in the Beauce. The transparent hope is that some voters will be fooled away from the real maxime Bernier to vote for the fake maxime Bernier on the ballot, thus improving the Conservative candidate's chances for election.

what a despicable act. Someone did it. Andrew scheer is refusing to discuss the issue with the media, which looks like admission of guilt to me.

the real Maxime Bernier is not supported by any party of great historic wealth & importance. He has followed his own convictions & with great independence & initiative he founded his own political party. He has spoken out very simply to tell canadians what his party stands for & how he would like issues including finance, agriculture, immigration & foreign relations to be handled.

me i have trouble believing that anyone would shaft bernier in the back like this & i feel very indignant about it. If it's andrew scheer who is behind the warren-kinsella-destroy-maxime-bernier campaign, then scheer has to drop even lower in the national regard.

good luck, little guy from the Beauce. If you don't win your seat in this election, don't give up. Canada needs independent thinkers like yourself. Come back to the conservative party after andrew scheer gets dumped.


----------



## like_to_retire

humble_pie said:


> If you don't win your seat in this election, don't give up. Canada needs independent thinkers like yourself. Come back to the conservative party after andrew scheer gets dumped.


That's exactly what I have hope for.

ltr


----------



## james4beach

In the last few days, Scheer has started saying that the expectation is that whoever wins the most seats should govern, and gets the first shot at being PM.

This is not true. It's not how the Canadian parliamentary system works.


----------



## AltaRed

Scheer has qualified those comments in some media sound bites leaving himself wiggle room, such as 'modern convention', or 'in recent history', or 'in practice' Misleading of course. Outgoing PMs have always(?) deferred to the party holding the most seats, but of course, it is not true by parliamentary convention. 

In any event, even IF Scheer did somehow get the most seats, he has no choice but to wait for JT to submit his resignation to the GG and JT is not about to do so if he can find enough common ground with the NDP or BQ on a policy by policy basis to govern for at least awhile....assuming he is close in seat number to the CPC. I think he'd go through the resignation process though if, for example, the Libs got 120 seats to the CPC's 150. The spread is likely enough that Canadians would expect nothing less than a JT resignation vs power at any costs.

It is beyond obvious to say that what is most likely to happen won't be predictable until both the CPC and Lib seat count is pretty firm late Monday night.


----------



## Mechanic

I'm thankful that past governments allowed us to get ahead enough to have a comfortable retirement. I feel sorry for future retirees with all the socialists trying to gain power


----------



## Spudd

humble_pie said:


> therefore i was horrified to hear what has transpired in the Beauce. Somebody at the last minute has entered another candidate with the same name - Maxime Bernier - as candidate for the Rhinocerus party in the Beauce. The transparent hope is that some voters will be fooled away from the real maxime Bernier to vote for the fake maxime Bernier on the ballot, thus improving the Conservative candidate's chances for election.


It was not really at the last minute, this made the news way back on Sept 11. 

https://nationalpost.com/news/polit...-to-run-in-same-riding-as-ppcs-maxime-bernier


----------



## sags

The Conservatives are toast, and the universe unfolds as it should.


----------



## james4beach

I'm reading the National Post newspaper, a column written by a right wing guy who is complaining about how Trudeau has reduced middle east warfare engagements, and how it's bad for the arms industry. This is making me laugh because the right winger is trying to make me disappointed with Trudeau, whereas in fact his article makes me admire Trudeau for reducing military engagements.

These are some of the important differences in fundamental values between Conservatives and Liberals under Trudeau. Harper was very pro-war.



> Trudeau immediately halted Canada's bombing campaign in Syria.
> . . .
> "We [an Ontario based weapon manufactuerer], under the Conservatives, shipped about 2,000 rifles over there", said Jeff Hussey, former president of the company, which has since been acquired by a larger defence contractor.
> . . .
> Trudeau said that, upon being elected in 2015, he decided that "*Canada would not, anymore, have any engagements in Syria* and we would focus our help in Iraq, and that's exactly what we've done".


The article goes on to explain how it drove the weapons manufactuer to leave for the US because they can't export enough arms. Good riddance!

Bravo, Trudeau! All that Conservative whining about halloween costumes can make a person forget about really important things, like how Trudeau reduced our overseas military attacks as soon as he took over from Harper.


----------



## humble_pie

Spudd said:


> It was not really at the last minute, this made the news way back on Sept 11.
> 
> https://nationalpost.com/news/polit...-to-run-in-same-riding-as-ppcs-maxime-bernier



thankx, what a good eye u have, as usual!

do other provinces have rhinoceros candidates? they're a fixture here in quebec although i never before heard of a rhino organizer who went through the phone book calling names that were identical to selected real candidates, then enticing the namesakes to run as rhinos in order to weaken support for the real thing.

who paid who & with what? did the Cons conspire w rhino organizer corriveau to pull a fast one in the Beauce? is maxime bernier numero due receiving a way overly-generous expense account for his political travel & promotional costs?

as bernier numero uno says, OO did this?


----------



## james4beach

Yup that's a great find, Spudd. Hmmm.... OO did this indeed?


----------



## humble_pie

could this be one of those ultra-rare cases where, if the Cons end up w one more seat than the Libs but trudeau has a coalition deal in hand w Jag, then Julie Payette as governor general gets to choose who will form the next gummint of canada?

IIRC it's only happened once or twice in canadian history, that a GG has been called upon to declare the new gummint. To say that the auld queen herself has the same power is to get things backwards: the GG has the power because the monarch has the power.

isn't the parliamentary system grand


----------



## sags

Scheer refuses to answer questions about it. I think Canadians know what that means.


----------



## sags

The confidence of Parliament is the requirement for becoming the government. 

Trudeau can present his throne speech and see if it meets the confidence test.

I believe Trudeau would present a throne speech regardless of the seat count. It would force the opposition parties to vote with the Conservatives and that is unlikely.

I think the opposition parties have made it very clear that even without a coalition with the Liberals, they won't be supporting the Conservatives.


----------



## humble_pie

whether throne speech or GG or what, one thing is clear. The Cons have No Friends.

people talking about a voting alliance between Cons & Bloq are way out of it. The other 3 minority parties have said No.

still, they do say Never Say Never. What if blanchet & scheer were to barter successful Energy East for a separate, independent, new state of québec libre?


----------



## humble_pie

james4beach said:


> I'm reading the National Post newspaper, a column written by a right wing guy who is complaining about how Trudeau has reduced middle east warfare engagements, and how it's bad for the arms industry. This is making me laugh because the right winger is trying to make me disappointed with Trudeau, whereas in fact his article makes me admire Trudeau for reducing military engagements.
> 
> These are some of the important differences in fundamental values between Conservatives and Liberals under Trudeau. Harper was very pro-war.
> 
> 
> 
> The article goes on to explain how it drove the weapons manufactuer to leave for the US because they can't export enough arms. Good riddance!
> 
> Bravo, Trudeau! All that Conservative whining about halloween costumes can make a person forget about really important things, like how Trudeau reduced our overseas military attacks as soon as he took over from Harper.



jas4 i read that article. The author made it sound like canada was turning its back on the kurds, was betraying the kurds like the US is doing.

it's of no interest in cmf forum except to yourself having an interest in turkey & to myself having an interest in foreign news & history. I know you don't care for the kurdish homeland cause because turkey is home to a vegetable soup wing of kurdish nationalism whose members are genuine terrorists. 

but erbil - capital city of the tiny region the kurds have been able to gain for themselves in northern iraq - erbil's kurdish brand of vegetable soup are not terrorists. Those are the kurds canada was helping with special ops forces. They were based in erbil.

i saw a photograph of a brand-new kurdish military cemetery recently. The buried are the soldiers who were killed in syria this year, last year, just these past few years. The cemetery stretched for miles & miles & miles. Thousands upon thousands of life-sized stone sarcophagi lay in precision rows upon the surface of the ground. Who knows, there might even be a custom of "burying" dead soldiers in sarcophagi rather than under the ground. 

picture was heartbreaking. All those tbousands upon thousands of once-hopeful bright young lives.


----------



## Userkare

sags said:


> The Conservatives are toast, and the universe unfolds as it should.


And then, when the universe unfolds a global recession, the LibDP, who will have over-mortgaged the future, will need either large tax increases, whole new types of taxes, severe service cuts, or all of the above. The Conservatives will win with an overwhelming majority in the next election, and straighten the whole mess out in a few terms. Then, once times are good again, they'll be vilified for having taken away all the entitlements people feel they deserve, and the LibDP will get power agin. 

Ain't the universe a b**ch!


----------



## MrMatt

humble_pie said:


> whether throne speech or GG or what, one thing is clear. The Cons have No Friends.
> 
> people talking about a voting alliance between Cons & Bloq are way out of it. The other 3 minority parties have said No.
> 
> still, they do say Never Say Never. What if blanchet & scheer were to barter successful Energy East for a separate, independent, new state of québec libre?



This is part of the problem, partisan politics.
Lets say Scheer wins, and puts forward reasonable compromise policies that people would be okay with.
How long do you think the other parties will support this?

Also respecting provincial rights IS a good reason for the Bloc to support the CPC.
The all knowing NDP and Liberals don't seem to understand what they don't understand, and their Toronto/Montreal/Vancouver policies simply don't work everywehre.


----------



## Retired Peasant

humble_pie said:


> therefore i was horrified to hear what has transpired in the Beauce. Somebody at the last minute has entered another candidate with the same name - Maxime Bernier - as candidate for the Rhinocerus party in the Beauce. The transparent hope is that some voters will be fooled away from the real maxime Bernier to vote for the fake maxime Bernier on the ballot, thus improving the Conservative candidate's chances for election.


I too was going to post about the timing of his entry into the election - quite early and reported by many major news organizations, but aside from that, I don't see how voters will be 'fooled away' from the real Bernier. The party is listed beside the candidate's name on the ballot. Quebecers can't be that stupid, can they?


----------



## doctrine

Bhahaha. So now media are concerned that someone Conservative might have called the People's Party racist?

Only in a messed up liberal-learning/funded media world would CBC and others come to the defense of a party full of racists, so long as it looked like Conservatives might be hurt by it.

This might be the most ridiculous talking point of the entire election. Every party has called the People's Party racist, directly or indirectly, throughout the campaign and INCLUDING on the debate night in front of 15 million Canadians.


----------



## Prairie Guy

sags said:


> Scheer refuses to answer questions about it. I think Canadians know what that means.


It means exactly the same as when Trudeau refuses to answer questions. Except when Trudeau refuses to answer questions you give him a free pass


----------



## james4beach

doctrine said:


> Bhahaha. So now media are concerned that someone Conservative might have called the People's Party racist?


You seem to have not understood what the consultants were hired to do. They weren't hired to just call the party racist.

The consultants were hired to carry out a covert operation through social media. The consultants were forcing the party into a position where they can be shown to be sympathetic to racist statements. The plan involved creating an arm's length organization that cannot be linked to Kinsella's agency to carry out the attacks; this is the *covert* nature of the action. It involves using a fictitious organization that misrepresents its intentions.

The disgusting thing about this operation was concealing the trace of "who" the message was coming from. Sleazy.

Another politician calling Bernier's party "racist" is one thing. But what is described in this incident is far more deceptive, much more like a spy agency operation or a psyops campaign -- to influence people and manipulate a situation.

This is incredibly deceptive and under handed. And Scheer won't even deny that he did it.



> "As our Leader Maxime Bernier stated when he left the CPC and repeated on numerous occasions since then, they are 'morally and intellectually corrupt.' And today, this story proves it without a doubt," Johanne Mennie said in an email.


That seems like a fair assessment, that the Conservative Party is morally and intellectually corrupt. Combined with feeding a fictitious sex scandal targeting another candidate, I think it's fair to say that the Conservatives have demonstrated a complete moral corruption.

They are not qualified to be in the role of government. Scheer should resign.


----------



## AltaRed

Don't know about that. JT broke the ethics law at least twice. He should also resign. How many times do you need to be reminded to be objective?


----------



## Topo

It's not surprising that some voters will defend the Liberal platform or accomplishments. There is some merit there. But there is a certain degree of Trudeau-worshiping going on that I find baffling. Nobody is that good.


----------



## james4beach

AltaRed said:


> Don't know about that. JT broke the ethics law at least twice. He should also resign. How many times do you need to be reminded to be objective?


We already went over this, and how that process is not calibrated / does not have much meaning as it has no historical context. Other PMs have not been held to the same standard as Trudeau.

You're trying to change the subject. Scheer is morally corrupt.



Topo said:


> It's not surprising that some voters will defend the Liberal platform or accomplishments. There is some merit there. But there is a certain degree of Trudeau-worshiping going on that I find baffling. Nobody is that good.


I don't see why correcting misconceptions would be considered Trudeau-worshipping.


----------



## Eclectic12

james4beach said:


> ... What's suspicious is how much hostility (political attacks) are here, for example, the many months of _endless _whining about Trudeau, and extreme interest in every single Conservative-defined "scandal".
> 
> *This does not occur among regular people in the regular population.*
> 
> I think most people are interested in the party platforms, what policies they have, not hearing another attack. If you watch TV coverage of discussions with voters, they don't express interest in the never-ending attacks either.
> 
> There are a few possible explanations for this unusually hostile political posting at CMF ...


A guy originally from Montreal starts out with Trudeau being a spoiled silver spoon brat, the carbon tax is a Liberal money grab then moves onto other areas of the Liberal platform he hates and that according to you is "not regular people in the regular population"?

I guess that also means the Quebecer who told Singh to cut his turban off was a CMF plant?

I can recall similar thrown at Harper by co-workers and many other politicians through the years.


Or perhaps you don't know Canadian families who forbid talking politics around the festive table

It seems that my unreal world doesn't fit your version of the real world.


Cheers


----------



## james4beach

Fair enough. I guess there are many people out there who have more political hostility than what I'm used to.



Eclectic12 said:


> It seems that my unreal world doesn't fit your version of the real world.


My own experience has been different than yours. Personally I have not heard people in my circles rant and rave about politicians, including an energy industry friend I had drinks with last week. The people that I know sound very different than the CMF regulars.


----------



## Eclectic12

humble_pie said:


> ... therefore i was horrified to hear what has transpired in the Beauce. Somebody at the last minute has entered another candidate with the same name - Maxime Bernier - as candidate for the Rhinocerus party in the Beauce. The transparent hope is that some voters will be fooled away from the real maxime Bernier to vote for the fake maxime Bernier on the ballot, thus improving the Conservative candidate's chances for election ...


Are you saying Beauce voter's eyesight is so bad they won't quickly be able to notice there are two Maxime Bernier's on the ballot? Or that one is part of the Rhino party while the other is PPC?


The same name candidate, which likely appealed to the Rhino party does not seem like an effective method to me.


Cheers


----------



## james4beach

Eclectic12 said:


> Are you saying Beauce voter's eyesight is so bad they won't quickly be able to notice there are two Maxime Bernier's on the ballot? Or that one is part of the Rhino party while the other is PPC?


This is what a ballot looks like:










Yes I think that two candidates with the same name can cause confusion. The party affiliation is in smaller text, so it is harder to see.


----------



## AltaRed

James continues to look for spooks around every corner. Hard to believe how irrational a supposedly intelligent person can be.

Before he digs himself deeper, perhaps wait for the actual vote count?


----------



## Eclectic12

Sure the text for the party is smaller ... but not by much, from what I recall of the ballot cast last weekend. The full list of candidates was there so I'm not sure how many would tick the first one on the list.


Cheers


----------



## AltaRed

james4beach said:


> You're trying to change the subject. Scheer is morally corrupt.


It is dirty politics, something every party knows well and has practiced for decades, if not since before confederation. Nothing illegal though I don't condone it myself.

JT on the other hand broke the law at least twice. Grasping at straws does nothing for your credibility.


----------



## AltaRed

Eclectic12 said:


> Sure the text for the party is smaller ... but not by much, from what I recall of the ballot cast last weekend. The full list of candidates was there so I'm not sure how many would tick the first one on the list.
> 
> 
> Cheers


It is a non-issue. If James had ever voted in a federal election, he would already know what the ballot looks like.


----------



## Retired Peasant

james4beach said:


> Yes I think that two candidates with the same name can cause confusion. The party affiliation is in smaller text, so it is harder to see.


That's ridiculous. You should give Quebecers more credit than that. I'm sure the media for Beauce has covered this story extensively, and voters are well aware.


----------



## like_to_retire

Retired Peasant said:


> ................. voters are well aware.


And perhaps it actually helped PPC since publicity is usually a good thing.

ltr


----------



## Prairie Guy

james4beach said:


> Other PMs have not been held to the same standard as Trudeau.


We know that. Trudeau gets a free pass from the media when a Conservative doing the same thing would be tarred and feathered.

But that's expected when the media leans left and has been bribed with $600 million. Of course, the bribes only work if they can convince some people to believe them. So James, people like you are the reason why we elected such a incompetent and corrupt PM.

If Trudeau is elected again, then he knows it was worth $600 million of our tax dollars.


----------



## Eclectic12

james4beach said:


> You seem to have not understood what the consultants were hired to do. They weren't hired to just call the party racist.
> 
> The consultants were hired to carry out a covert operation through social media. The consultants were forcing the party into a position where they can be shown to be sympathetic to racist statements. The plan involved creating an arm's length organization that cannot be linked to Kinsella's agency to carry out the attacks; this is the *covert* nature of the action. It involves using a fictitious organization that misrepresents its intentions ...


And that's radical different than Engage Canada that ran an ad against Scheer during the NBA finals?
They spent their ad money before the election was called so that like the 2015 election that had ads against Harper, they don't need to register as a third party, stick to a budget or reveal who donated.



> Engage bills itself as a non-partisan third party, founded by former Liberal and NDP strategists and made up of individuals, labour organizations and professional associations who share the common goal of ensuring Scheer never becomes prime minister ... Bernard confirmed that Unifor, Canada’s largest media union, is involved in Engage but refused to quantify its role ...


https://www.thestar.com/politics/fe...-paint-very-different-pictures-of-scheer.html
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/who...cheer-ad-airing-during-raptors-game-1.4460332




james4beach said:


> ... The disgusting thing about this operation was concealing the trace of "who" the message was coming from. Sleazy.


Seems that similar is going on with Engage Canada's masking of who they are and lack of transparency.

IIRC there's also been election signs posted in traditional party colours with messages different than the party platform around town.

There's also the PPC candidate that recycled his old conservative party signs. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcnhfVr759c 


Cheers


----------



## MrMatt

Eclectic12 said:


> There's also the PPC candidate that recycled his old conservative party signs.
> 
> Cheers


Ban recycling! 
Reminds me of the Eddie Murphy movie distinguished gentlemen.


----------



## humble_pie

Retired Peasant said:


> That's ridiculous. You should give Quebecers more credit than that. I'm sure the media for Beauce has covered this story extensively, and voters are well aware.



what's ridic is "the media for Beauce"

the Beauce is a rural riding south of quebec city. Lots of dairy farming, some light industry. There are no Beauceron media. Moo cows are still saying Moo, they are not yet posting on social media although sometimes it does look like the bovine are opinionating there.

for 2 generations the Bernier family - Maxime & his father Gilles before him - have represented the riding as Conservative MPs in ottawa.

only recently did Maxime split from the Cons to found his own party. As best i can recall, i don't believe Maxime himself has made racist remarks; however his far-right-of-centre party has attracted a number of extremist & even alarming adherents.


----------



## humble_pie

AltaRed said:


> James continues to look for spooks around every corner. Hard to believe how irrational a supposedly intelligent person can be.



pat gently on head
smile broadly
a quick roll-eye behind back


----------



## Eclectic12

james4beach said:


> AltaRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't know about that. JT broke the ethics law at least twice. He should also resign. How many times do you need to be reminded to be objective?
> 
> 
> 
> We already went over this, and how that process is not calibrated / does not have much meaning as it has no historical context.
> 
> Other PMs have not been held to the same standard as Trudeau ...
Click to expand...

Part of new laws is having the law process calibrated/factoring in historical context?

I'm surprised the TFSA manipulators that ended up with large TFSA contribution room that were charged 100% of their gains in penalties didn't point this out to get CRA and/or the tax courts to give them a pass. After all, some of them were paying the 100% penalty for actions a year or two after the new law was passed to start being applied.

Or how about if Singh gets his pledges of new taxes on the high income folks or increasing capital gains rate - how long a calibration period before the gov't will expect to be paid in full?

Or how long does Ontario get before having to forward the carbon tax revenues to the Feds?


Last I checked - laws didn't have a calibration period or factor in historical context for how long particular people had been under the law.


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12

Today is the last day to vote so if you haven't yet voted - time is running out.


Cheers


----------



## james4beach

Indeed, must go out and vote! I'm about to walk out right now.

As for Singh's cap gain tax increase Eclectic12... don't worry, you'll still be filthy rich even if they increase the inclusion rate.


----------



## AltaRed

james4beach said:


> As for Singh's cap gain tax increase Eclectic12... don't worry, you'll still be filthy rich even if they increase the inclusion rate.


Coming from a true socialist. And BTW, take a hard look at the ballot you see to assess how simple it is to identify party affiliation with candidate names.


----------



## fstamand

humble_pie said:


> pat gently on head
> smile broadly
> a quick roll-eye behind back


Had a lot of roll-eyes too reading his babbles


----------



## sags

Just came from the polling station. The Liberal lineup was quite long.


----------



## Eclectic12

james4beach said:


> Indeed, must go out and vote!


On this we agree ... I really don't like when people spend a lot of time complaining about what the gov't is doing but didn't bother to vote or at least get their rejected ballot on record.




james4beach said:


> ... As for Singh's cap gain tax increase Eclectic12... don't worry, you'll still be filthy rich even if they increase the inclusion rate.


Now who is trying to change the subject? :rolleyes2:

The point was to find out how long a calibration period you are expecting before the gov't will expect to be paid in full. 
Somehow I doubt the gov't of the day and CRA will that these concepts into account. At least, I have never seen them expressed by a gov't in power.


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12

sags said:


> Just came from the polling station. The Liberal lineup was quite long.


LoL ... you were able to tell from the face paint and liberal party logo tattoos? :biggrin:
At my polling station, the line up was for the riding instead of who the vote was being cast for.


Lineups to vote might be long OTOH.


Cheers


----------



## sags

I got everyone in our family out to vote. After explaining how nasty and evil the Conservatives are..........they couldn't wait to vote Liberal.

It feels good to help so many people make the right choices in life.


----------



## sags

It sounds like JWR is in a dog fight and Jane Philpott is in third place.

Those will be interesting races to watch. Some analysts think Scheer and May will be gone after the election.


----------



## Eclectic12

sags said:


> I got everyone in our family out to vote ...


IOW ... the long Liberal lineup is family where any other voters in line or that have cast their votes are unknown. :rolleyes2:


Cheers


----------



## AltaRed

Eclectic12 said:


> IOW ... the long Liberal lineup is family where any other voters in line or that have cast their votes are unknown. :rolleyes2:
> 
> 
> Cheers


There is no assurance of that. I will speculate most of Sags' family tunes him out and vote their personal conscience. Family block voting is (should) be dead in the water if the kids (from boomers onward) have been raised to be independent.


----------



## potato69

Is it just me or did Sheer absolutely blow it???

Do those that voted Conservative share that view? Aren't you pissed that Sheer blew what should have been a pretty easy win? For a party with 33% support to lose a majority to push their relatively extremist views (seeing that NDP, Lib, Green & Block are pretty similar left) - you guys lost a golden chance.

If an Liberal, NDP coalition is necessary a condition of NDP support should be to push proportional representation. Get away from this vote splitting that generally gives the conservative extremist views a disproportionate voice.


----------



## AltaRed

I've always been against PR since it gives extremist parties a toehold. There are something like 24 political parties in Canada. Imagine the Rhino or Communist parties sitting in Parliament, albeit there could be a threshold of say 3% of the popular vote to reach before any party could have a sitting member. How would one pick a Rhino member if none could be elected at the riding level? BC, traditionally an unusual province with a number of sidebars, turned down PR twice, the last time soundly. It is not a pretty sight when one looks hard at the 3-5 types of PR representation, some of which can result in ZERO representation from a riding. Add to that, the gong shows in Europe should be a good lesson.


----------



## Eder

Sheer failed to capitalize on JT's numerous face plants but did put forward a better agenda.It will be pretty sad for most of Canada if the Libs hold hands with the NDP. But let the majority decide our fate as usual.


----------



## Prairie Guy

sags said:


> Just came from the polling station. The Liberal lineup was quite long.


They're easy to identify because they were still carrying their suitcases from crossing the border illegally.


----------



## Prairie Guy

AltaRed said:


> There is no assurance of that. I will speculate most of Sags' family tunes him out and vote their personal conscience. Family block voting is (should) be dead in the water if the kids (from boomers onward) have been raised to be independent.


Every family has a crazy uncle full of conspiracy theories that no one listens to. Most families just smile and nod because reasonable debate is pointless. It's a win/win...no one has to try to reason with them and the crazy uncle goes home happy thinking that they all took his advice to heart.


----------



## sags

The Conservatives dropped 28% points during the election. Win, lose or draw that is a problem.

Was it their leader or their policies that turned Canadians off when they took a closer look ?


----------



## agent99

james4beach said:


> Indeed, must go out and vote!


My wife and I voted today at 10am. We were the only ones at polling station there to vote. Outnumbered by election officials and security officer by about 5:1  Hope other voters came out later! Exit poll put Liberals ahead


----------



## sags

There are complaints of robocalls telling people to vote tomorrow.

It is illegal to make such calls. The group behind the calls is a right wing group that opposes the carbon tax.

Figures.........


----------



## Topo

sags said:


> The group behind the calls is a right wing group that opposes the carbon tax.


How do you know this?


----------



## AltaRed

Topo said:


> How do you know this?


This is the CBC news item on this https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/election-robocalls-voters-polls-misleading-1.5329199 It is not clear how much is a mistake and corrected with follow up calls, or how much might be deliberate by certain Eastern Canada provincial "proud and strong" right wing groups. Hard to understand why they would think there is any political advantage to doing so. Regardless, it is dumb (and illegal) and does a disservice to legitimate and legal tactics.


----------



## Topo

AltaRed said:


> This is the CBC news item on this https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/election-robocalls-voters-polls-misleading-1.5329199 It is not clear how much is a mistake and corrected with follow up calls, or how much might be deliberate by certain provincial "proud and strong" groups. Regardless, it is dumb (and illegal) and does a disservice to legitimate and legal tactics.


Dirty tactics. If it was done deliberately, I hope there would be legal consequences.


----------



## AltaRed

Topo said:


> Dirty tactics. If it was done deliberately, I hope there would be legal consequences.


There always seems to be some rogue, or irresponsible, elements that are problematic in any number of endeavours. Zealots who can't be rational even if it hit them between the eyes.


----------



## bgc_fan

Topo said:


> Dirty tactics. If it was done deliberately, I hope there would be legal consequences.


Unfortunately, I suspect there won't be any consequences. I don't think there is an electoral law that prevents misinformation like that, though feel free to prove me wrong on that one.


----------



## MrMatt

Canadian voter laws are weak and rarely enforced.
Even if someone breaks them, it isn't like the courts are going to award the seat to someone else.
If a third party breaks the law, there are pretty much no consequences for the winning candidate. I'd argue that unless they were in control of the third party punishing the candidate is inappropriate anyway.


----------



## humble_pie

Topo said:


> Dirty tactics. If it was done deliberately, I hope there would be legal consequences.




no need to ask Who are the Prouds & Strongs w the illegal phone calls & text messages. The CBC has done all the digging. The tainted names are all spread out in the limelight for everyone to see.

without exception Prouds & Strongs link to the Conservative party. Conservative party leader of the opposition in newfoundland is Ches Crombie, son of heavyweight conservative politician John Crosbie. Ches' former communication director Devin Drover now directs NL Strong, which has been tampering directly with voters by phone & by text message since 2018, says the CBC.

ontario proud links to maritimes & newfoundland prouds, also to doug ford staffers. Other prouds link to former harper staffers.

read the cbc links. These people are slime. Graciously contributing to canadian history via the Conservative party of canada.


https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/devin-drover-nl-strong-1.5129080


----------



## Topo

The laws on this, in my opinion, have to be strengthened. If this were some prankster playing games for the laughs, maybe some leniency would be justified. But if a political group does this, it is basically a type of disenfranchisement. I could see a senior citizen or someone lost in the ups and downs of life taking the bait. Not everyone is into politics on a day-to-day basis.


----------



## Topo

humble_pie said:


> no need to ask Who are the Prouds & Strongs w the illegal phone calls & text messages. The CBC has done all the digging. The tainted names are all spread out in the limelight for everyone to see.
> 
> without exception Prouds & Strongs link to the Conservative party. Conservative party leader of the opposition in newfoundland is Ches Crombie, son of heavyweight conservative politician John Crosbie. Ches' former communication director Devin Drover now directs NL Strong, which has been tampering directly with voters by phone & by text message since 2018, says the CBC.
> 
> ontario proud links to maritimes & newfoundland prouds, also to doug ford staffers. Other prouds link to former harper staffers.
> 
> read the cbc links. These people are slime. Graciously contributing to canadian history via the Conservative party of canada.
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/devin-drover-nl-strong-1.5129080


Interesting group. The material on their website is very generic. It's hard to tell what exactly they are after.


----------



## humble_pie

Topo said:


> The laws on this, in my opinion, have to be strengthened. If this were some prankster playing games for the laughs, maybe some leniency would be justified. But if a political group does this, it is basically a type of disenfranchisement. I could see a senior citizen or someone lost in the ups and downs of life taking the bait. Not everyone is into politics on a day-to-day basis.


according to the cbc the Prouds & Strongs are organized groups who have been preying on voters in local elections since 2018

somewhere upthread is a post advising that Liberal voters must vote tomorrow ... i don't imagine the mods will do anything about it


----------



## humble_pie

yes! les Iles de la Madeleine win for the Libs again!! yea diane leBouthillier!!!

this far eastern quebec riding is the only one that belongs in atlantic time zone. In 2015 election it served as an early lighthouse & harbinger for the liberal red win which then swept west.


----------



## Topo

The Patriots are crushing the Jets.

I hope the CG inclusion rate remains intact after all of this.


----------



## moderator2

humble_pie said:


> somewhere upthread is a post advising that Liberal voters must vote tomorrow ... i don't imagine the mods will do anything about it


I actually deleted the post and gave the poster a 1 day ban for inappropriate content


----------



## humble_pie

dint we have a time when the CG inclusion rate was 75% though 

ce n'était pas la fin du monde. All it meant was that canadian dividends w their tax credits became the preferred income stream

before long another gummint was elected which set the rate back to 50%


----------



## Topo

humble_pie said:


> yes! les Iles de la Madeleine win for the Libs again!! yea diane leBouthillier!!!
> 
> this far eastern quebec riding is the only one that belongs in atlantic time zone. In 2015 election it served as an early lighthouse & harbinger for the liberal red win which then swept west.


G&M says that the BQ is leading there.


----------



## humble_pie

^^ so very sorry, i spoke too soon, thankx for correction!

vote still being counted in les Iles de la Madeleine, you're right that the Bloc is leading at the moment

if i understand the globe's stats correctly, 5 minutes ago only 20 out of 214 polls had reported

did you see that st john's east went NDP? iirc the NDP candidate had won before, was strong in SJE. Don't know jargey's riding but overall in st john's tonight i'm not sure that jargey will be happy


----------



## Topo

Yes, I see one orange for NL. I think it is a pick up at the expense of the Libs.


----------



## Eclectic12

james4beach said:


> ... As for Singh's cap gain tax increase Eclectic12... don't worry, you'll still be filthy rich even if they increase the inclusion rate.


Are you projecting or something? Or maybe you have a crystal ball that sees the future?
If I was filthy rich - I wouldn't be working. 

As I'm not filthy rich now, I don't see how an increased inclusion rate is going to get me there.


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12

humble_pie said:


> dint we have a time when the CG inclusion rate was 75% though ...
> before long another gummint was elected which set the rate back to 50%


Ten years does not seem short to me that the "before long" seems to imply. The 75% inclusion rate lasted ten years, through three PMs (Mulroney, Campbell and Chretien).

Prior to '72 there was no capital gains. 
From '72 to '88 it was 50%. 
From '88 to '90 it was 66%. 
From '90 to '00 it was 75%.
For most of '00 it was 66%.
Late in '00 to today it's been 50%.

Intriguing as it probably doesn't fit the current narrative to have had the Conservatives who jacked it up and the Liberals that reduced it.


Cheers


----------



## james4beach

Isn't that interesting that Mulroney (Conservative PM) kept the inclusion rate at 75%.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but Chretien (Liberals) were the ones who reduced it down to 50%.

(Aside: Liberals just won the election)


----------



## Topo

CBC projects Liberal government. Majority or minority remains to be seen.


----------



## humble_pie

very tight counts in progress across quebec save for island of montreal whose ridings traditionally vote Lib. Count appears to be very slow in trudeau's own riding of papineau though

in gaspesie-les-Iles-de-la-Madeleine diane leBouthillier just pulled ahead of Bloc candidate by a mere 27 votes. But count a few more ballots & she could drop back again.


----------



## Topo

The risk to CG inclusion rate changes comes from the NDP not the Liberals.


----------



## AltaRed

james4beach said:


> Isn't that interesting that Mulroney (Conservative PM) kept the inclusion rate at 75%.
> 
> Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but Chretien (Liberals) were the ones who reduced it down to 50%.


Yes, it was Chretien, or better said Paul Martin as Finance Minister. The fear is that the NDP might force a higher inclusion rate as a condition of supporting the Liberals. 

This is not a Lib vs Con issue. The Libs have been traditionally supportive of business


----------



## Topo

BQ is the biggest winner tonight. NDP could be the biggest loser.


----------



## humble_pie

Topo said:


> CBC projects Liberal government. Majority or minority remains to be seen.



topo do you have a grip on that globe coloured map for ontario? i mean open significant ridings & study the vote count trends.

based on what i see in quebec we need western canada vote before can definitively predict Liberal gummint

PS in quebec the Bloc is strong which is what was predicted

PPS it looks like bernier is losing in the Beauce


----------



## robfordlives

Topo said:


> The risk to CG inclusion rate changes comes from the NDP not the Liberals.


Oh I doubt that - they have declared war on anyone with any kind of wealth. The CG increase would sting but the one I'm worried about is messing with the Div Tax Credit as I will be retiring on my dividend income, 40K of which would be from Canadian sources. Div Tax Credit makes tax integration sense so changing it would be illogical but according to Garth Turner they were very close to doing so in 2017 but then flipped and attacked business owners with the onerous changes to small businesses. For me any kind of change to DTC could push back my retirement date but hey I'm one of the rich ones I guess and can work more for people to sit around and collect 70K tax free for having 7 kids.


----------



## Topo

humble_pie said:


> topo do you have a grip on that globe coloured map for ontario? i mean open significant ridings & study the vote count trends.
> 
> based on what i see in quebec we need western canada vote before can definitively predict Liberal gummint
> 
> PS in quebec the Bloc is strong which is what was predicted
> 
> PPS it looks like bernier is losing in the Beauce


I don't get too granular on the ridings. I was just relaying a CBC prediction, not mine.


----------



## james4beach

AltaRed said:


> The fear is that the NDP might force a higher inclusion rate as a condition of supporting the Liberals.


Yes that makes sense



> This is not a Lib vs Con issue. The Libs have been traditionally supportive of business


True. Liberals are quite pro business.


----------



## Topo

robfordlives said:


> Oh I doubt that - they have declared war on anyone with any kind of wealth. The CG increase would sting but the one I'm worried about is messing with the Div Tax Credit as I will be retiring on my dividend income, 40K of which would be from Canadian sources. Div Tax Credit makes tax integration sense so changing it would be illogical but according to Garth Turner they were very close to doing so in 2017 but then flipped and attacked business owners with the onerous changes to small businesses. For me any kind of change to DTC could push back my retirement date but hey I'm one of the rich ones I guess and can work more for people to sit around and collect 70K tax free for having 7 kids.


I agree that changing the DTC would be worse, because one may be able to defer capital gains until the tide turns, but tax on dividends is due every year.


----------



## humble_pie

AltaRed said:


> The fear is that the NDP might force a higher inclusion rate as a condition of supporting the Liberals.




it makes no sense for a diehard oil industry spokesperson to fearfully oppose cuts in the capital gains inclusion rate if such would be the NDP price for agreeing to transMountain II.

spokesperson ought to jolly well be prepared to sacrifice a fragment of his personal wealth for the sake of the alberta principles he has so firmly & frequently upheld .each:


----------



## james4beach

I'm shocked by the Bloc strength.

I don't like that we even allow a separatist party at the federal level. They are occupying seats in the house that should be used to represent the interests of Canadians across the country.


----------



## humble_pie

Topo said:


> I don't get too granular on the ridings. I was just relaying a CBC prediction, not mine.




i am a bottoms-up trader. To me in an election the riding details are everything.


----------



## Topo

Maxime Bernier has lost. Doesn't look like Rhino was a factor.


----------



## Topo

humble_pie said:


> i am a bottoms-up trader. To me in an election the riding details are everything.


I like the macro picture, as in macroeconomics. To each their own.


----------



## robfordlives

Well at least there is a clear mandate to get rid of Scheer now. His last message was that stupid false claim about GST. I mean maybe he had more to say in the last few days but those were the headlines. He should have been pounding the JT credibility issue until he was blue in the face. Polling in the last week was disastrous for whatever reason. He was also perceived to be a total social dinosaur which I don't care about, but voters do nowadays. Please please Peter McKay run for the leadership.


----------



## james4beach

Topo said:


> Maxime Bernier has lost. Doesn't look like Rhino was a factor.


Interesting. Who did he lose to?


----------



## humble_pie

james4beach said:


> I'm shocked by the Bloc strength.
> 
> I don't like that we even allow a separatist party at the federal level. They are occupying seats in the house that should be used to represent the interests of Canadians across the country.



it was widely predicted. They are going to sit in parliament & they are going to look for good deals for themselves w very hard noses. I predict they'll give in on TMP II much faster than the NDP.


----------



## Topo

james4beach said:


> Interesting. Who did he lose to?


He lost to Conservative Richard Lahoux (39% to 29%).

P.S. Actually only 41% of the votes are counted so far. The result could change.


----------



## Topo

Looks like Libs+NDP are over the watermark. Cons need to work with both NDP and BQ to have a chance at forming the government.


----------



## humble_pie

did y'll see that n.i.f.t.y. Green win in new brunswick? fredericton riding

the party will likely win one or more seats out west. Fredericton will make logistics expensive for them, but it will be nice to hear their voices formally in the house of commons.

alas bernier's PPC may end up with no seats at all, this i think would be a small loss for canada

i don't support either party but i strongly believe that the hallmark of a civilized parliamentary democracy it that it can allow, encourage & deal with all kinds of minority voices


----------



## Prairie Guy

Going channel to channel...CBC and CTV announcers are having a hard time containing their excitement. A lot of laughing and smiling going on....so much for "unbiased" reporting.

$600 million buys a lot of smiles


----------



## AltaRed

If current numbers hold, JT can work with either NDP or BQ for legislation and not be beholden to just one or the other. That is good news. 

It is also good news that having a strong minority at 150+ seats is much better than being at 135 seats and at the whim of multiple parties.

FWIW, the DTC only changes with changes in corporate tax rates. It goes up with higher CIT rates and lower with lower CIT rates. It has always been designed to minimize any double taxation.


----------



## humble_pie

still early counting in vancouver granville & it's tight between Con/Lib/Ind, w jody wilson-raybould in 3rd place but only 68 votes behind the early front runner


----------



## humble_pie

Prairie Guy said:


> Going channel to channel...CBC and CTV announcers are having a hard time containing their excitement. A lot of laughing and smiling going on....so much for "unbiased" reporting.
> 
> $600 million buys a lot of smiles



tygrus we keep saying it but you're not getting it. The media, by & large, are not biased. It's yourself who is biased. So biased you are crippled.


----------



## james4beach

I think the election provides some nice reality checks. One is that Liberal support is limited across the country. Not everyone is on board with Trudeau, so he really has to work hard and listen to what people need (this is good).

The Conservatives also swept AB & SK by popular vote:
AB 69% Conservative, 14% Liberal
SK 67% Conservative, 10% Liberal

Just amazing! Clearly, some very different views in these provinces compared to everywhere else. Attention must be paid to the dissatisfaction.


----------



## humble_pie

jane philpott lost tonight. An extraordinary, courageous, multi-talented & noble-spirited woman. Canada has lost a deeply respected soul sister.

in milton, lisa raitt has lost to the Liberal candidate. That more or less removes raitt from conservative party leadership consideration.


----------



## james4beach

JWR, running as Independent, is currently just 17 votes ahead in Vancouver Granville but polls are not finished reporting yet.


----------



## bgc_fan

james4beach said:


> I think the election provides some nice reality checks. One is that Liberal support is limited across the country. Not everyone is on board with Trudeau, so he really has to work hard and listen to what people need (this is good).
> 
> The Conservatives also swept AB & SK by popular vote:
> AB 69% Conservative, 14% Liberal
> SK 67% Conservative, 10% Liberal
> 
> Just amazing! Clearly, some very different views in these provinces compared to everywhere else. Attention must be paid to the dissatisfaction.


That's not really a surprise. It's pretty normal.
The Conservatives have the overall popular vote lead though. And before you say that it's all fixed like the electoral college system (although there are some similarities in practice), keep in mind that usually Liberals win their seats with a a close margin, while Conservatives wins in the West by a crushing majority, which kind of skews the popular vote.

And before you start saying that's why the Liberals didn't want electoral reform, if we went by popular vote percentage, we would pretty much have 2 parties sitting at about 33% of the vote each needing to work with the NDP to get a 50%+ majority to get things passed. And based on ideology, who do you think the NDP would support? In other words, not much change than if the current results hold.


----------



## Prairie Guy

Justin is now a minority and he doesn't have to wear blackface to prove it.


----------



## humble_pie

james4beach said:


> JWR, running as Independent, is currently just 17 votes ahead in Vancouver Granville but polls are not finished reporting yet.



less than a third of polls have reported in van granville
it's been very choppy

wilson-raybould says she's "not a party animal" & for sure she got that one right

her independence-minded mate though - jane philpott - i am wondering if the Liberals could invite philpott back or if she would come back to the fold. Philpott is far too valuable an emerging politician to be allowed to disappear gently into that good night.


----------



## sags

The SNC Lavalin affair election results.

Jane Philpott was defeated. JWR is in a close race. Lisa Raitt led the Conservatives on the attack and was defeated. Trudeau won. The Bloc supporting Trudeau's position won.

The SNC Lavalin affair doesn't appear to have been a big deal to voters.


----------



## Karlhungus

james4beach said:


> Yes that makes sense
> 
> 
> 
> True. Liberals are quite pro business.


hahahahahahahahah the liberals are pro business hahhahahahahah


----------



## Fain87

sags said:


> The SNC Lavalin affair doesn't appear to have been a big deal to voters.


That wasn't on my radar or even close to deciding my vote. 

I'm quite pleased with Trudeau's performance, Unemployment Rate is at record lows, wages up, Legalization promise kept. . . I hope he keeps the promises made during this campaign (e.g. health-care funding, reducing cell-phone bills etc). We shall see if he does. Could be a coalition with the NDP for Universal Pharmacare.


----------



## MrMatt

bgc_fan said:


> That's not really a surprise. It's pretty normal.
> The Conservatives have the overall popular vote lead though. And before you say that it's all fixed like the electoral college system (although there are some similarities in practice), keep in mind that usually Liberals win their seats with a a close margin, while Conservatives wins in the West by a crushing majority, which kind of skews the popular vote.
> 
> And before you start saying that's why the Liberals didn't want electoral reform, if we went by popular vote percentage, we would pretty much have 2 parties sitting at about 33% of the vote each needing to work with the NDP to get a 50%+ majority to get things passed. And based on ideology, who do you think the NDP would support? In other words, not much change than if the current results hold.


Actually this election is EXACTLY why the Liberals don't want electoral reform.
I actually think the current system isn't that bad, though I'd like ranked ballot at the riding level.
I'm scared of proportional representation, and how much more divisive it would make things.


----------



## bgc_fan

MrMatt said:


> Actually this election is EXACTLY why the Liberals don't want electoral reform.
> I actually think the current system isn't that bad, though I'd like ranked ballot at the riding level.
> I'm scared of proportional representation, and how much more divisive it would make things.


Not really. Like I said, under most systems I bet you would end up with the same similar result of Liberal minority. Although I suspect there would be a chance of Liberal majority under ranked balloting. You could go by riding per riding to guess. Essentially any riding that won over 50% would stay as is. So pretty much the western provinces would stay as is. But anything less than that, you would probably have to look at who came in second and make an assumption on what people who voted 3 and 4 candidates would likely vote for. If 1 or 2 were NDP, likely Green and Liberal if Liberal wasn't the opposing. But if the Liberal was opposing, they would most likely draw the Conservative. That is just an example, but really just a guess.


----------



## like_to_retire

I'm not too pleased with the outcome of the election. Even though the Conservatives increased their seat total and came out ahead in the popular vote, the last thing I wanted was a Liberal minority. This just means they have to get in bed with the NDP, who don't want pipelines and love spending money and raising taxes. Worse is that the Liberals lost a few decent MP's in Ralph Goodale and Lisa Raitt. Just a bad result for the majority of voters who wanted the Conservatives.

Four years should be plenty of time for the Liberals and the socialists to completely hobble our country in debt, and then the Conservatives will win as usual once people realize we're in trouble. Then the Conservatives will have to make tough cuts to right the ship and everyone will complain just like they're doing in Ontario with Ford.

ltr


----------



## Prairie Guy

The $600 million media bribe worked:

"Unifor Canada

@UniforTheUnion
We stopped Scheer.
https://www.unifor.org/en/whats-new...nts-opportunity-real-progress-canadas-workers … 
#UniforVotes #elxn43 #ElectionsCanada"


----------



## sags

Unifor is right. A progressive Liberal/NDP minority government is the best outcome for average working folks.


----------



## Eclectic12

james4beach said:


> Isn't that interesting that Mulroney (Conservative PM) kept the inclusion rate at 75%.
> Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but Chretien (Liberals) were the ones who reduced it down to 50% ...


I did mention that it was the Liberals who reduced it twice in '00. 
Since Chretien was PM from '93 to '03, I'm not sure why there would be any doubt.

Though it may have been more about his finance minister convincing him as well as caucus to do it.


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12

AltaRed said:


> Topo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The risk to CG inclusion rate changes comes from the NDP not the Liberals.
> 
> 
> 
> ... The fear is that the NDP might force a higher inclusion rate as a condition of supporting the Liberals ...
Click to expand...

It may be an area that the Liberals can get NDP support. They have had the idea of a capital gains increase on budget discussion papers but don't seem to have seriously moved on it.


Cheers


----------



## Prairie Guy

sags said:


> Unifor is right. A progressive Liberal/NDP minority government is the best outcome for average working folks.


Unifor just admitted that they interfered in the election. Trudeau's $600 million bribe paid off. And you think that's a good thing.


----------



## Eclectic12

Topo said:


> james4beach said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting. Who did he lose to?
> 
> 
> 
> He lost to Conservative Richard Lahoux (39% to 29%).
> 
> P.S. Actually only 41% of the votes are counted so far. The result could change.
Click to expand...

It didn't change.

Despite the concern/angst about the Rhino party running a same name candidate possibly causing confusion, if all the RPC votes are shifted over to Bernier (one thousand and seventy two) - he still loses by four thousand plus votes (about four times the RPC candidates votes).

The comment from the panel was that the locals wanted to talk about jobs, maintaining the dairy supply chain and weren't interest in what Bernier was talking about. I have not idea of how accurate the comment is.


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12

robfordlives said:


> ... He should have been pounding the JT credibility issue until he was blue in the face.


Those who cared likely voted for other than Liberal. Those who don't care (there are several posters who had demonstrated this) didn't factor it in.

IMO, too much time was spent on it as it didn't seem to resonate with those that voted Liberal. Certainly almost all the Liberal voters I talked to dismissed it or though other areas outweighed what they saw as a minor issue.




robfordlives said:


> ... Please please Peter McKay run for the leadership.


The party will do what it will do.


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12

james4beach said:


> ... Not everyone is on board with Trudeau, so he really has to work hard and listen to what people need (this is good).
> The Conservatives also swept AB & SK ... Just amazing!
> 
> Clearly, some very different views in these provinces compared to everywhere else. Attention must be paid to the dissatisfaction.


The question is how does one do it with almost no Liberals elected.

As for why there would be different thinking - there's lots of examples of why they would. 

Have ten years of business records to show that a diving company is a great business?
Several big banks are interested in financing the buyout of the company, up until an executive out east decides it's too much of a risk (more likely the executive didn't understand the business). In a few hours, the banks talk to each other and the funding offers *are all canceled*, based on "the first bank that passed on the deal must know something we don't know".


Cheers


----------



## humble_pie

like_to_retire said:


> I'm not too pleased with the outcome of the election. Even though the Conservatives increased their seat total and came out ahead in the popular vote, the last thing I wanted was a Liberal minority. This just means they have to get in bed with the NDP, who don't want pipelines and love spending money and raising taxes. Worse is that the Liberals lost a few decent MP's in Ralph Goodale and Lisa Raitt. Just a bad result for the majority of voters who wanted the Conservatives.



lisa raitt was deputy head of the conservative party. Some were eyeing raitt for the leadership. She lost last night to liberal adam van koeverden, an olympic medallist. Good result last night.


----------



## sags

Prairie Guy said:


> Unifor just admitted that they interfered in the election. Trudeau's $600 million bribe paid off. And you think that's a good thing.


Unifor advocates for their members, who are workers in many areas of the economy.

The Conservatives should examine their priorities.


----------



## sags

It was a shame that Ralph Goodale lost his seat after many years of excellent public service to the country.

There is little doubt that he has a life time Senate appointment waiting for him if he fills out the application.


----------



## sags

There will be lots of talk about inclusion and such, but the reality is that Conservatives and the new government (Liberal/NDP) have no common ground.


----------



## humble_pie

some people think the sweeping bloc quebeçois success last night means that quebec is back at the separation bargaining table.

nothing could be further from the truth. The Bloc are the federal equivalent of quebec's new slightly-right-of-centre provincial party the CAQ (coalition avenir quebec.) The CAQ came to power in 2017 & their leader françois legault became premier of quebec.

quebec ridings where the Bloc succeeded last night are identical to the CAQ electoral map. Outside montreal. Rural & lightly industrialized ridings. Bloc members speak CAQese. Primary concerns for the CAQ are immigration & quebec fiscal policy. These are the issues that newly elected Bloc MPs will take to ottawa.

the probability is that the BQ in ottawa will listen very carefully & alertly to the needs & desires of the ROC, in order to be able to bargain successfully for their quebec interests.

separation? not on the agenda


----------



## humble_pie

sags said:


> It was a shame that Ralph Goodale lost his seat after many years of excellent public service to the country.
> 
> There is little doubt that he has a life time Senate appointment waiting for him if he fills out the application.



it was the Saskatchewan Sweep that broomed goodale out. Any province other than saskalta & he would have won.


----------



## sags

Absolutely, but he didn't appear to be particularly troubled by it all. He is getting older and has done his time. It must be a big headache to have to continually campaign for your job.

A nice Senate appointment is an ideal outcome for a iconic public servant. Goodale has done so much for Canadians and he will do so much more in the Senate........if he so chooses.


----------



## sags

I was surprised to hear from a BLOC organizer that climate change was a big issue for BLOC supporters.

I think the BLOC will support the minority government along with the Green, which would give the minority government support from 4 of 5 political parties.

The Conservatives have turned into an island unto themselves. There is no other party that would support their agenda. They need to sit back and reflect on that.


----------



## humble_pie

^^ Blocs are a little bit to the right of Libs but nowhere - nothing - as far right as Cons under andrew scheer

all those middle of the road CAQ voters in quebec had to go somewhere. They weren't going to go bernier People's & they weren't going to go orange either. They settled on new bloc.

perhaps the big issue will be pipelines. AFAIK the bloc will be against. Certainly the official CAQ/premier legault position is Non to pipelines. Although me i've always thought that legault has publicly said Non in order to give himself plenty of negotiating room.

an unknown influence will be the Liberals' lucky recruitment of Steven Guilbeault, who won in NDP stronghold laurier-sainte-marie riding. Guilbeault is a well-known & highly-respected environmental activist who many thought would join the NDP, not the liberal party in quebec. But liberal he did join.

it's too soon to say what guilbeault's influence on federal pipelines might be. He won't be a lightweight though.


----------



## Userkare

*Your vote counts!*

Based on figures, that might change, from here... https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/elections/federal/2019/results/ and also if my math wasn't flawed.

Here's how your vote counted. For each party, this is how many seats in H.O.C it was worth

Lib .0000263
Con .0000196
BQ .0000232
NDP .0000084
Grn .0000026

Looking at it another way, how many votes it took to secure each seat

Lib 37,896
Con 50,847
BQ 43,038
NDP 118,595
Grn 386,913


Hmmmmm, I wonder which party(ies) will be in favour of election reform, and which will want to keep the system as it is.


----------



## potato69

I think this is the wrong way to look at it. For me, and I think for many, a vote for NDP is not an exclusive 'no' vote for the liberals. I didn't vote liberals but I'm OK with this.

Basically, the only party that would truly benefit from proportional representation is the greens. Currently, the NDP holds the balance of power which it would pretty much under proportional rep. Conservatives def don't want it because it allows them to potentially form a majority with a large minority in the popular vote (38.5% is the rough threshold). Bloc is the bloc. The centre left parties have about 65% of the vote and that's being well represented in the house.



Userkare said:


> Based on figures, that might change, from here... https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/elections/federal/2019/results/ and also if my math wasn't flawed.
> 
> Here's how your vote counted. For each party, this is how many seats in H.O.C it was worth
> 
> Lib .0000263
> Con .0000196
> BQ .0000232
> NDP .0000084
> Grn .0000026
> 
> Hmmmmm, I wonder which party(ies) will be in favour of election reform, and which will want to keep the system as it is.


----------



## Userkare

potato69 said:


> I think this is the wrong way to look at it. For me, and I think for many, a vote for NDP is not an exclusive 'no' vote for the liberals. I didn't vote liberals but I'm OK with this.


I wonder if there are many Green Party supporters who had to have over 10 times as many voters per seat as the Liberals, would feel the same as you. 

If the left parties are so interchangeable, then why not join forces as one party, like Reform/Canadian Alliance/PC; not just a temporary coalition or bill-by-bill support? They would sweep every election for sure.


----------



## potato69

True - I left the greens out of that post but they were part of a rant I just gave. I think the only party that has a really good beef about it are the greens.


----------



## Eder

Well the fallout begins...Husky laid off 500 more in Alberta this morning. The threat of Marg calling the shots with JT are a real threat out here.


----------



## james4beach

Eder said:


> Well the fallout begins...Husky laid off 500 more in Alberta this morning. The threat of Marg calling the shots with JT are a real threat out here.


Bear markets in commodities will do that, but it is sad.

Perhaps it is a consolation that those employees earned enormous salaries in previous years? This is a boom & bust industry after all. You get huge pay, and have the unique opportunity to save up a lot of money ... precisely because there will be bust years and downturns.

Most Canadians never get that chance. But Alberta workers had that privilege -- the unique advantage -- of earning enormously high salaries for a very long time, giving the chance to build up their riches.

The market does not owe anyone continued high riches. The energy market never owed anyone perpetual riches.


----------



## humble_pie

Eder said:


> Well the fallout begins...Husky laid off 500 more in Alberta this morning.



no immediate connection between the 2 events except for conspiracy theorists

paranoia
will destroia


----------



## jargey3000

....aw jeez...another 4 years (maybe?) of pretentious, naive, hand-over-heart, save-the-planet, selfie leadership...but now, with an eye to le Bloc in the mix..... good luck to us!


----------



## AltaRed

james4beach said:


> Perhaps it is a consolation that those employees earned enormous salaries in previous years? This is a boom & bust industry after all. You get huge pay, and have the unique opportunity to save up a lot of money ... precisely because there will be bust years and downturns.
> 
> Most Canadians never get that chance. But Alberta workers had that privilege -- the unique advantage -- of earning enormously high salaries for a very long time, giving the chance to build up their riches.
> 
> The market does not owe anyone continued high riches. The energy market never owed anyone perpetual riches.


So terribly insensitive and blatantly ignorant. Tens of thousands of Albertans, indirectly or not even associated with the oil patch, and often working minimum wage service and hospitality, retail and manual labour jobs, out of work through no fault of their own. Tens of thousands of office grunts and oilfield service workers and manufacturing jobs making perhaps $25/hr out of jobs. So easy to forget the 'cream' of the oil patch (executives and technical professionals) earning the big salaries are but one segment of the lost jobs. 

I tire of your ignorance and lack of comprehension on how regional economies work and the domino effect of billions of dollars in annual revenue losses has not only on on local economies, but national GDP as well.

Added later: Trying to put some context to domino effect. This link is for the USA https://www.epi.org/publication/updated-employment-multipliers-for-the-u-s-economy/ but no reason to believe it would be a lot different for Canada. For mining a loss of 100 direct jobs results in the loss of 390 indirect jobs, right down to that server in Earls. For every 100 jobs lost in Construction, 226 indirect jobs are lost. So for a loss of 500 Husky jobs, another 1000 to 2000 indirect jobs will also be lost, e.g. manufacturing, construction, service, small business, restaurant, retail, etc.


----------



## sags

I posted before the election that the best way to get the TMP built was to vote Liberal and return a Liberal majority government.

Alberta/Saskatchewan went all Conservative and gave the NDP, Bloc and Greens a seat at the table. The makeup of the minority government doesn't bode well for pipelines.


----------



## andrewf

like_to_retire said:


> I'm not too pleased with the outcome of the election. Even though the Conservatives increased their seat total and came out ahead in the popular vote, the last thing I wanted was a Liberal minority. This just means they have to get in bed with the NDP, who don't want pipelines and love spending money and raising taxes. Worse is that the Liberals lost a few decent MP's in Ralph Goodale and Lisa Raitt. Just a bad result for the majority of voters who wanted the Conservatives.
> 
> Four years should be plenty of time for the Liberals and the socialists to completely hobble our country in debt, and then the Conservatives will win as usual once people realize we're in trouble. Then the Conservatives will have to make tough cuts to right the ship and everyone will complain just like they're doing in Ontario with Ford.
> 
> ltr


Lisa Raitt is a Conservative, not Liberal MP. Goodale does seem like a class act.


----------



## Userkare

Is it not even thinkable that perhaps any pipeline bill might be supported by the Libs + Cons? NDP/Bloc can't overrule that.


----------



## andrewf

AltaRed said:


> So terribly insensitive and blatantly ignorant. Tens of thousands of Albertans, indirectly or not even associated with the oil patch, and often working minimum wage service and hospitality, retail and manual labour jobs, out of work through no fault of their own. Tens of thousands of office grunts and oilfield service workers and manufacturing jobs making perhaps $25/hr out of jobs. So easy to forget the 'cream' of the oil patch (executives and technical professionals) earning the big salaries are but one segment of the lost jobs.
> 
> I tire of your ignorance and lack of comprehension on how regional economies work and the domino effect of billions of dollars in annual revenue losses has not only on on local economies, but national GDP as well.
> 
> Added later: Trying to put some context to domino effect. This link is for the USA https://www.epi.org/publication/updated-employment-multipliers-for-the-u-s-economy/ but no reason to believe it would be a lot different for Canada. For mining a loss of 100 direct jobs results in the loss of 390 indirect jobs, right down to that server in Earls. For every 100 jobs lost in Construction, 226 indirect jobs are lost. So for a loss of 500 Husky jobs, another 1000 to 2000 indirect jobs will also be lost, e.g. manufacturing, construction, service, small business, restaurant, retail, etc.


Unemployment is fairly low in Ontario and Quebec. Maybe they should move to where the jobs are. Isn't that what the refrain was in the '00s?


----------



## andrewf

Userkare said:


> Is it not even thinkable that perhaps any pipeline bill might be supported by the Libs + Cons? NDP/Bloc can't overrule that.


Of course. I think the Libs want to get it done (maybe in a slightly less by-any-means-necessary way), and it would kill the CPC to fail to support the Liberals on this. That would be a handy stick with which the LPCs could beat the CPCs in the next election.

Because it is a somewhat strong minority, it could be more stable than I would have thought. The NDP will get some concessions in exchange for supporting budgets (which CPC will oppose), and CPC or perhaps Bloq will support some things the Liberals want to do but the NDP oppose.


----------



## james4beach

AltaRed said:


> So terribly insensitive and blatantly ignorant. Tens of thousands of Albertans, indirectly or not even associated with the oil patch, and often working minimum wage service and hospitality, retail and manual labour jobs, out of work through no fault of their own. Tens of thousands of office grunts and oilfield service workers and manufacturing jobs making perhaps $25/hr out of jobs. So easy to forget the 'cream' of the oil patch (executives and technical professionals) earning the big salaries are but one segment of the lost jobs.


Those non-professional jobs are only $25/hr? I didn't realize it was that low. Weren't they making a lot more during those boom years? Maybe I was wrong.

But I really am glad to hear that you care a lot for the well being of the lower paid labour. I care about them too.

I think this may be the wake-up call to strengthen unions in Alberta, so that workers can get a fair share of the big corporate profits. The Suncor Q2 income statement shows a healthy positive net income for the corporation. For the six months ended June 30, Suncor net income is up significantly vs a year ago. The company is doing well.

We already know that professional & executive jobs in Alberta get high salaries; these people are rich, and continue to be rich. If it's just the lower paid labour that is suffering, then unions can help them get their fair cut of these nice profits. *As a Suncor shareholder, I would be perfectly happy to have lower net income to help benefit hard working labourers.*

If not unions, then there are certainly other ways we can even things out. It does not make sense that the large corporations are profitable, and that executives (like you) are getting paid so much, while everyone else suffers.


----------



## james4beach

There's a lot about Alberta that confuses me. The AB unemployment rate is currently 6.6%, a decrease from a year ago. 6.6% is not a high unemployment rate by any means. For context, it's the same as the Canada-wide unemployment rate as recently as 2017.
https://financialpostcom.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/fp0105_jobs_canada2.png

Can someone help me understand the anger/frustration of households a bit better? The unemployment rate doesn't show a significant problem.

AltaRed mentions low hourly wages. So I looked at StatsCan. Let's focus on the non professional wages. The 2018 Canadian median weekly wages are
Total employees, all occupations = $865
Sales and service occupations = $520
Trades, transport and equipment operators and related occupations = $1,007
Natural resources, agriculture and related production occupations = $900
Occupations in manufacturing and utilities = $800

And here they are for Alberta, again median weekly wages for 2018

Total employees, all occupations = $1,019 or +18% vs Canada
Sales and service occupations = $574 or or +10% vs Canada
Trades, transport and equipment operators and related occupations = $1,200 or +19% vs Canada
Natural resources, agriculture and related production occupations = $1,330 or *+48% vs Canada*
Occupations in manufacturing and utilities = $1,080 or +*35% vs Canada*

^ Is this the picture of pain and suffering? Please help me understand the anger and why exactly things are so bad in Alberta. I want to understand why they feel they are suffering versus the rest of Canada.

It's not the unemployment rate; this is within normal, barely elevated at all.

It does not appear to be lower skilled labour either. Alberta wages are well above Canadian median measures.


----------



## andrewf

james4beach said:


> Those non-professional jobs are only $25/hr? I didn't realize it was that low. Weren't they making a lot more during those boom years? Maybe I was wrong.
> 
> But I really am glad to hear that you care a lot for the well being of the lower paid labour. I care about them too.
> 
> I think this may be the wake-up call to strengthen unions in Alberta, so that workers can get a fair share of the big corporate profits. The Suncor Q2 income statement shows a healthy positive net income for the corporation. For the six months ended June 30, Suncor net income is up significantly vs a year ago. The company is doing well.
> 
> We already know that professional & executive jobs in Alberta get high salaries; these people are rich, and continue to be rich. If it's just the lower paid labour that is suffering, then unions can help them get their fair cut of these nice profits. *As a Suncor shareholder, I would be perfectly happy to have lower net income to help benefit hard working labourers.*
> 
> If not unions, then there are certainly other ways we can even things out. It does not make sense that the large corporations are profitable, and that executives (like you) are getting paid so much, while everyone else suffers.


Nonsense. During the boom years, coffee slingers at Tim Hortons could be earning 20/hr. A skilled trade would be earning $50-$100/hr.


----------



## james4beach

andrewf said:


> Nonsense. During the boom years, coffee slingers at Tim Hortons could be earning 20-25$/hr. A skilled trade would be earning $75-$100/hr.


Current wage stats (I just posted this as you wrote your reply) also show that Alberta median wages are higher than Canada, across the board.

I don't believe AltaRed's argument. In what way, exactly, are workers suffering? Yes I realize they are not getting paid _as much_ as they once were, but that's hardly the correct reference point.

In what way are Albertan workers suffering unfairly, or suffering vs Canada? The stats show they have higher wages than the Canadian average.


----------



## sags

When times got tough in the US the largest group of workers going bankrupt were the autoworkers.

People were overextended and when companies took away the overtime, people couldn't pay their bills.

I suspect it is a similar scenario with oil workers in Alberta. They overspent and now times are going to be rough for them.


----------



## AltaRed

How about these StatsCan data points?

From https://open.alberta.ca/publications/5874698, let's look at what might be a peak month in boom times - January 2014 https://open.alberta.ca/dataset/02e...nload/5874698-2014-01-labour-market-notes.pdf Average (all inclusive) hourly wage equivalent for everyone, including executives was $1125.60 per week or $27.98/hr including overtime (lots of overtime back then). Spin forward to Oct 2019 https://open.alberta.ca/dataset/02e...cbcb/download/2019-10-labour-market-notes.pdf the same weekly wage equivalent was $1156.10 or $31.37/hr for the folks that remain employed (100,000+ jobs less than in 2014). Looks like the jobs were lost everywhere, doesn't it? Executives, business owners, construction workers, retail store clerks, servers and everyone else....except maybe the public service.

Now if you really want to dig into the detail, go to https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl...0022301&pickMembers[0]=2.2&pickMembers[1]=3.2 and look at average weekly earnings including overtime for all industrial classified businesses to compare AB weekly wages with every province in Canada. AB is higher relative to other provinces but only about 10% more relative to ON/NF/SK, and less than in NWT or Yukon.

Now if you really want to compare weekly wages between AB and other provinces for a variety of occupations, you can click on each group of occupations in turn and make some comparisons. The only notable discrepancies are Construction, Mining, and Management: Construction most likely due to the amount of overtime by construction trades, especially in camp jobs, Mining (extraction of oil and gas which include large amounts of overtime for field jobs like drillers) and Management (partly due to Calgary having more head offices than any city in Canada, including small cap O&G companies where executives have stock options, etc.) Note that for the Professional category, AB is almost identical to ON. 

The point of all this is to help you understand that AB is not really an outlier, except in a few segments that I have given you, as defined by StatsCan, and there are reasons (as I have stated above) for those anomalies. But Professional, Scientific and Technical jobs are not one of those segments.

You can be as sarcastic as you wish, but those so-called super paying jobs you allude too are limited to a pretty small segment of overall employment, and many of them are indeed executives in the mid-cap and small-cap O&G companies, where jobs are directly tied to the success of those companies. Hundreds of those small companies have gone bankrupt in the last 5 years, and so have the salaries and stock options of those involved have vapourized. No different than the business owners of a manufacturing facility in GTA.

Just noticed your post above. Don't compare AB to all of Canada. Compare AB to comparable provinces such as ON, BC, SK, NF..... Canadian averages are relatively meaningless. So is Andrew's post. Simply not true unless he wants to data mine a TH worker in Fort Mac which had to be 'imported' from afar and try to find a place to live other than a trailer in a campground. A TH worker in Calgary earned minimum wage as did a retail sales clerk. Posts like #1107 are an insult to a person's intelligence.


----------



## Eder

AR...there's no point explaining...a few of my friends lost their jobs today...I was going to say that a lot of posters here can go f themselves with their flippant remarks, but since I am polite I won't.


----------



## sags

During the boom years, a lot of Alberta workers were receiving retention bonuses every year on top of their wages.

Our niece was receiving $70,000 a year as a retention bonus. She drives a Terex truck.

A friend (millwright) was receiving a similar amount yearly plus living expenses and expenses to travel home and back every second week.

Those amounts wouldn't be included in weekly wages data.

When oil prices collapsed the spending came to an abrupt end.


----------



## AltaRed

Eder said:


> AR...there's no point explaining...a few of my friends lost their jobs today...I was going to say that a lot of posters here can go f themselves with their flippant remarks, but since I am polite I won't.


People like James and Andrew simply don't care to know and that is symptomatic of what is the cause of Western alienation. Instead, they data mine as/when convenient and insult with comments like Andrew posted. I doubt Andrew spent any time trying to live and work in the oil sands, or understand what it takes to attract a worker to a fly in, fly out camp job, or bunk with 3+ others in a one bedroom apt in Fort Mac and work in a bar or fast food outlet. Wages HAD/HAVE to be much higher in the isolation of the oil sands to get workers there! Not a lot different than working in a James Bay hydro-electric project camp up north?

James also talks about how unemployment rate does not look that bad in AB. Well, I suppose not considering how many people have dropped out of the labour force and have resorted totrying to be self-employed in a variety of ways, or how many people who had jobs in AB went back home to BC, ON, NF, NS and NB, or how AB net migration was negative for at least some of the past 5 years. The unemployment rate went from 4.8% and a participation rate of 72.9% in Dec 2013 to 6.6% unemployment rate and a participation rate of 71% in Sept 2019.

Added: Some additional data to mull over https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-unemployment-statistics-canada-august-jobs-1.5273269


----------



## andrewf

^The people feeling pain today are many of the same people that tsk-tsked at Newfoundland fishermen when the cod fishery collapsed, etc. I'm not saying the industry should not be reasonably supported with access to export markets, etc. However, this is the nature of boom & bust extractive industries. When things bust, maybe some people should seek greener pastures elsewhere until things pick up.

My employer at the time in 2008 was struggling to keep unskilled general laborer positions staffed in Calgary. Was paying a starting wage of $25 with 3 month retention bonus, hiring 40 people per week and 4 would complete training after 2 weeks. Many would quit mid-shift having gotten a better offer across the street.

That dynamic certainly affected investment decisions, though of course shale oil kind of put paid to that.

Maybe this could be illuminating for the political dynamic in the country as well. Whenever the Conservatives lose an election (and sometimes when they win), we get to hear about Western alienation. Never any consideration that Conservatives are alienating urban Canada (nearly shut out of urban Canada, much like the Conservatives nearly swept AB/SK). Scheer pandering to his base on subjects like climate change cost him this election. Who else are the base going to vote for? Racking up 70% vote shares in Alberta doesn't win you elections.


----------



## AltaRed

2008 was indeed another boom time before the recession collapsed oil prices. Folks in AB do recognize the boom/bust of the oil industry and do go looking for work elsewhere just like NFers did with collapse of the fishery.

The oil collapse in 2014 would have been no different from any other boom/bust cycle except the lack of timely pipeline takeaway capacity compounded the problem in spades with increased discounting. Never has the rate of bankruptcies and rate of loss of jobs been so severe.

The lack of understanding by the Feds and the ROC along with cancellation of Northern Gateway as a political stunt by a newly elected JT in late 2015, together with no federal effort to further the TMX expansion, was seen as a callous disregard to a major engine of the country"s GDP. So yes, the West has a reason to feel anger and resentment, and even more so when a measly few thousand SNC or Oshawa jobs get more attention than over 100k jobs lost in the oil patch. The ROC really needs to be more objective and balanced in their perspectives. There should not be differences of that magnitude across this country.

Added: I agree the CPC erred strategically along the lines you have articulated. Pandering to the existing base was of much lesser value than trying to win over converts in major urban centres with a logical, even alternative, adaptation based climate action vision. I hate the term climate change since it is changing no matter what. It is what we do with it that is of key importance.


----------



## humble_pie

andrewf said:


> Whenever the Conservatives lose an election (and sometimes when they win), we get to hear about Western alienation. Never any consideration that Conservatives are alienating urban Canada (nearly shut out of urban Canada, much like the Conservatives nearly swept AB/SK).



believe that western alienation crossed with conservative party politik is only a phenom of recent decades. Era preston manning, stockwell day.

conservative gummints under joe clark & brian mulroney flourished pan-canada. No wonder people long for peter mcKay to return to politics. Possible future w caroline mulroney?


----------



## m3s

humble_pie said:


> conservative gummints under joe clark & brian mulroney flourished pan-canada. No wonder people long for peter mcKay to return to politics. Possible future w caroline mulroney?


I spent some quality time w Peter McKay during a MND visit to an isolated location about 10 years ago. I figured then he would eventually be the shoo-in successor to Stephen Harper. Seems to me those who would be great - don't want the job.

Long term we need to diversify the west from oil addiction. Boom and bust industries can't expect to live the boom lifestyle all the time. Just look at Texas (bigger economy than Canada itself) - aeronautics, defense, technology, tourism, entertainment, healthcare..


----------



## Eclectic12

humble_pie said:


> believe that western alienation crossed with conservative party politik is only a phenom of recent decades ...


I think you mean it's only a priority for the recent form of the CPC as there have been westerners disillusioned by the Liberals and Conservatives through the years.




humble_pie said:


> ... conservative gummints under joe clark & brian mulroney flourished pan-canada.


Clark was PM for too short a time to be effective.

Mulroney had two majority terms yet couldn't stop western alienation as the Reform Party was started pretty much in the middle of his two terms. BTW, Harper started with the Liberals then was Conservative for the first part of Mulroney's time. He then helped form the Reform Party likely as a slow dismantling of the NEP seemed to be the only western priority of Mulroney's gov't.


Cheers


----------



## AltaRed

There was the anger of the early '80s NEP days of PET. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Energy_Program 

Western alienation occurs when the West gets arbitrarily whack-a-moled by centrist policies like putting price controls on O&G, restricts exports, etc. trumping free market forces. Such an (NEP type) event is unlikely to happen again but imagine if a world oil supply shortage circa 1980 starved Levis and Saint John refineries of supply, and imports from eastern USA dried up because USA needed their own O&G.

Ultimately, insular regional behaviours of all kinds really are not in the national interest.


----------



## humble_pie

AltaRed said:


> There was the anger of the early '80s NEP days of PET.



alberta joined confederation w a western alienation timber on its shoulder

by the 1930s western alienation was ruling the province as "funny money" embraced by the christianity-based Social Credit Party

there's never been a year without an alberta separatist group

what's interesting is what this forum shows. Diehard alberta separatists are aging seniors. They're visibly rigid. Not going anywhere.

younger albertans like calgary's Parkland Fuels are already moving east to refineries in montreal & levis, are even starting up operations in distressed countries like haiti & dominican republic. Because they're flexible & they see opportunities.


----------



## james4beach

I know something about this Alberta mind set because it's similar in Oregon and Colorado, rural areas. The mindset is: I should be able to do whatever I want, this is my homestead, and the government is in my way. It should be a free market. I deserve to make as much money as possible, and the government is holding me back with its regulations and rules.

AltaRed talks like he expects other Canadians to set aside their own concerns (such as disruption of _their_ land) and make way for whatever Alberta wants. This is not what happens in a country where many people have interests.

Of course the government should be setting rules to protect the interest of the public, the nation. There are environmental concerns. There are people in other provinces, there are native people who have autonomy of their own land and will not permit some Alberta or TX-based company to industrialize their land just because it makes $


----------



## AltaRed

The majority of BC residents support TMX so what is your problem? The NEB application and approval process, since the 2013 submission, along with Federal cabinet approvals, are and were the expected balances in protecting the environment (EIS) and interest of the public (cost benefit and economic impact). Just because some NIMBY types object doesn't mean they have a veto.

Every project proponent understands the regulatory processes and abides by them. Did you not read all the reports and studies undertaken before making this post? Five years of it at that to get to the 2018 approvals. Yet again, you need to seek and understand before putting your foot in your mouth.

Added: We have had these series of posts before. Do you not remember how some $500M was spent on studies, reports, hearings, consultations to get to the 2018 approvals? Not going to help you try and understand yet again.


----------



## sags

As James points out, there are other stakeholders, and the oil industry doesn't have a very good reputation in a number of key areas.

Canadians expect their government to ensure all their concerns are mitigated before pipelines are built.


----------



## Eclectic12

humble_pie said:


> ... what's interesting is what this forum shows. Diehard alberta separatists are aging seniors. They're visibly rigid. Not going anywhere.
> 
> younger albertans like calgary's Parkland Fuels are already moving east to refineries in montreal & levis, are even starting up operations in distressed countries like haiti & dominican republic. Because they're flexible & they see opportunities.


Are you sure about that?

Taking a quick look at the leadership team on their web site, it looks more like four from Ontario, three from Alberta, two from the US and one from Saskatchewan.
For the board of directors, there's five from Ontario, two from Quebec plus one each for the US and Alberta.


Maybe their annual report will confirm but so far, it's looking like the levels that made/approved the decision are a mix. Particularly when their work experience is a factor.

Cheers


----------



## humble_pie

AltaRed said:


> The majority of BC residents support TMX so what is your problem? The NEB application and approval process, since the 2013 submission, along with Federal cabinet approvals, are and were the expected balances in protecting the environment (EIS) and interest of the public (cost benefit and economic impact). Just because some NIMBY types object doesn't mean they have a veto.
> 
> Every project proponent understands the regulatory processes and abides by them. Did you not read all the reports and studies undertaken before making this post? Five years of it at that to get to the 2018 approvals. Yet again, you need to seek and understand before putting your foot in your mouth.




indigenous nations, altaRed is ignoring the objections of indigenous nations

something about the supreme court under & including chief justice Beverley mcLachlin, ruled not too long ago that indigenous nations as stakeholders are to have autonomous control over their homelands.

that'll do it. Every single dissenting indigenous person has to be dealt with. I've never seen the oil lobby in cmf forum so much as mention this problem.

in point of fact the trudeau gummint in its first session made significant progress in gaining cooperation & approval from the majority of indigenous nations along the TMP II route. There's every reason to believe it will win em all over in the end.

canada is never going to set itself up for 50 pipeline years of continuous violent sabotage controlled by armed soldiers along the length of TMP II. It's either negotiate agreements w indigenous nations along the route or no pipeline.

non-native opponents of TMP II an be won over or dealt with by other means. But indigenous nations require special treatment.

for some reason that's impossible to understand, the alberta oil lobby in cmf forum believes its best way forward with TMP II is to continuously attack & insult helpful cmffers who are already supporting the pipeline!


----------



## james4beach

Yes I should clarify, I'm not anti oil or anti pipeline. Suncor and Enbridge are some of my largest single stock holdings for god sake.

I'm pointing out the reality, as humble_pie describes. There are many stakeholders in Canada to consider. If indigenous people don't want development on their land, it's not being built.

The way the US has dealt with this through history is taking the land from native people with force and killing any who stand in their way. AltaRed and other Albertans talks about US competition, business leaving AB and going down south, as if there's an equivalence with Canada. No, we are a different country with *different values*, and we don't do resource development the same way.

If you want unrestrained energy development with a government that doesn't care if it tramples on native people's rights, then indeed, you should go to the US. Or South America for that matter. They do a pretty good job trampling on their native peoples as well.


----------



## AltaRed

Eclectic12 said:


> Are you sure about that?
> 
> Taking a quick look at the leadership team on their web site, it looks more like four from Ontario, three from Alberta, two from the US and one from Saskatchewan.
> For the board of directors, there's five from Ontario, two from Quebec plus one each for the US and Alberta.
> 
> 
> Maybe their annual report will confirm but so far, it's looking like the levels that made/approved the decision are a mix. Particularly when their work experience is a factor.
> 
> Cheers


Parkland Fuels is a distributor and retailer, and in Quebec and Maritimes, buys refined product wholesale from Suncor, Valero and Irving refinery racks. Different business altogether. PKI has no interest in refineries anywhere with the exception of the Chevron Burnaby refinery they bought a year or so ago.


----------



## Retired Peasant

Not all indigenous people are opposed to the pipeline.


----------



## AltaRed

Retired Peasant said:


> Not all indigenous people are opposed to the pipeline.


Indeed, the majority of FN wish to buy TM and TMX. Like all large developments in the national interest, the needs of the majority take precedence over the few, many of which are actually just establishing negotiating positions for compensation.

Every major pipeline, electrical transmission line, rail/rapid transit line and highway is always going to adversely affect a few surface owners. That is just the way it is.


----------



## Eder

I'd feel a lot better if one of the existing pipeline companies bought TM, our first nations don't have the $$ unless we give it to them. Most likely the new pipe will remain in limbo for a couple more years at any rate as science no longer matters.


----------



## AltaRed

I think it will go as soon as this last appeal is heard by the Appeals Court, barring a negative decision of course. IIRC, the terms of reference were quite specific.


----------



## humble_pie

there's been ample media coverage of federal success in winning over indigenous nations along the TMP II route

what wins em over are partnership agreements. Royalty agreements. Partial ownership agreements. All of a sudden they are going to be real financial stakeholders. That silent steel pipeline which will snake harmlessly across their territory is going to become a cash cow for the whole community.

ottawa hasn't said much but it stands to reason that the federal gummint will finance many of these partnerships. I would imagine that leading canadian banks are involved as well. Several - BMO was a pioneer in this regard - have had native lending divisions for many years.


----------



## humble_pie

AltaRed said:


> PKI has no interest in refineries anywhere with the exception of the Chevron Burnaby refinery they bought a year or so ago.



Parkland Fuels based out of calgary is partnered up so tight with refineries in every country where it does business that they're like old married couples.

in quebec it's Valero, an american oilco that's been successful in quebec for 2 decades. Basically what valero & apparently parkland want in quebec, they get.

i don't know who PKI's suppliers will be in their new haiti extension, where near-civil-war conditions make a fuel delivery enterprise so extremely challenging. But one thing is for sure. Unlike some of the old-timer oil lobbyists in cmf forum, neither Parkland Fuel nor Valero ever approached a foreign country to do business while calling it an ess. aitch. eye. tee. excrement. hole.


----------



## james4beach

I had coffee yesterday with a friend, a senior (perhaps in his 70s) who is a very nice old man.

He said that he was very bothered by how nasty the politicians, especially Scheer, was during this campaign. So many harsh words. Endless attacks trying to elevate matters that aren't that big a deal, like brown face. But I think what bothered him the most was unpleasant tone, and the attacks.


----------



## Prairie Guy

james4beach said:


> I had coffee yesterday with a friend, a senior (perhaps in his 70s) who is a very nice old man.
> 
> He said that he was very bothered by how nasty the politicians, especially Scheer, was during this campaign. So many harsh words. Endless attacks trying to elevate matters that aren't that big a deal, like brown face. But I think what bothered him the most was unpleasant tone, and the attacks.


In other words, you surround yourself with people that think like you. You seem to have already forgotten that almost 2/3 of Canada voted against Trudeau and that the Conservatives won the popular vote.


----------



## andrewf

Prairie Guy said:


> In other words, you surround yourself with people that think like you. You seem to have already forgotten that almost 2/3 of Canada voted against Trudeau and that the Conservatives won the popular vote.


I thought the popular vote doesn't matter (hence why Trump is legitimate despite millions fewer votes than Hillary)?

By same logic, 2/3rds of voters also voted against Scheer. I guess we should just have no government at all. 

The real dynamic at play here was 65% of the population choosing between LPC, NDP, Green, Bloq whilst being opposed to the CPC. Pretending that the CPC has groundswell of popular support is not an accurate reading of the election results. Scheer musing about a majority CPC government chased a good number of NDP votes back to LPC, causing a bit of an outperformance from expectations.


----------



## humble_pie

one bright journo i caught on a video yesterday mused how each of the 3 anglo leaders - she didn't include bloc leader blanchet - orated boastfully in their concession/victory speeches monday night, exactly as if each had won the election.

jagmeet singh in particular was thought to have dragged on far too long. He didn't win. To hear andrew scheer tell it, he'd just stormed canada to stunning victory. Meanwhile justin trudeau was ecstatic.

i suppose a charitable view of the boasting might be that the leaders were rallying & thanking their troops? otherwise no excuse


----------



## AltaRed

andrewf said:


> Scheer musing about a majority CPC government chased a good number of NDP votes back to LPC, causing a bit of an outperformance from expectations.


Definitely could have been a factor in the past week. I also sent an email to CPC today telling them to 'stuff it' on harping about having got the majority vote...because it is meaningless when 70% of it is in AB and less than 30% of it is in the 905 area.


----------



## ian

Andrew Scheer has been an incredibly weak and ineffective Leader of the Opposition. He ran a campaign that could only be called an utter disaster from start to finish. The Liberals did not win the election, Scheer handed it to them on a silver platter. In spades in Ontario and Quebec. Perhaps he should just stop bowing to a small group of supporters within his party and start acting like a PM in waiting. If not, he will be waiting an awfully long time IMHO.

It will be interesting to see how this minority Government works out. Scheer is certainly no bright beam of light. Trudeau does not appear to have any 'old hands' about who understand how to work this. If Scheer remains as Conservative leader my guess is that in two years we will have another election that will give Trudeau another majority.


----------



## fstamand

ian said:


> Andrew Scheer has been an incredibly weak and ineffective Leader of the Opposition. He ran a campaign that could only be called an utter disaster from start to finish. The Liberals did not win the election, Scheer handed it to them on a silver platter. In spades in Ontario and Quebec. Perhaps he should just stop bowing to a small group of supporters within his party and start acting like a PM in waiting. If not, he will be waiting an awfully long time IMHO.
> 
> It will be interesting to see how this minority Government works out. Scheer is certainly no bright beam of light. Trudeau does not appear to have any 'old hands' about who understand how to work this. If Scheer remains as Conservative leader my guess is that in two years we will have another election that will give Trudeau another majority.


I agree, and it's in Trudeau's best interest to declare elections sooner than later as the CPC is a mess.
edit: not that I want another $$ election!


----------



## bgc_fan

fstamand said:


> I agree, and it's in Trudeau's best interest to declare elections sooner than later as the CPC is a mess.
> edit: not that I want another $$ election!


I could be wrong, but with fixed election dates I don't think the government can arbitrarily call an election. At any case, unless there is something that the opposing parties really don't like, I doubt they will be bringing down the government with a non-confidence vote. It could mean the minority government holds for 3-4 years, instead of 2 years.


----------



## humble_pie

another thing the Liberals should do is get the official attorney general mandate out of the cabinet.

as a canadian i don't ever want to see again a situation in which a cabinet member runs amok with his or her own divine-right importance, declares himself or herself to be superior to a prime minister

the 2018/19 PP/AG/MOJ debacle was triggered by a special arrangement set up by the harper government some 13 years previously. The intent had been to enhance the sequestration of justice from the political process; but all it took was one decade plus one power-crazed MOJ to blow up the situation like a nuclear arsenal.


----------



## james4beach

humble_pie said:


> another thing the Liberals should do is get the official attorney general mandate out of the cabinet.
> 
> as a canadian i don't ever want to see again a situation in which a cabinet member runs amok with his or her own divine-right importance, declares himself or herself to be superior to a prime minister


I agree. The cabinet is supposed to work as a team under the PM's direction.


----------



## Eclectic12

bgc_fan said:


> I could be wrong, but with fixed election dates I don't think the government can arbitrarily call an election ...


The legislation is written so that nothing in it affects the GG's powers, including dissolving parliament. All a PM needs to do is ask the GG to dissolve parliament where the GG agrees to the request.

Effectively, all the legislation does is ensure that the longest a gov't can run is October of the fourth calendar year after its commencement. Earlier elections whether triggered by a request to the GG (2008 vote) or a non-confidence vote (2011 vote) are still in play.


Cheers


----------



## ian

It is relatively easy for any minority Government to set up a situation where a non cofidence vote on a money issue is inevitable. The result would be an election. Could be six months out, could be two years...or they could go to full term.

The only variable is the polling data. If it is good they will go. Does not matter what party is in power. Their goal will be the same.


----------



## sags

james4beach said:


> I agree. The cabinet is supposed to work as a team under the PM's direction.


_CALGARY – With Prime Minister Justin Trudeau winning the most seats in his second election, Premier Jason Kenney’s UPC government as well as many oil and gas companies have started to make large investments in sources of renewable rage and disgust.

Instead boom-bust fits about having Trudeau for a Prime Minister, the province has already turned the animosity into an inexhaustible source western resentment, even a western Canada separation movement.

“We haven’t been harvesting the potential energy in angry white men with a lot of money to its full potential,” said a Suncor spokesperson. “But now, we can put an increased heart rate, excessive eye-rolling, and false victim hood to good use.”

Long term anger about the treatment of the dying oil and gas sector and having to do something about climate change now makes up 90% sources of anger in Alberta.

Many Albertans have also embraced a more sustainable way of losing your **** when talking about national politics.

“I don’t know how equalization works, but dammit, I know that Alberta gets screwed somehow!” said a local man who has been producing enough anger to power 100 houses for four years.

At press time, Premier Kenney’s government announced the construction of 500 middle fingers directed at Ottawa._

https://www.thebeaverton.com/2019/10/alberta-economy-makes-transition-to-renewable-sources-of-anger/


----------



## andrewf

Eclectic12 said:


> The legislation is written so that nothing in it affects the GG's powers, including dissolving parliament. All a PM needs to do is ask the GG to dissolve parliament where the GG agrees to the request.
> 
> Effectively, all the legislation does is ensure that the longest a gov't can run is October of the fourth calendar year after its commencement. Earlier elections whether triggered by a request to the GG (2008 vote) or a non-confidence vote (2011 vote) are still in play.
> 
> 
> Cheers


Effectively, it shortens the maximum length of parliaments from 5 years to 4. I honestly think that we should have done 5. I find with fixed election dates there is a long pre-election season where little governing actually happens. The UK, if I'm not mistaken, has 5 year fixed terms.


----------



## james4beach

sags said:


> “We haven’t been harvesting the potential energy in angry white men with a lot of money to its full potential,” said a Suncor spokesperson. “But now, we can put an increased heart rate, excessive eye-rolling, and false victim hood to good use.”
> 
> Long term anger about the treatment of the dying oil and gas sector and having to do something about climate change now makes up 90% sources of anger in Alberta.


lol, great piece from The Beaverton.


----------



## AltaRed

This will all pass by ~2022 when there will (should) be plenty of takeaway capacity and global oil demand continues to increase. Everyone will be happy again - with a few idealist exceptions.


----------



## Eder

Only if we can avoid those afflicted with Dunnig-Kruger effect.


----------



## AltaRed

There will always be a fringe element to stick handle around, or through. Idealists have blinders on and don't see things rationally.


----------



## humble_pie

ian said:


> It is relatively easy for any minority Government to set up a situation where a non cofidence vote on a money issue is inevitable. The result would be an election. Could be six months out, could be two years...or they could go to full term.
> 
> The only variable is the polling data. If it is good they will go. Does not matter what party is in power. Their goal will be the same.



^^ AFAIK this is true


----------



## humble_pie

sags said:


> _CALGARY – With Prime Minister Justin Trudeau winning the most seats in his second election, Premier Jason Kenney’s UPC government as well as many oil and gas companies have started to make large investments in sources of renewable rage and disgust.
> 
> Instead boom-bust fits about having Trudeau for a Prime Minister, the province has already turned the animosity into an inexhaustible source western resentment, even a western Canada separation movement.
> 
> “We haven’t been harvesting the potential energy in angry white men with a lot of money to its full potential,” said a Suncor spokesperson. “But now, we can put an increased heart rate, excessive eye-rolling, and false victim hood to good use.”
> 
> Long term anger about the treatment of the dying oil and gas sector and having to do something about climate change now makes up 90% sources of anger in Alberta.
> 
> Many Albertans have also embraced a more sustainable way of losing your **** when talking about national politics.
> 
> “I don’t know how equalization works, but dammit, I know that Alberta gets screwed somehow!” said a local man who has been producing enough anger to power 100 houses for four years.
> 
> At press time, Premier Kenney’s government announced the construction of 500 middle fingers directed at Ottawa._
> 
> https://www.thebeaverton.com/2019/10/alberta-economy-makes-transition-to-renewable-sources-of-anger/



glad to see it out there in black & white

don't we know the guy whose rage has been powering 100 houses last few years? how much energy does false sense of victimhood produce? on a broad scale would there be enough to sell excess to the grid?


----------



## james4beach

AltaRed said:


> This will all pass by ~2022 when there will (should) be plenty of takeaway capacity and global oil demand continues to increase. Everyone will be happy again - with a few idealist exceptions.


I agree AltaRed and am optimistic about both Alberta and the energy sector's future. I believe there is some overreaction happening in AB.

The ability to export will continue, and keep increasing over time. Oil prices are not going to stay low forever.


----------



## Topo

I am less optimistic on the future of oil. I think peak demand is near. Even though the world population is growing, we are achieving higher efficiencies in hydrocarbon energy use. In addition, alternative sources of energy are becoming technologically more feasible. Governments have shown willingness to invest in and subsidize these sources of clean energy. The internal combustion engine is becoming history.

Then there is supply. The US for years has been indirectly subsidizing their oil industry using generous tax cuts. Currently, the US is the biggest producer of oil in the world. Nat gas is also very attractively prices as an alternative to oil. LNG technology allows nat gas to be shipped around the world.

The future does not look very promising for oil. Maybe the next few years will see some growth, but over the next couple of decades, it will be a different ballgame.


----------



## james4beach

I agree this is possible. Alberta, with federal assistance, has to invest heavily in diversifying the AB economy as well as building up resources (financial fund?) for later difficulty in the sector. Ultimately, economic diversification is the answer.

https://business.financialpost.com/...ify-its-economy-alberta-is-still-stuck-on-oil



> A popular bumper sticker in Alberta reads: “Please God, give me one more oil boom. I promise not to piss it all away next time.” But the saying is more than just tailgate reading. It can be found on T-shirts and is often said in living rooms during economic downturns and election cycles


Sadly, the moment prices spike up and the rebound happens, everyone will once again be immensely wealthy... and forget about economic diversification.


----------



## andrewf

Renewables are going to present a formidable put on fossil fuel prices. They're likely to remain moderate, but if they do spike, you will see a flood of investment in renewables and electrification that will destroy demand for fossil fuels.


----------



## humble_pie

do people have some comments on nuclear? would appreciate hearing

i have heard that there is a nuclear technology which does not produce radioactive waste. It's the radioactive waste part that bothers me even more than the possibility of fukushima/3-mile-island/chernobyl again.


----------



## MrMatt

humble_pie said:


> do people have some comments on nuclear? would appreciate hearing
> 
> i have heard that there is a nuclear technology which does not produce radioactive waste. It's the radioactive waste part that bothers me even more than the possibility of fukushima/3-mile-island/chernobyl again.


Nuclear is great and pollutes less than all other sources.
Arguably it does less environmental damage than solar and wind.

But people don't like it.


----------



## AltaRed

andrewf said:


> Renewables are going to present a formidable put on fossil fuel prices. They're likely to remain moderate, but if they do spike, you will see a flood of investment in renewables and electrification that will destroy demand for fossil fuels.


Electrical demand keeps going up dramatically. Renewables may form the bulk of new incremental generation but the base will remain nuclear or fossil fuels in the form of natural gas. There are plenty of studies and reports by a number of agencies such as IEA projecting a range of scenarios. Gas remains a significant component globally for as long as one can reasonably foresee. There is virtually no oil (and diesel) electrical generation left anywhere except for communities not connected to the grid.

Modified Quote: Reports of my (natural gas) death are greatly exaggerated.


----------



## like_to_retire

AltaRed said:


> Electrical demand keeps going up dramatically. Renewables may form the bulk of new incremental generation but the base will remain nuclear or fossil fuels in the form of natural gas.


Until they discover some way of storing power, renewables will never come into their own. For every kilowatt they produce, it has to be backed up with conventional methods such as gas, so now we maintain 2 systems. Wind is fine when it blows and solar when it shines, but we can't store it. That's where the money should be going.

Look at the pitiful output of wind and solar on a day like today in Ontario that is calm.









ltr


----------



## AltaRed

Economic storage systems of some sort will develop to some degree over time, but never enough economically to handle the wide unpredictability and variability of solar and wind. I suspect there will always have to be a significant amount of highly flexible nat gas generation on standby, all of which will result in higher electrical bills for consumers. It is just the way it is.

AB is, I think, the only Canadian* jurisdiction with ~100% free market (investor owned) generation and it is interesting what is currently happening in that market. Lots of new renewable (mostly wind, but some solar) projects either underway or planned (think I provided that link here somewhere) and converting coal units to gas fired, but there will need to be a lot of standby (exceess) generation capacity installed to handle wind and solar variability. Time of day electrical costs to the consumer will vary widely as a result, along with kwh generated by standby gas generation when it is needed. Investors have to get a return on their risked investments.

* Lots (maybe the vast majority) of American power systems operate on this model too. When the sun does not shine and/or the wind does not blow, be prepared for hefty peaking and standby generation cost.


----------



## andrewf

humble_pie said:


> do people have some comments on nuclear? would appreciate hearing
> 
> i have heard that there is a nuclear technology which does not produce radioactive waste. It's the radioactive waste part that bothers me even more than the possibility of fukushima/3-mile-island/chernobyl again.


Nuclear has one of the lowest deaths per unit of energy generated.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-production-per-twh

There are better nuclear technologies being developed, but even existing nuclear is safe and effective. Waste is an issue, but not so great as many think. Future nuclear technologies can be designed to consume existing nuclear waste, with the benefit of extracting much more energy from the input uranium ore.


----------



## andrewf

AltaRed said:


> Electrical demand keeps going up dramatically. Renewables may form the bulk of new incremental generation but the base will remain nuclear or fossil fuels in the form of natural gas. There are plenty of studies and reports by a number of agencies such as IEA projecting a range of scenarios. Gas remains a significant component globally for as long as one can reasonably foresee. There is virtually no oil (and diesel) electrical generation left anywhere except for communities not connected to the grid.
> 
> Modified Quote: Reports of my (natural gas) death are greatly exaggerated.


I don't disagree that nuclear will remain important. Battery installations could well challenge gas peaker plants for frequency regulation and peak power. There is also quite a bit of renewed effort on new nuclear technology that would be more dispatchable. Meanwhile, many consumers are putting panels on their roofs.

There is nothing to say that there will be continued need for the same or ever growing amount of fossil fuels. The competing technologies only get better with each passing year, and once things become close, all the things society has ignored about fossil fuels will become painfully obvious. I don't doubt that in 2050, watching movies circa 2000 showing cars belching exhaust in cities will seem as hilariously bizarre as watching old movies today of people driving without seatbelts and smoking. Automotive exhaust is empirically disastrous for health and even cognitive performance of children attending school near busy roads.


----------



## AltaRed

We can talk about that again circa 2035 or so if I still have my faculties. Idealists and ideology often is way too optimistic in application. Time will tell.


----------



## MrMatt

Batteries have a horrible environmental impact.


----------



## james4beach

MrMatt said:


> Batteries have a horrible environmental impact.


Batteries are not the only storage mechanism, and battery tech has also come a long way.

The fact remains that active R&D efforts globally are finding better ways to use renewable resources. Those who don't participate in the technological advancement will find themselves left behind.


----------



## AltaRed

Batteries still have a significant environmental impact no matter how efficient or effective they become, but point taken. There are many ways to create 'storage' systems. That all said, battery recycling will (have to) become a big deal, not unlike the scrap metal and plastics recycling industries. There are always unintended consequences and cascading effects.


----------



## like_to_retire

AltaRed said:


> Batteries still have a significant environmental impact no matter how efficient or effective they become, but point taken. There are many ways to create 'storage' systems. That all said, battery recycling will (have to) become a big deal, not unlike the scrap metal and plastics recycling industries. There are always unintended consequences and cascading effects.


I've read many times the destruction and pollution lithium mining causes.

ltr


----------



## andrewf

Batteries are more an issue in small consumer devices. Large scale applications like grid storage or cars will be much easier to recycle, besides also having a useful life in decades.


----------



## AltaRed

You have no way of knowing what the rate of lithium production growth may be over 10 years..regardless of life expectancy or recyclibility. It may be 5 times or 10 times the rate of today depending on rate of uptake. The point is lithium mining is a nasty business and there are always unintended consequences. We will only know in hindsight.


----------



## andrewf

^ Might just be FUD? Most extractive industries have negative environmental effects. I'm sure the lithium mining industry will face its own pressure to improve practices. Are we being asked to believe that the impact of extracting the lithium required for a car to be worse than the impact of extracting, refining, transporting and burning the lifetime oil consumption of a car? Nevermind that that lithium pollution is happening in a desert in the middle of nowhere as opposed to outside my child's school?


----------



## AltaRed

Not debating one vs the other because I don't think we will really know the answers except in hindsight. Clearly the wells to wheels aspect of hydrocarbons has a more visible footprint. Regardless, I think it is still important to understand renewables and green energy have their own environmental consequences that most idealists would rather ignore or dismiss. Climate activists on the protest lines don't seem to care (or want) to understand any of that best I can tell.

You can't use desert remoteness in your example for lithium mining any more than you can use iron ore or oil sands mining in a similar nature. Best to be totally objective to have the most credibility, no?


----------



## andrewf

The fact that the ecological damage is isolated to an essentially unpopulated desert on another continent surely plays a role in the perceptions of the public/consumers here in Canada. As opposed to pipelines that run under the water systems that supply drinking water to most of the population of Canada, etc. (however warranted these concerns might be).


Of course, pressure is always warranted to ensure that miners are taking appropriate care to minimize ecological impact. Part of the onus to ensure that is on regulators, as it is unrealistic to expect private miners to voluntarily comply with costly mitigation measures when competitors do not have to. Part of that it is on downstream supply chain. I know Tesla is looking to take a greater role in their raw material supply chain including lithium mining, and perhaps this is in part to protect themselves from negative PR that companies like them or Apple are vulnerable to. They have also limited their use of cobalt, in part due to price volatility but also due to its ties to conflict areas in Congo.


----------



## like_to_retire

andrewf said:


> The fact that the ecological damage is isolated to an essentially unpopulated desert on another continent surely plays a role in the perceptions of the public/consumers here in Canada.


Yeah, who gives a damn about local communities around a desert. Right Andrew?

Saving the Planet With Electric Cars Means Strangling This Desert.

_"Mining lithium and copper to supply the battery boom and fight climate change is wrecking a fragile ecosystem in Chile"._

ltr


----------



## andrewf

I was a normative, not positive statement. Ie, what is rather than what ought to be.

All mining causes ecological damage.


----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> Are we being asked to believe that the impact of extracting the lithium required for a car to be worse than the impact of extracting, refining, transporting and burning the lifetime oil consumption of a car? Nevermind that that lithium pollution is happening in a desert in the middle of nowhere as opposed to outside my child's school?


Wow, that really sums up the problem of the climate alarmists. They don't actually care about the environment or other people.

The environmental impact of lithium mining is arguably worse depending how you weigh the various factors.

But the NIMBY attitude is the real topper there. I guess it's okay to poison foreign countries, as long as we can feel good here.


----------



## Eclectic12

andrewf said:


> The fact that the *ecological damage is isolated to an essentially unpopulated desert on another continent* surely plays a role in the perceptions of the public/consumers here in Canada ...


Not for much longer with lithium mines being developed in Nevada and in Quebec.




andrewf said:


> ... Of course, pressure is always warranted to ensure that miners are taking appropriate care to minimize ecological impact. Part of the onus to ensure that is on regulators, as it is unrealistic to expect private miners to voluntarily comply with costly mitigation measures when competitors do not have to ...


Will we see the same pressures for the North American mines?


Cheers


*PS*
Based on reserves, Nevada is listed as being the #2 largest mines and Quebec as #7.


----------



## andrewf

MrMatt said:


> Wow, that really sums up the problem of the climate alarmists. They don't actually care about the environment or other people.
> 
> The environmental impact of lithium mining is arguably worse depending how you weigh the various factors.
> 
> But the NIMBY attitude is the real topper there. I guess it's okay to poison foreign countries, as long as we can feel good here.


My point had nothing to do with climate change. In only referring to particulates and other emissions that affect local air quality. Even climate change denials can't cast doubt on the evidence of harm of these pollutants.


----------



## andrewf

Eclectic12 said:


> Not for much longer with lithium mines being developed in Nevada and in Quebec.
> 
> 
> Will we see the same pressures for the North American mines?
> 
> 
> Cheers
> 
> 
> *PS*
> Based on reserves, Nevada is listed as being the #2 largest mines and Quebec as #7.


Any reason to doubt regulators in North America?


----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> My point had nothing to do with climate change. In only referring to particulates and other emissions that affect local air quality. Even climate change denials can't cast doubt on the evidence of harm of these pollutants.


Particulate from fossil fuels has been greatly reduced. I'm far more concerned with pollution from marijuanna smoke.


----------



## andrewf

You're either bsing or wrong.

Cars may be cleaner but they are still pretty dirty. Diesel is brutal and can't be phased out soon enough.


----------



## ian

As the election results are digested and discected on a regional basis it is clear that this was a disaster for Scheer and his advisers. Self inflicted from my perspective.

In Ontario, a must win province with approx 128 seats, Scheers team gained only three seats. But the bigger news is that their share of vote actually decreased by about 3 points. This, despite the anti Trudeau Liberal publicity that Ford had been verbalizing over the last 18 months. Not to mention the other bad publicity about Trudeau.

In Quebec, with something like 78 seats, the Scheer Conservatives garnered just under 19 percent of the popular vote. For a party that wants to form a Government, and who had a chance at doing exactly this, these numbers spell huge trouble for Scheer. A decreasing vote share in Ontario and an abysmal showing in Quebec is not the path to a future win with Scheer.

If that was not enough, Scheer sent out a tweet welcoming his first time elected MP's. What really stood out? They were ALL middle aged white males. The tent is supposed be to getting bigger, not smaller. What is going on with his political advisers???


----------



## sags

Conservatives tried to win on an old reformer election platform and got trounced. 

Scheer appears oblivious to it all, while in the background Conservative members are already planning his farewell party.


----------



## james4beach

Personally I think the Conservatives would benefit from being more socially progressive, but that's not the voter base they've been going for.

Instead they have established themselves as the party for corporate oil & gas interests, social conservatives, and regressive environmental policies. This is not a recipe that will work in Canada.



sags said:


> Conservatives tried to win on an old reformer election platform and got trounced.


They basically are the Reform / Canadian Alliance party. Remember, this aint the Mulroney or Joe Clark PCs.


----------



## Eder

ian said:


> As the election results are digested and discected on a regional basis it is clear that this was a disaster for Scheer and his advisers.


Also a disaster for all Canadians as Marge will get input into policy now...


----------



## james4beach

Eder said:


> Also a disaster for all Canadians as Marge will get input into policy now...


Do you think cap gains taxes might go up, Eder?


----------



## ian

My guess is that many of the long time red Tories have either been pushed out of the party or those that remain will not longer work for the party. The more these supporters are pushed away, the more right wing the appear and the less attractive it will be to middle of the road, center hugging Canadians.


----------



## james4beach

ian said:


> My guess is that many of the long time red Tories have either been pushed out of the party or those that remain will not longer work for the party. The more these supporters are pushed away, the more right wing the appear and the less attractive it will be to middle of the road, center hugging Canadians.


There's a direction they might take that would be somewhat distressing. Already free from the burden of old fashioned Tories, they could imitate US Republicans: amp up the rhetoric and divisiveness and form themselves into a more populist party that relies on emotion and cult-like behaviour. In such a scenario, the party would be more about Trucker's Parades, White Men rallies, and MAGA-like nonsense.

It would be a departure from Canadian values, but it's a possible direction.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole

andrewf said:


> You're either bsing or wrong.
> 
> Cars may be cleaner but they are still pretty dirty. Diesel is brutal and can't be phased out soon enough.


Can you tell us how much pollution today's cars produce? Or how much pollution control devices have eliminated? In other words, compared to a car before pollution control, do today's cars produce 10% less ? 20% ? 30% ? What?


----------



## andrewf

Rusty O'Toole said:


> Can you tell us how much pollution today's cars produce? Or how much pollution control devices have eliminated? In other words, compared to a car before pollution control, do today's cars produce 10% less ? 20% ? 30% ? What?


Whatever it is, it's still too high! pm 2.5, ozone, nitrous oxides exceed safe levels in most cities. I'm sure there are answers to your questions, but I'm sure it's a case of 'it depends on how you measure'. Given that there is technology on the horizon that is being demonstrated as commercially viable that virtually eliminates automotive sources of these pollutants, we should embrace them. It seems so perverse to have love for fossil fuels (as some seem to). They are a necessary evil for civilization, but if we can find an alternative that is even just almost as good, we should want to phase them out.


----------



## sags

There are a lot more cars and trucks on the road these days and emissions have been rising for a long time. There are more homes and businesses.

We need to reverse the trend and eliminate fossil fuels as soon as possible.


----------



## AltaRed

andrewf said:


> Whatever it is, it's still too high! pm 2.5, ozone, nitrous oxides exceed safe levels in most cities. I'm sure there are answers to your questions, but I'm sure it's a case of 'it depends on how you measure'. Given that there is technology on the horizon that is being demonstrated as commercially viable that virtually eliminates automotive sources of these pollutants, we should embrace them. It seems so perverse to have love for fossil fuels (as some seem to). They are a necessary evil for civilization, but if we can find an alternative that is even just almost as good, we should want to phase them out.


Odd for everyone to keep talking about climate change in the Election thread, but so be it.... To the extent there are practical/equivalent alternatives, I agree. It will simply take a long time to get there and EV alternatives will only be practical in the more dense and developed portions of our planet. 

I will speculate we could achieve a 50/50 EV/ICE balance by 2035 or so if no major issues intervene in electrical generation and distribution. Hard to know barring the presence of incentives as well. I suspect half the !CE vehicles sold in 2019 will still be on the road in 2030 since the average age of a vehicle on the road today is 10 years. Never mind more remote areas where there is no real substitute for ICE vehicles, nor for construction machinery.

I doubt many actually 'love' fossil fuels simply because they are fossil fuels. They mostly 'love' them because there are no competitive and viable substitutes.


----------



## andrewf

How else do you explain the phenomenon of people 'rolling coal' on EV drivers, deliberately blocking EV charging stalls, etc.?

It seems to me many of those who make their living in O&G are at least subconsciously hostile to any technology that would reduce reliance/consumption of fossil fuels. Seems to be a big driver of the political dynamic in this country.


----------



## james4beach

andrewf said:


> How else do you explain the phenomenon of people 'rolling coal' on EV drivers, deliberately blocking EV charging stalls, etc.?
> 
> It seems to me many of those who make their living in O&G are at least subconsciously hostile to any technology that would reduce reliance/consumption of fossil fuels. Seems to be a big driver of the political dynamic in this country.


People in big trucks also sometimes harass cyclists the same way. The hostility isn't always subconscious.


----------



## AltaRed

What I hear most is inappropriate etiquette between EV drivers themselves at charging stations. Have not heard of any other hostility from non-EV drivers in the press myself.

Outfits like BC Hydro have been rolling out advertising campaigns advising good EV etiquette, e.g. don't hog a charging station for a 100% charge. Limit yourself to 20-30 min. And don't leave vehicle unattended...others are waiting. Seems to me there are likely to be riots between EV driver sooner rather than later.


----------



## james4beach

'Coal rollers' smoke out Ottawa cyclists on U.S. tour



> CBC reporter Steve Fischer's close encounter with latest fad among America's anti-green provocateurs
> 
> At first it looked like simple bad luck: my cycling buddy John, 20 metres ahead of me on Highway 15 in upstate Vermont, suddenly enveloped in a black plume of diesel exhaust from a passing truck.
> 
> I then watched in disbelief as the white pickup advanced to shoot another cloud directly at two other cyclists in our group.
> . . .
> 
> *That's when one of the cyclists enlightened me about the anti-environmentalist movement in the U.S. known as "coal rolling."*
> ...
> 
> Coal rollers seem to chiefly target drivers of hybrid cars such as the Toyota Prius, as well as pedestrians and cyclists, and proudly document their exploits on YouTube.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole

andrewf said:


> Whatever it is, it's still too high! pm 2.5, ozone, nitrous oxides exceed safe levels in most cities. I'm sure there are answers to your questions, but I'm sure it's a case of 'it depends on how you measure'. Given that there is technology on the horizon that is being demonstrated as commercially viable that virtually eliminates automotive sources of these pollutants, we should embrace them. It seems so perverse to have love for fossil fuels (as some seem to). They are a necessary evil for civilization, but if we can find an alternative that is even just almost as good, we should want to phase them out.


The answer is 97%. Today's cars have eliminated 97% of tailpipe emissions compared to cars with no pollution controls and this has been true since the early 80s
.

It is not a matter of opinion or a matter of how you measure. Exhaust emissions are regulated by law and before it can be sold, a car not only has to pass all tests, it has to be driven for 50,000 miles and still pass the test.

In addition, in Ontario all cars have to be tested every 2 years to make sure they still pass, in order to get plates. So few fail that the test is largely a formality. Correction this requirement ended April 1 this year. Heavy diesel powered trucks and buses still need to be tested if more than 7 years old.

Electric cars - 98% pollution free

Gas cars - 97% pollution free


----------



## andrewf

Rusty O'Toole said:


> The answer is 97%. Today's cars have eliminated 97% of tailpipe emissions compared to cars with no pollution controls and this has been true since the early 80s
> .
> 
> It is not a matter of opinion or a matter of how you measure. Exhaust emissions are regulated by law and before it can be sold, a car not only has to pass all tests, it has to be driven for 50,000 miles and still pass the test.
> 
> In addition, in Ontario all cars have to be tested every 2 years to make sure they still pass, in order to get plates. So few fail that the test is largely a formality. Correction this requirement ended April 1 this year. Heavy diesel powered trucks and buses still need to be tested if more than 7 years old.
> 
> Electric cars - 98% pollution free
> 
> Gas cars - 97% pollution free


Ontario has eliminated emissions testing.

Rusty, are you denying that there are still air quality issues in cities? I still plenty of diesel trucks belching soot, the kind of soot the gets in your blood stream and can permeate the blood-brain barrier. You seem eager to continue getting doses of pm 2.5 in your brain. I will be happy when these poison generators are not ubiquitous in our cities.

Would you have been happy to hang out in Chernobyl when radioactivity had been reduced by 97% from peak? Doesn't mean that it's safe! I don't know how you arrive at 98% emissions reduction for EVs. EVs don't have tailpipes, and Ontario uses basically no fossil fuel for baseload power (the kind that is used to charge EVs overnight). Either way, no powerplant is blowing pm 2.5 a few feet in front of my face. 

Of course, nevermind brake dust from friction brakes. EVs have much less need for friction braking due to regenerative braking. Only common factor is tire particles or road dust.


----------



## sags

New car emissions have lowered individual amounts, but the volume of vehicles and the number of people commuting to work has been rising for years.


----------



## sags

Back to the election results, the knives have come out for Andrew Scheer.

Peter McKay's comments attributing the PC election loss equivalent to an NHL player on a breakaway on an empty net and shooting wide.......sparked some discussion on his future.

Word is that he won't push Scheer out, but will jump into the leadership race if Scheer isn't around. It sounds like he wants the party to get rid of Scheer for him.

I don't know if all the blame falls onto Andrew Scheer. A lot of Conservative policies are not popular with Canadians and no leader is going to change Canadian's views.


----------



## sags

Elizabeth May wants to become the House Speaker. If appointed that would add another Liberal MP to the caucus. It sounds like JWR may be interested in leading the Greens.


----------



## sags

The Obama mansion purchase is only rumored. They are actually renting the mansion currently. They bought a home in Washington DC for $8 million.


----------



## ian

I put the blame squarely on Andrew Scheer. On his selection of key advisors , on his apparent willingness to shape his platform and his election comments to conform to that small group of social conservatives in the Party that pushed him over the top during the leadership convention. This reminds me very much of what happened to the Wild Rose party in Alberta and their former leader Danielle Smith. Is he the PM of that small group or does he aspire to be the PM of all Canadians. Based on his refusal to participate in any gay parades I assume the former.

Hopefully the Party got the message....just as Harper's Reform Party got the message and changed their approach a little and placed duct tape over the mouths of some of the more strident social conservatives. 

I suspect that Scheer's days are numbered. It will be interesting over the next several days to see if any senior movers and shakers in the Conservative Party come to his defense or if they remain silent. Not just some minor level MP's but some folks with influence and political smarts.


----------



## sags

The Conservatives can't force Scheer out until the April 2020 convention.

I guess they are hoping the minority government holds until then.


----------



## ian

They cannot force him out. But they can make it extremely uncomfortable for him to the point where he resigns for the good of the party, but mostly to shield his potentially humiliating numbers at the April leadership review. Movers and shakers in the Party will be keeping a close eye on party financial donations. Who gives and who keeps their hands in their pocket. 

The other part of this minority Government is the continued chance of an election. That translates into a requirement to quickly replenish party funds and to approach, attract, and prepare a list of potentially star candidates to offer up in the election. Neither of these can be left until the last minute lest the Liberals call a snap election with a short lead time. It has already started off on a bad footing with that widely distributed tweet welcoming those new Conservative MP's.....all middle age white men. How do you think that went over in 905/416? 

I think this is a time on both side for the need of seasoned, smart political professionals. Not sure about the Liberals, but there certainly appears to be a considerable lack of depth on the Conservative and NDP benches when it comes to political strategy and execution.


----------



## sags

Sometimes you just have to laugh at politicians.

_Can I get another 100 donors from Twitter tonight? We must defeat Socialism. Contribute $35, $11, or just $2!!_

https://twitter.com/randpaul/status/691828214881243140?lang=en

Love the comments.....using socialism to defeat socialism.......LOL


----------



## fstamand

sags said:


> Sometimes you just have to laugh at politicians.
> 
> _Can I get another 100 donors from Twitter tonight? We must defeat Socialism. Contribute $35, $11, or just $2!!_
> 
> https://twitter.com/randpaul/status/691828214881243140?lang=en
> 
> Love the comments.....using socialism to defeat socialism.......LOL


Hope they give me "my cut"


----------



## james4beach

The US military program is one of the best examples of their existing socialism. It provides employment, job training, education, subsidies, and free healthcare to huge numbers of Americans. The military funds a huge % of their economy, keeping millions of people employed. It is critical to huge corporations including Boeing, as well some tech giants.

It's all paid by the government and, one can argue, creates a real (positive) economic effect, not to mention keeping so many people happily employed in productive pursuits. I was the beneficiary of America's socialism too; it provided the chance for me to work in a scientific R&D field.

America loves socialism. You just have to call it "the military" down south.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole

sags said:


> The Obama mansion purchase is only rumored. They are actually renting the mansion currently. They bought a home in Washington DC for $8 million.


See Michelle Obama complain about white flight.... while moving to the whitest community in America, Martha's Vineyard between the Kennedy compound and Martha Stewart's place. Hypocrisy much?

https://youtu.be/x1BBXrRg_fc


----------



## humble_pie

ian said:


> If that was not enough, Scheer sent out a tweet welcoming his first time elected MP's. What really stood out? They were ALL middle aged white males. The tent is supposed be to getting bigger, not smaller. What is going on with his political advisers???



canada does have an age/gender gap

the same took over cmf forum some time ago, the western oil bloc on here are AWMs plus a couple wannabes


----------



## ian

Peter McKay said it best. Scheer Conservatives had a breakaway shop on an open net. They missed it. Big time. Andrew Coyne had a good column in yesterday's NP. Lets hope some influential Tories take note of it.


----------



## hfp75

Scheer swung a crooked deal in the last leadership convention with the farmers to beat Mad Max.... 

Now, in hind sight, neither were good choices. 

Doesnt change that Scheer had to be underhanded to win the leadership convention... and then in the end he lost anyways.

Scheer = no go....

McKay is right - it should have been an open net win.... Turdo is a moron, during the election there were pics of him mocking ethnic people, stories of him groping women, and he still won..... not to mention his obvious corruption/scandal. What was Canada thinking...


----------



## ian

From what I read about the post election polls in Ontario a very good proportion of those voting Liberal were doing so to vote against Scheer vs voting for Trudeau. 

That should send a message to both parties.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole

"Why did America elect Trump" "Why did Canada elect Trudeau" these questions always assume they were running against Mother Teresa, Einstein and Superman all rolled into one. They weren't. Look at who they were running against and get back to me.

Bill Maher had an interesting take on this lately. He said all the Democrats have to do to win in 2020 is be less crazy than Trump. Their response seems to be "hold my beer and watch this".

Elizabeth (Fauxcahontas) Warren's big campaign promise is taxpayer funded sex change operations for convicts. Could you put together a phrase with less appeal to the average voter "taxpayer funded" "sex change operations" "for convicts". It's practically radioactive. This isn't even the worst platform. Wonder why the Dems have basically given up hope of ever beating Trump in an election and are pinning their faith to impeachment.


----------



## AltaRed

There is indeed a lot of very crazy stuff coming out of leading contenders mouths. Gotta wonder what they think about in their waking hours. It's the D's election to lose and so far, they are doing their very best to do that.


----------



## sags

The Liberals will announce their cabinet later in November and their agenda announcements will follow that.

It will be interesting to see which agenda items take priority, as the NDP are also involved.

Will the big issues be pharmacare, universal basic income, gun control, increases in OAS and CPP benefits, lower taxes ? There are some interesting times ahead.


----------



## sags

Polling shows that pretty much anyone of the Democrats would beat Trump handily.


----------



## ian

Those polls might not mean much. Besides being far too early there is the Electoral College to consider. Clinton got something like 8 million votes more than Trump but the distribution of those votes made Trump a winner based on the Electoral College.

Not much different than Canada. Liberals got less that the Conservatives in this past election. Joe Clark formed a minority Gob't with 35 percent of the popular vote when the Liberals had 40 percent. It came down to distribution and number of seats.

Besides, there is no telling whether or not those evangelical nut bar voters will stick with Trump or abandon him for another candidate who tells them what they want to hear.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole

sags said:


> Polling shows that pretty much anyone of the Democrats would beat Trump handily.


So did the polls in 2016. Back then you could get in trouble for admitting to liking Trump. Today it's a thousand times worse. I don't blame Trump supporters for keeping their opinions to themselves until they get in the voting booth.

It also brings up the question, if Democrats are ready to fire you from your job, assault you, beat you up etc. for being their "enemy" now, when they are out of power, what will they do to you if they get the whip hand?


----------



## sags

I don't put much stock in national polls, but polling in the rust belt states that Trump won have turned against him.

That is a bad omen for the Republicans and there was a Congressional election in 2018 in which the Republicans got beat handily, including many "safe" Republican incumbents.

Donald Trump has made the world more difficult for Republicans.

Personally, I think he will resign before the election so VP Pence can take over and give him a Presidential pardon. It won't cover everything but at least some of it.

I think it is also doubtful that Americans will want a former US President dragged through the mud if he resigns, so he will end up walking away in disgrace like Nixon.

Better than walking the yard with Paul Manafort every day.


----------



## james4beach

Ya think that some Americans might be catching on that Trump is a total crook?

One thing's for sure. Once that guy's out of office, the DOJ is coming down hard on him. He's been a crook his whole life -- it's a lifestyle -- but now there's more than enough evidence to nail him. He must have been out of his mind to put himself into an environment (the presidency) where his actions and phone calls are recorded and reviewed by law enforcement on a daily basis. _He's screwed_.

There is a parallel here with Netanyahu in Israel. Trump needs to hold onto power to delay his eventual criminal charges and trials.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...rouble-facing-israels-netanyahu-idUSKBN1WG3KI
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...uld-be-only-way-avoid-prosecution-corruption/


----------



## sags

Not only a crook.......but not very capable either.

Smugglers are already "sawing" through parts of Trump's great new wall.

They didn't want to be bothered lugging a ladder around.............LOL.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/02/politics/smugglers-saw-through-trump-border-wall/index.html


----------



## like_to_retire

james4beach said:


> Ya think that some Americans might be catching on that Trump is a total crook?
> 
> One thing's for sure. Once that guy's out of office, the DOJ is coming down hard on him. He's been a crook his whole life -- it's a lifestyle -- but now there's more than enough evidence to nail him. He must have been out of his mind to put himself into an environment (the presidency) where his actions and phone calls are recorded and reviewed by law enforcement on a daily basis. _He's screwed_.


Nah, he'll likely win the next election. 

The Democrats are fielding a collection of crazies that will be sure to lose. 

You'd think they would be smart enough to offer a decent alternative, but it just ain't happening, so they're placing their bets on impeachment. Also not happening.

ltr


----------



## AltaRed

The D's know that Trump will not actually be impeached because the R controlled Senate won't let it happen. But will the House exercise bring all the misdeeds properly to the forefront in voter's minds without such misdeeds being spun by media and other vested interests? If the House exercise is done well, there may well be residual 'content' that the successful Dem competitor can use on the campaign trail. It could also backfire.

Right now, there is not much to hope with the majority of the Dem candidates. That said, Buttigieg seems to be rising but he is a lightweight for political experience... Mayor of what?


----------



## junior minor

We all have yet to see the restults and only time will tell but I think it's interesting to see what will happen. I was working for the election as a supervisor and although it was not authorized to wear colors (neutral was ok) pointing to any party in particular, one of the scrutators did have his blue jeans and I wasn't going to argue with him regarding his cap. 

Personnaly I'm rather neutral(as we never know what's going to happen) but the point is... may the best one win?


----------



## sags

If Trump is impeached, Vice President Pence would become President. That wouldn't be considered a bad outcome by many Republicans.


----------

