Big Government Overreach

Some readers in the comment section of the previous post noted with alarm that StatsCan plans to mine data from citizen’s banking information. It is very scary indeed.

And Justin Trudeau seems to have no problem with it. I think this could be a huge election issue if the Liberals don’t step in here and stop this invasion of privacy.

 

I don’t trust StatsCan, and I don’t trust the Trudeau Liberals either. Do you?

—————————————————————————-

And now this!! —-> StatCan scooped up 15 years of personal financial data from Canadian credit bureau – Global News

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Big Government, Canadian Elections, Canadian Government, Orwellian, Privacy. Bookmark the permalink.

216 Responses to Big Government Overreach

  1. Cara says:

    I was hoping that your next thread would be about this issue Joanne. In answer to your questions. No I don’t trust Stats Can, and a doubly do NOT trust the Trudeau government with, well, pretty much anything these days.
    There is no way that if a Conservative government had been found agreeing to something like this that their supporters and media party would vilify them continuously.
    This is just purely unacceptable.
    My son was caught up in the class action suit when his OSAP info. was breached when he was in university. He, just this year rec’d his share of that pay out for yet another breach by government.

    Here’s Brian L. on this same issue. https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/lilley-big-brother-feds-want-your-private-banking-info

    Like

  2. Liz J says:

    Not sure what strategy Scheer is going to go with for 2019 but waiting isn’t an option, it gives Butts and company time to do it.
    Just like this bogus nonsense renaming carbon tax calling it putting a price on carbon. We are already paying a price on carbon on everything we buy from gas to food and those plastic bags at five cents a pop. It’s a tax grab of the highest magnitude…are we really that thick to sit back and bend over on this?

    Like

  3. Liz J says:

    We better be careful, this Liberal cabal may be using some of Maurice Strong’s mad idea to shut down industrialized nations. The more tax they pile on the less industry will be attracted to this country, those here will be shipping out. We are victims of a huge scam only if we sit back and let it happen.

    Like

  4. joannebly says:

    This is without a doubt the worst Liberal government I can ever remember. Paul Martin looks like a saint in comparison to Junior Trudeau!

    Like

    • Miles Lunn says:

      Agreed. Also Trudeau lacks common sense instincts that Chretien did. There is a huge difference between this and re-instating the mandatory long form census. The mandatory long form census we know we are being asked and know what we are being asked. Snooping into people’s personal lives without them knowing let alone consent is unacceptable. I am sure some will argue government can make better decisions and that is true and I am sure if government could monitor everyone of us 24/7 they could too, but that doesn’t make it morally right or desirable. Yes Statistics Canada has the legal right to do this, but that doesn’t mean they should. Also even if this was not Trudeau’s idea (and I don’t believe it was, it was Statistics Canada’s), the buck stops at the top. He could have easily override them or ordered a review

      Like

      • joannebly says:

        Perhaps the legality of it all should be reviewed, and changes made. No government department should have such power.

        Like

        • Miles Lunn says:

          Absolutely. With Statistics Canada it has always been about the balance obtaining reliable data while at the same time respecting people’s privacy and I think by and large we have done this until now so this is totally unnecessary. If they want to do one based on voluntary participation fine, but people should have to give their consent. The only agency I would grant this power is the CBSA as when at an international border you don’t have the same rights as you do within a country and since entering Canada is a privilege if a foreigner and as a Canadian you can choose not to travel abroad that is the one case where I do support such powers, but not for any other agency.

          For CRA, I am fine with audits, but in those you only have to show how much money you made not how you spent it or where you spent it. If you are like most an employee, that is pretty straight forward, just show your pay stubs. If an employer or self-employed a bit more complicated, but even then you only have to show CRA your books, you don’t have to show them your personal expenses unless you are claiming them for a tax credit in which that is fair game. And likewise at least there you have a choice, if you don’t want the CRA to know about the expense, then don’t claim the tax credit which are completely optional.

          Like

        • Cara says:

          Indeed Joanne. What Trudeau DID in QP today was his usual of deflecting and blaming the previous gov’t and turn it into a ridiculous slam against Conservatives having something against the collection of data and StatsCan generally.

          Good thing we have a strong bench to counter the Liberal spin. Question is, can we count our the Media Party to hold Trudeau and his gov’t to account? Of course not.

          Like

          • joannebly says:

            Trudeau’s talking points are wearing a bit thin. It is intellectually dishonest of him to be trying to blame the previous Government in this situation.

            Like

          • Greg says:

            There wasn’t a reply option to Joanne’s response so this is in reply to Joanne. Justin has no intellect, so it’s just pure dishonesty.

            Like

    • Cara says:

      You said it! Remember the caution about the secret agenda the Liberals warned Canadians about with the Harper Conservatives that NEVER materialized?

      This Trudeau government (although loosely) is the one with the hidden agenda.

      How many times have they now been caught? Serious, I hope Scheer is keeping a LONG list because now’s the time to use it.

      Like

  5. Liz J says:

    Are we watching a slow march to a Commie state?

    Like

    • Anne in swON says:

      Look to Agenda 21/2030 and the all powerful UN for clarity on where we are headed starting from 1992 when all countries signed on. The Trudeau government aims to be the leading light and we Canadians are quietly submitting.

      Like

      • Anne in swON says:

        If you’re also concerned about the recent spate of unfettered and unfiltered migration into Europe and North America look no further than the ‘vaunted’ UN. Start here – http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/migration/migration.htm We in the west are the sacrificial lambs. We are not dealing in conspiracy theories.

        Like

        • Miles Lunn says:

          Actually I think the report is quite fair as the countries mentioned all have birth rates below replacement level and if you have a low birth rate with high life expectancy, that is going to cost a lot of money in terms of health care and pensions. Just look at Japan to see what happens. Now where I think the debate should be is how best to tackle this. I prefer immigration, but some might prefer finding ways to increase birth rates as opposed to more immigration. Otherwise I think that is a fair debate. Also maybe some are fine with an aging population, but that means either higher taxes or spending cuts elsewhere.

          In the case of Canada, I think our big problem is how our population is distributed. Our cities are full and don’t need to grow, but we still have lots of space in between and I would like to see us fill that in (not the Far north, but even in Southern Canada our density is still quite low compared to most). In most European countries you have similar urban vs. rural populations to Canada but much higher population densities. Despite that the percentage living in large metropolitan areas (over 500,000 or over 1 million) is much lower than in Canada and instead you have a lot more people in smaller cities and towns and the population is more evenly distributed. In Canada about 40% live in metro areas over 1 million and around half in metro areas over 500,000 whereas in most European countries it is typically only a quarter in metro areas over a million and only 1/3 in metro areas over 500,000.

          Like

          • Anne in swON says:

            You strike me as being very limited in your thinking. Take a look at the George Soros thread on Joanne’s twitter page and see if there’s not a correlation between that and what I said. Sorry to sound so harsh but populations in the democratic world are being manipulated and need to wake up now. Our predecessors fought hard for what we are giving up in the name of virtue.

            Like

          • joannebly says:

            Anne, Miles comes from the “Red Tory” side of things. He has brought some valid points to the table here. I don’t agree with everything he says but I think we need to be respectful of everyone’s opinion.

            If Andrew Scheer is to be successful next election, he’s going to have to bring over a lot of Blue Liberals who are feeling alienated from the current Trudeau Liberal move to the left. As the pundits on political shows point out, Trudeau is eating the NDP lunch. There is so much room in the middle. We need to reach out to those people.

            Liked by 1 person

          • Miles Lunn says:

            I tend to avoid various hard right conspiracy sites. Yes its true some want more immigration like Soros, but some don’t, governments at the end of the day will make the choice. I am not worried about higher levels of immigration provided it is properly done. The idea of some global conspiracy is pure nonsense and I tend to trust MSM (for all its flaws which are many) over various political sites with an agenda (be it right wing like Breitbart or left wing like Rabble).

            Like

          • Anne in swON says:

            ‘There are none so blind as those who will not see.’ John Heywood (1546)

            Liked by 1 person

          • Miles Lunn says:

            Fully agree with Joannebly, in order to win in 2019 we need to not only bring back many Red Tories who left us, but also many Blue Liberals who are unhappy with Trudeau governing like an NDP rather than Liberal, and believe me there are a number of MPs from the Chretien/Martin era who don’t support Trudeau’s leftward shift such as Dan McTeague, Paul Szabo, Jim Karygiannis, John Manley and probably many others that haven’t spoken out. Now the one danger is Maxime Bernier’s People’s Party now has over 30,000 members and according to a tweet from Quito Maggi, the next Mainstreet Research poll to be released on Monday will show them doing better than other pollsters. So we do have a challenge on the right.

            But I believe at the end of the day, most on the right be it Red Tories like myself or those further to the right desperately want to get rid of Trudeau and uniting people behind a common enemy is pretty easy. It will more be after the Tories form government this will be a challenge. In BC in 2013, the BC Conservatives looked like they were going to split the vote and deny the BC Liberals re-election, but once the campaign got under way, their vote collapsed for two reason: Most didn’t want to see the NDP return and it was clear BC Liberals were the best way to prevent that and two, they did a terrible job of vetting so had a whole bunch of wacko candidates. I have every reason to believe Bernier is going to attract a lot of wacko candidates showing his party is unfit to govern while at the same time making Scheer look moderate. And I think enough polls showing Tories + PPC exceeding Liberals but Liberals still in the lead will convince most PPC supporters that a vote for Bernier’s PPC is a vote for Trudeau. Its not like the 90s or last Alberta election where both parties on the right could make a legitimate case they were the better one to defeat the Liberals/NDP in Alberta, there is a clear stronger one much like in the case of BC.

            Like

  6. Liz J says:

    That’s the kicker Miles…”provided it’s properly done”, there’s no guarantee on that score.

    Like

    • Miles Lunn says:

      That is true, but that is why we should elect governments that do and boot out ones that don’t. I think our overall immigration system in terms of those who come legally is fine. I agree with the illegal crossers, we should speed up the process. Due to Geneva Convention and the Charter, we cannot deport them without a hearing, but we should expedite it so a decision is made quickly. Also perhaps as the Conservatives suggest make the whole border a port of entry thus the third country safe agreement applies at all points not just official crossings is something to be considered.

      Like

      • Liz J says:

        We “should” elect governments that “do” but look what/who we elected to a majority!
        It’s obvious the superficial clap trap got the votes which says a lot about how informed people are, what they care about. The old snake oil salesman would do well here.

        Like

  7. Liz J says:

    I might add, the US caught on, elected the right person to call out the problem with media and fake news, rent a crowds etc. It will take more time but eventually it will get through, people don’t want to be lied to in order to feed an agenda, in politics it can be dangerous.

    Like

  8. Liz J says:

    Why is the government not getting the postal strike settled, people rely on that service.

    I saw a clip of Climate Barbie in 22 Minutes, she wasn’t funny, she was very dense even for their political satire….true to form I guess.

    Like

  9. Liz J says:

    Sorry, Joanne, this is all off topic and it’s an important one but I’m doubtful Butts/Trudeau cabal will change their minds, they will do what they want, they will know all about our financial profiles. Have to ask what have we got left?

    Like

    • joannebly says:

      Nothing’s off topic here Liz. 😉

      I just put up new posts once in a while when the comment section gets very long but readers are always encouraged to discuss anything relevant to politics.

      Like

  10. Liz J says:

    I wonder if the average voter knows the depth the government is going to delve into our affairs and exactly what they plan to do with that information? How will it affect us? Why do they need to know so much about our financial affairs if it isn’t for their benefit? It certainly isn’t for ours, it’s something you might expect in a totalitarian regime.
    We work, we pay our taxes, the rest is none of their business for law abiding citizens of this country.
    Sign me worried.

    Like

  11. Liz J says:

    Scheer is saying he will put a stop to this overreach by the Trudeau government, any sane person would agree, question to ask is how? Why would they listen let alone act? Have they ever heard of getting hacked?
    All this from a government that can’t fix their payroll system.

    Like

    • joannebly says:

      No doubt, But as Michelle Rempel said yesterday on one of the political shows, how about we actually stop them from getting into the country in the first place?

      Like

  12. joannebly says:

    Colour me skeptical:

    Like

    • Liz J says:

      Oh yes, big time skeptical!!!

      Like

      • Cara says:

        And we have every right to be skeptical given how these “investigations” have turned out before for this government. Which was that they got off with a slap on the wrist, media lets them off the hook…….until the next time.
        We can probably write the script.

        Like

  13. Liz J says:

    Has anyone asked of what benefit to we the people this overreach will be? How far reaching will it go?

    Like

  14. Liz J says:

    My fear is the Conservatives will not drum on this and the “price on carbon”, which is a less poisonous term for carbon tax, to trick the public and it will be forgotten come election day.
    Another problem could be Max Bernier pulling votes, a divide the Liberals would benefit from.
    No room for snoozing when you are dealing with Liberals. Another term of this Liberal cabal and we will not recognize this country.

    Like

  15. Cara says:

    This would have fit in nicely with your “Intolerent Left” thread Joanne.
    More hypocrisy from Trudeau to school kids no less. http://brianlilley.com/trudeau-lies-to-schoolchildren-gets-caught/?fbclid=IwAR0wjLAKSBeh-26PUTCvLhni4WfOrP2B9yc_zRi8VsDc-k1V3DkpsFFwEJ4

    Like

  16. Liz J says:

    That video says it all about the character of the person we have supposedly leading the country.
    He’s a disgrace to the Office.

    Like

  17. Liz J says:

    How can we stop this stats scam when we have a majority government and to add to the problem it’s the worst we’ve had in memory? We will have all our private financial affairs in the hands of a government department, we have zero protection.

    Like

  18. Cara says:

    It’s becoming clearer by the day that the Trudeau government is simply not good for Canadians….period.

    Here’s yet another example of their incompetence. https://nationalpost.com/opinion/john-ivison-throwing-a-good-100m-after-a-bad-2-7b-with-indigenous-jobs-program

    Like

    • Liz J says:

      Yes, it’s obscene and there’s no accountability required, “Indigenous” leaders refuse to be accountable., just keep pumping the money, our money into a black hole.

      Like

    • Liz J says:

      Montreal has been dumping raw sewage into the St Lawrence through many governments, it’s Quebec, they do as they please . Not only that they are perpetually on the dole through what we call Equalization even though they are rich in resources.

      You won’t hear a peep about this crap dump from the environment minister, she’s too busy with their latest farce, putting a price on carbon which is a carbon tax in real life.

      Like

  19. joannebly says:

    And another Liberal government bites the dust:

    Like

    • Miles Lunn says:

      Also Brian Gallant will recommend to the Lieutenant Governor Blaine Higgs be given a chance to govern instead of recommending another election so that means Blaine Higgs will be the next premier. That means 5 out of 10 provinces representing over 70% of the Canadian population have small c conservative governments. If Kenney wins in Alberta next year which is very likely, that means by next federal election over 80% of Canadians will live in provinces with small c conservative governments. Also with Gallant and Wynne gone, the remaining provincial Liberal premiers are all centrists more like the Martin/Chretien Liberals than left wing like the Trudeau Liberals. Right now we have 5 provincial governments on the right (SK, MB, ON, QC, and NB) four in the centre (NS, PEI, NL, and YK), two on the left (BC and AB), and two consensus (NT and Nunavut, note those territories don’t have political parties everyone is elected as an independent). As such by this time next year BC will likely be the only province with a left wing government while at least six, maybe as high as eight (depending on how elections in PEI and Newfoundland go) will be small c conservatives. It could though be two on the left if the Greens win in PEI as they are doing surprisingly well in the polls there.

      Like

      • Miles Lunn says:

        So on the carbon tax, now four provinces with almost half the population against it and probably will be five with over 60% next year assuming Kenney wins (I think it is very likely he wins, but like always never count your chickens before they’ve hatched, I have seen leaders blow similar or bigger leads i.e. Dix in 2013 in BC, Prentice in Alberta in 2015, McLeod in Ontario in 1995, and Peterson in Ontario in 1990, but it is the exception not the norm to blow such leads). The People’s Alliance also supports challenging the carbon tax in federal court so Higgs has the numbers to do so if he chooses.

        A big thing will be does the Liberal speaker stay on or resign. If the Liberal speaker stays on, it is 25 for the government and 23 for the opposition while if the Liberal speaker steps down, the PCs have to put up one and meaning the speaker will have to break a lot of ties. If the PCs are forced to put up one, I suspect there will be an election in the next year while if they can get a Liberal, I think they can last the full 18 months as People’s Alliance promises and maybe beyond. The Green Party has shown a willingness also to work with the PCs so the only need one of the two smaller parties to vote in favour to pass any legislation not both like the Liberals did. The reason with a PC speaker why the government might fall sooner is if one MLA is sick or for whatever reason misses a key vote, they could fall whereas with a Liberal speaker, they need two absent. Now usually on key votes, if one is unable to make it, a person on the other side agrees to abstain, otherwise what is knowing as pairing. But considering that the Liberals won’t be happy about this, I doubt any Liberal MLA will agree to pairing, although perhaps maybe one of the Green MLAs will agree to do so.

        Like

  20. Liz J says:

    That should tame a bit of Liberal arrogance.

    Like

  21. Miles Lunn says:

    I know most of us are no fan of the Toronto Star, but I fully agree with this article on Steve Bannon https://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/2018/11/01/steve-bannon-is-no-threat-to-canadian-values.html . I think the left trying to shut up right wing populists just helps them, better to debate them and argue against their ideas then try to silence them. Interestingly enough debating them actually works better; in France, Marine Le Pen was doing very well in the polls until the debates and then after Macron roasted her fell well behind. The main reason for this is her promises didn’t add up as she promised big spending increases and tax cuts all by cutting immigration and the costs of her platform wildly exceeded whatever cost immigration has. I actually think the left trying to shut up people they deem too right wing is blowing up in their face and just helping those they hate.

    Like

  22. Liz J says:

    The Liberals need to get real, get their silly heads around the fact Trump is not running in Canada, using what’s going on south of the border as fodder to defeat our Conservatives simply doesn’t cut it.
    They’re getting caught up in the celebrity fanfare,Oprah Winfrey is stumping for the Democrats, we don’t need to pay any attention to what she says but we’ll be hearing all about it from the media.
    The Trudeau cabal somehow think they can use Trump to fight the Conservatives which shows how bankrupt they really are.
    IMO, Scheer would do a much better job dealing with the US on all fronts.

    Like

    • Cara says:

      Liz wrote: “The Trudeau cabal somehow think they can use Trump to fight the Conservatives which shows how bankrupt they really are.”

      This is exactly the Trudeau braintrust strategist’s plan LIz. It might work. The media party is sure doing its part to assist. The more they choose to put Trump front and centre in their news casts the more Canadians are relieved that Trudeau is not Trump. Look for that to ramp up, WAY up in the coming months.

      Sad part is that too many on the left will buy it.

      Like

  23. Liz J says:

    Stats can delving into our private financial affairs should be red flagged as a step toward a totalitarian state.. really what do we have left?

    Like

    • Cara says:

      Well, since we now know that this has been going on with the Trudeau gov’t’s blessing since January, we can now officially point to the Liberals as having a secret agenda.
      That list is getting longer by the year it seems.

      Like

  24. Miles Lunn says:

    I was wondering what people’s thoughts are on US midterms. I know many Conservatives cheer for the GOP and I think in the past that made some sense when GOP was less ideological or if they had a leader like John Kasich, but I actually think as Conservatives it is in our interest to see Democrats win. The reason is GOP is too right wing to win in Canada and it just gives the Liberals a foil to fearmonger on to detract from their record. Without the GOP in power, they don’t have that line of attack and at the end of day even if one likes the GOP, I think who governs Canada is more important than who governs the United States. If anything with Canada’s long history of Anti-Americanism (not necessarily a good thing but a reality), I tend to think we sort of have a history of voting opposites so whatever party you want to win in Canada, you should probably hope for the opposite in the US. If a Liberal, you should be cheering for the GOP as the GOP makes it easier to attack the Tories. If an NDP a bit more complicated, but in that case Democrats probably better as with GOP, more likely for progressives to coalesce around the Liberals than NDP. In some ways sort of like Ontario as while most of us would like Conservatives at both levels, history shows Ontario tends to vote opposites so as per an earlier discussion it comes down to which Liberal party do you hate more. In other provinces less clear cut, in fact in Western provinces save Manitoba no correlation. Manitoba, its more South and west side of Winnipeg tend to vote left at one level right at the other and whomever wins those seats usually forms government. Quebec used to vote opposites, but with last election being a re-alignment we shall see if that continues as it is now the CAQ not PQ. No correlation in Atlantic Canada.

    To be fair voting opposites is not unique to Canada. Whether it be UK local elections, European parliamentary elections, French regional, German state, Australian state, and even US state, there is a long history in each of generally voting opposites.

    Like

    • Miles Lunn says:

      That being said, I do hope the Democrats stay close to the middle. I fear if they veer too far left, that will embolden our left to go further left. Otherwise if things like free college and other big government spending programs as well top tax rates over 60% are vote winners in the US, which is more conservative, surely they would be in Canada. One thing that might blunt the left is if Jeremy Corbyn wins the next UK election, he is far enough left he would do massive damage to the British economy and I think that would scare a lot away from the left as long as the election here was more than a year later as it first they would be emboldened to follow him until the damage was obvious. That being said as someone who travels to the UK regularly and has personal connections there, I will be negatively impacted if he wins therefore I have personal reasons to want him to never become PM. I am fine if Labour wins with a more moderate type like Tony Blair, wouldn’t vote Labour if I lived in UK no matter what, but don’t think someone in that mold will damage things too much. Venezuela has been a disaster, but I think since Latin America has many problems we don’t, they have a strong history of lurching from one extreme to another so what happens there has less impact. Brazil in recent election a great example of swinging from hard left to hard right, both parties in the final round would be too extreme to win in Canada.

      Like

    • Cara says:

      I don’t think about what’s going on in the USA. It’s a diversion that the left and their media party like to use to deflect attention from Trudeau’s sorry record and incompetent government.
      Talking about it here is a kin to me changing the channel when our Canadian news media lead with Trump rather than Trudeau – ALL part of the Liberal strategy.

      Like

      • Miles Lunn says:

        And my point is if the GOP loses, they lose this weapon and that means they will have to answer for the record without being able to accuse Scheer of being Trump like even though he is not.

        Like

  25. Liz J says:

    Hey Miles, as a Conservative I do not want to see the Democrats win or even come close. They need more time in the woodshed, there’s a lot of sawdust to clear. The Liberals here would be insufferable with a Democratic win in the US even though it would take away the Trudeau/Butts plan to insert Trump into our election.

    Like

    • Cara says:

      Exactly Liz.
      Not to mention that the Democrats are just as messed up as the Republicans in the US, yet we’re not hearing any of that part of the narrative.

      Like

  26. Liz J says:

    I also think Trump let a lot of air out the media balloon that flies high when Liberals are in power now they’re being called out, reduced to fake news and comedic satire that keeps the Left entertained. Those who deal in facts and reality are seeing right through them.
    A win for Trump will render them completely impotent.

    Like

    • Miles Lunn says:

      I guess my thinking is even though I don’t support Trump, we need to focus on what is doable. Someone like Trump is way too far from the median voter and thus convincing Canadians he is the right president is not something I think that can be won in the court of public opinion. But convincing Canadians Trudeau is incompetent and is NDP lite and we would be better with a Conservative government is doable. Canada in many ways is a lot like where the US was in the 60s when Barry Goldwater ran and he was considered a nutcase yet today his viewpoints are now mainstream in the GOP. It takes many years to pull a country significantly to the right or left and I think Harper understood this thus why he practiced incrementalism. Otherwise my point is I don’t think Trump is an asset to the conservative cause in Canada, I believe he is a liability. Not an insurmountable one by any means as Ford won despite those comparisons but considering elections are usually won at the margins, the fewer lines of attacks the Liberals have the better for us.

      Like

      • Liz J says:

        We have no control over US politics and we shouldn’t be using their politics to compare to ours, makes no sense. The Liberals and their media friends are doing it here because they need to detract attention from the reality of what they’re trying to pull off here with their less than capable leadership. Looking at their bench I do not feel we are in good hands, we need to do everything we can to boot them out of office.

        Like

  27. gabbyinqc says:

    There’s still hope for the CBC:
    https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/positive-politics-trudeau-1.4888620
    “OPINION
    The Trudeau government believes in decorum, not like those goons across the aisle: Robyn Urback
    … So you see, the Liberal government has to do things like table 850-page omnibus budget bills — even though they lambasted the previous government for doing so and promised they would abandon the “undemocratic” practice — because they aren’t getting any help from the people occupying the other seats. The Harper omnibus bills were sinister and sneaky and tried to ram through changes without debate. This, on the other hand, is about “getting a lot done for middle-class Canadians.” See the difference? …”

    Like

    • gabbyinqc says:

      Forgot to mention I found the CBC article via National Newswatch … I prefer always crediting my sources.

      Like

    • Cara says:

      I’ll chalk this up to an outlier for the CBC. When we amass a few of these in a row we can move to a possible trend 🙂
      IMO they’re still the same old apologists for Trudeau and his government.

      Like

      • gabbyinqc says:

        True enough … but Robyn Urback has written other op-eds critical of the Liberals and the Power & Politics new host Vassy Kapelos sometimes asks Liberal ministers pointed questions, so it’s encouraging. The media’s role — which should be as fact-finders & truth-tellers — is not to praise or support any one party in particular. I welcome this, even if it’s only a slight deviation from the customary “old apologists”.

        But I agree with you it’s not a trend

        Like

        • joannebly says:

          Vassy’s doing an awesome job. I find her very fair and objective. She asks tough questions of everyone and never backs down.

          Urback’s column was great too. Biting satire. Love it!

          I believe in complimenting media folks when I feel they’ve done a good job and I often do that on Twitter. Some even say thanks back, as Vassey did when she started out on P&P.

          Like

          • Cara says:

            Time will tell. Compared to others I will agree that Vassy is pretty good.
            Urback isn’t very consistent, so while this one was good, I’m not convinced that she’s changed much.

            Like

          • Miles Lunn says:

            I think the media’s job is to keep politicians accountable and they should ask hard questions for every politician of all stripes. Otherwise I think bias towards any party even if its one I support is a bad thing. I don’t have a problem if the media is tough on all politicians equally, I think that is a good thing.

            Like

  28. Liz J says:

    According to Rebel the Trudeau government is planning massive immigration from Somalia. Hopefully they are qualified to work in fields like healthcare where we have shortages rather than adding to the problems.

    Like

    • Miles Lunn says:

      Considering Somalia is a failed state, doubt many will go into health care, but still might be beneficial if entrepreneurial and they decide to start their own business. Small business owners don’t tend to make a lot of money, but I believe anyone who wants to take the risk of starting their own business is a good thing as running your own business is quite tough, long hours and a high chance of failure too. I have noticed quite a few refugees do start their own businesses even if small ones with low profit margins.

      Like

  29. ed says:

    Hi, everybody.
    Wow, the world is nuts — really. Sadly, in Canada, we lack a leader who will take charge and lead this country going forward. Say what you like, you have to admit President Trump acts as a leader. He’s not afraid to tell it as it is. Sure, he has faults but who is perfect? The record of our government is an embarrassment. Stats Canada, the Liberal government, what’s the difference? Neither do I trust them. It’s one outrageous thing after another that is seriously damaging our country. How can it be? How can so many Canadians not see what is happening? The young people have to be reached. The left is targeting our youth in the public schools and universities. The propaganda is there. I see it as being all about control by the state. Brainwash the youth and take it from there. Yeah, the country is going to “pot.” How stupid is that? We need a pragmatic leader in this country to take charge, to take action, and to get things done.

    Like

  30. Liz J says:

    We need to keep an eye on immigration with this government, Trudeau’s “Irregulars” are only part of the concern.

    Like

    • Miles Lunn says:

      Ironically I actually think if the Tories play their cards right, higher levels of immigration might work in the Tories favour not Liberals. Lets remember most come from more conservative countries so as Jason Kenney emphasized when leader, immigrants in many ways should be natural conservative voters not liberal. Many are quite entrepreneurial thus don’t like high taxes and big government and likewise many believe in traditional values too. In fact actually Stephen Harper was initially quite reluctant about targeting the immigrant community as he assumed they were natural liberal voters, but it was Kenney who convinced him that the majority of immigrants’ values aligned more with the Conservative than Liberal party and if the party aggressive courted them it could pay dividends which it did in the 2011 election.

      Like

  31. Miles Lunn says:

    I posted a blog on both my predictions for tomorrow’s midterms and what I want. As for predictions, I predict the following:

    House – Democrats narrowly take it since despite big lead in popular vote, inefficiency of Democrat vote (tend to run up the margins in Liberal coastal cities, often over 80%) and Gerrymandering (both parties do this, but right now the map favours GOP since they control far more state legislatures), it will be close seat wise, but not vote wise.

    Senate – GOP holds this. Of the 26 Democrats up for re-election, anywhere from 1 to 5 are likely to lose their seats while of the 8 GOP ones up for re-election, only two I could realistically see going Democrat (Nevada and Arizona).

    Governors – GOP still continues to hold the majority of states, but not as big a majority, but population wise, more Americans will live in states with a Democrat governor as opposed to GOP governor (Democrats tend to do better in more populated states, GOP more in smaller states).

    Anybody else have any predictions here?

    Like

    • Cara says:

      My prediction is the for Canada, no matter what the outcome, nothing changes for us here.

      Like

      • Miles Lunn says:

        Largely true as you need congress and senate and president to agree to pass anything although technically congress and senate could override a presidential veto if they have 2/3 support. Governors might be interesting as our premiers do meet frequently with governors especially in neighbouring states, although usually relations here unlike federally have tended to be pretty good regardless of the party in power on either side.

        Like

      • Liz J says:

        The Liberals like to use US politics as a deflection from their own dirty work because it’s a Republican administration, they didn’t get their Hillary.

        Meanwhile, back at the ranch, with Trudeau on or off horseback, it’s not going to change anything for us. We will have Big Brother style government here delving into our financial affairs at our local banks and we will be paying their carbon tax on everything we need to survive.
        We can yell and gnash our teeth to the same end. The most positive developments are at the provincial level where common sense seems to be breaking out. We can only hope after a winter of paying their “price on pollution” their chances of reelection should be slim. I doubt there are enough pot smokers to make a difference for the Drama King.

        Like

        • joannebly says:

          And they used to call Harper the “dictator”!

          Like

          • Liz J says:

            Yes and worse. Recalling when Ignatieff said “Canadians can smell the whiff of sulphur coming from this guy”…..comparing him to the devil in his desperate failed attempt at power even though he went out smelling barns!
            Now we have just plain incompetence and it could be dangerous if we don’t smarten up.

            Like

  32. Cara says:

    When our Canadian media party has filled their boots with what’s going on south of the border, perhaps they’ll give THIS the attention it desperately needs?

    Once again this is a government that is quickly losing the trust of this government. This is not a government that respects our money.

    https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/the-federal-government-spent-23-million-buying-631-new-cars-for-the-g7-summit-now-its-trying-to-sell-most-of-them-off

    Like

  33. Liz J says:

    CTV, CBC are going apoplectic over the US election. Why? What’s at stake? Would it be all about the media itself being big losers if the Democrats don’t fare so well after all the work they’ve done putting down Trump?
    With Obama and Oprah! on the stump I’m sure they’re feeling they have it in the bag!

    Like

    • Cara says:

      From what I’m watching right now the USA is as divided as it ever was. Also it doesn’t seem that Oprah helped her candidate. I wonder how Trudeau stumping for the Democrats on CNN held them?

      Like

      • Liz J says:

        Nothing has changed to make a difference, Trump really won the day.
        Oprah was given a message, people can think for themselves.

        Like

  34. Liz J says:

    The Democrats are in a position to do themselves more damage , I’m sure Trump will give them lots of opportunities. They can spend the next two years digging for dirt which will be of no benefit to the people, they need to clean their own house.

    Like

  35. Liz J says:

    Who’s trolling for dirt on the PC’s? Tony Clement has stepped down? Gotta check this one out.

    Like

    • joannebly says:

      Boy that’s a strange one. But I can’t defend such bad judgement!

      Like

      • Liz J says:

        Almost stranger than fiction!

        Like

        • Cara says:

          It IS indeed a strange one and it is the bad judgement of one man. No other party though can claim they’re immune from things like this BUT, we all know that the left will try to paint this as so very typical of Conservatives. Wait for it.
          To his credit Clement has come out in front of this and is talking. AND Scheer acted quickly to replace him temporarily.
          Meanwhile the left still seem to want to protect out groping PM. Remember that?

          Like

          • Liz J says:

            Now we have the media speculating about security breach with the RCMP involved?
            Are we looking at mystery, intrigue, and espionage?!

            Like

  36. Liz J says:

    Wonder if the Democrats, their media and celebrity trumpets will strike the term “Blue Wave” from their vocabulary?

    Like

    • Cara says:

      Nothing changes for Canadians.
      The USA is as divided as it ever was.
      I predict that Trump does nothing to change his course.

      Like

    • Miles Lunn says:

      I will do a post later today on this, but each side can sort of claim victory. The Democrats won the house and while not as massive a blue wave as some thought, the house does show a re-alignment as many traditional Republican suburbs are either going Democrat or becoming more vulnerable. By contrast the few rural pockets the Democrats used to do well in seem to be staying in the Republican column. On the Governor side it looked initially like a weak night, but actually Democrats did reasonably well as they picked up 7 states and lost none. Sure they had a few misses like Florida, but you rarely win everything you target. In terms of the senate, the Democrats did lose seats, but all of those were states that voted for Trump and asides from Florida, the other three (maybe four depending on how Montana goes) were states Trump won by at least 15 points so not exactly bellwether states by any means. Indiana and Missouri only Democrat senators to begin with due to stupid comments related to abortion and rape that the GOP candidates in both states made back in 2012. Otherwise they won those in 2012 due to bozo eruptions not actual wide Democrat support. I do think though with the increasing urban-rural polarization, there is a chance you could see Democrats dominating the house in the future since more people live in urban areas than rural but GOP dominating the senate as every state has two senators regardless of population and Democrats tend to do better in larger states while GOP in smaller ones.

      Like

  37. Miles Lunn says:

    More allegations against Tony Clement have come out, so he has rightfully been booted from the caucus. Unless he can clear all of these before the next election he should not be allowed to run under the Conservative banner. Yes I know it is a double standard, but the fact the Liberals are letting Kent Hehr run means we can attack Trudeau of being a fake feminist if our party is clean.

    Like

    • Liz J says:

      Can’t get my head around Tony Clement sexting or whatever, I just keep thinking OMG, Tony Clement of all people! Must be a lot to that going around, there soon won’t be anyone who can criticize anyone if this keeps up!
      Maybe we should be concerned for what society in general is coming to.

      Like

      • Miles Lunn says:

        Former BC premier Christy Clark was saying that she found the legislature a real frat boy placein terms of behavior and I’ve heard with all parties throughout the developed world this is quite common. In fact I’ve heard female political staffers in Canada, US, and UK have internal memos they circle about which members are creeps and which ones to avoid, so I think because it became so common, that is why we are seeing many emerge.

        Like

        • Liz J says:

          I’ve read it’s a lonely job away from family as if that’s a legitimate excuse for such behaviours. They have jobs to do, that should fill their time and also there are many ways of communicating with families , keeping in touch. What goes through someone’s mind to be driven to make such stupid choices is hard to figure. A lot is lost that can never come back to where it was politically or even with the family. Embarrassment is huge too for families. What I think we are missing in the world today is shame, there seems to be no capacity for shame, anything goes.

          Like

          • joannebly says:

            There’s something missing alright. Perhaps shame, perhaps integrity. It’s very sad and disappointing.

            Like

          • Cara says:

            I think there is much more to this story than we are aware.
            That said, Clement used really poor judgement in doing what he did. He’s now going to pay for it in ways we can’t imagine.
            Andrew Scheer acted quickly and decisively. He was visibly shaken when fielding questions from media yesterday, AND I’m sure all of Clements colleagues were disappointed. As a Conservative I’m disappointed.
            I also know that the left will milk this for all it’s worth even though Kent Hehr still sits as a Liberal MP in Trudeau’s government and Trudeau himself has not faced any consequences that I can tell from his groping. The double-standard and the hypocrisy from the left are alive and well.

            Like

        • Greg says:

          In the US they have a secret fund rumoured to be quite large, to cover lawsuits by female staffers against congressmen and senators. The hypocrites all stick together in silence, even the female congressmen.

          Like

  38. Liz J says:

    Well, it’s hard to believe Clement can even show his face to the public with such publicity coming out. There is no excuse, it cannot be explained away. So difficult for his family, something he obviously didn’t think about when deciding to engage in this behaviour. We can start with stupidity and go from there.

    Like

  39. Miles Lunn says:

    I have heard Maxime Bernier’s People’s Party now has 31,000 members and seems to be drawing decent size rallies; had a packed room in Vancouver. Seriously do these people not realize they are just handing the next election to Justin Trudeau on a silver platter. Did they not learn anything from the 90s or more recently in Alberta. Keeping the conservative coalition together may be tough and requires compromises, not going off and forming your own party when you cannot get your way. Hopefully between now and the election, we can make the strong case that a vote for Bernier’s People’s Party is a vote for Trudeau. Also while I can see the appeal of libertarianism for some, it will never sell amongst a large enough share of the electorate for one to win on. Otherwise platforms should be about not what is idea but what is doable. Also he talks about principles, I prefer pragmatism. Lets forgot about the ideology and instead support what delivers the best results as no one ideology has a monopoly on good ideas and except the extreme ideologies like fascism or communism, no mainstream idea is wrong all the time either.

    Like

  40. Liz J says:

    We don’t need scandals to detract from message either. It will be interesting to see how long we keep reading/hearing about Clement’s sorry escapades compared to the Kokanee grope.

    Like

  41. Cara says:

    This should raise the hackles of everyone here. It also points to the fact that the Liberals in doing this prove to be JUST even more intolerant than we could have imagined. This needs more exposure sooner rather than later IMO.
    We already know that the Trudeau government has tried to rewrite history, and socially engineer Canadians into their half-baked agenda. THIS is something far, far worse IMO.
    https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/internet-history-of-harper-pmo-deleted-from-google-results-at-ottawas-request/article30493213/?fbclid=IwAR2997-9HZe6JEYEcGTGcIbnXhif0o63pUwl0N4pSzsYcKizNWC2yK5w-l8

    Like

  42. Liz J says:

    Does anyone here think Clement should be asked to resign completely, get rid of the distraction?
    It’s going to carry on as long as he’s an MP.

    Like

    • Miles Lunn says:

      To save the cost of a by-election, I think he should resign at whatever point they would no need to call a by-election.

      Like

      • Liz J says:

        The sooner the better but the PM wouldn’t be in a hurry to call one no matter the timing unless the Liberals thought it would benefit them. Don’t know how his constituents will deal with this either.

        Like

        • Miles Lunn says:

          Good news is Parry Sound-Muskoka is a fairly safe riding so unless the Liberals get a popular star candidate, it should stay Tory and even if they did lose it, it would almost certainly revert back in the fall. Still I think Clement needs to go sooner or later and should donate every cent of his salary to charity.

          Like

  43. Miles Lunn says:

    Looks like Clement from further details I’ve heard was quite creepy. He liking mainly young female Instagram pages and massively clicking on likes and only pictures of them, not ones of scenery or pictures with male friends and especially beach pictures he liked. So while not illegal, I would rather not have creeps like that in politics. It is fine to become a follower of an Instagram page of someone who is female, but do so because you share a common interest. I as a male follow some females on twitter and have female facebook friends but in the former do so because I share common interest and latter because I am personal friends with them, I don’t ever add people on facebook just after meeting them at a bar and in fact I will generally reject friend requests from someone I haven’t met in person multiple times. I also have friends on facebook and twitter followers of both genders and all ages, whereas it seems for Clement it was only young females.

    one Conservative staffer was actually interviewed today and was not surprised about this with Clement as she had been experiences, but stated she has had even worse experiences with other MPs and it is not just in one party it is across all parties so I don’t think this is just a problem for Conservatives, it is for all parties

    Like

  44. Liz J says:

    Looks like the topic of this thread has been lost in the conversation due to unforeseen happenings!

    The Shiny one and his cabal are getting a break, I’m sure they are loving the distraction knowing the media will keep it going. They gloat a bit more…just what you’d notice, when it’s from the Conservative side. This has nothing to do with party, it has to do with one person’s bad choices.
    It’s looking like “honourable” and “right honourable” might be hard to live up to in politics.

    Like

    • Miles Lunn says:

      I agree it looks bad, but I think this is an issue across parties. Here is an article how in the UK female staffers even have an app telling them which MPs are creeps and they need to avoid https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/female-westminster-staff-use-secret-whatsapp-group-discuss-sex-pest-mps-avoid-1644748 and it looks like there are creeps in both parties. If anything the fact Tony Clement was kicked out is good and I think a real question where we can hit the Liberals back is why is Kent Hehr still in caucus.

      Like

      • Liz J says:

        It’s notable we don’t hear any more about Kent Hehr. Perhaps the media and opposition don’t feel his indiscretions to be of such high consequence. Much the same when Justin Trudeau allegedly did the Kokanee grope,it’s forgotten, he fobbed it off saying it was a different experience for her than him. That’s it that’s all, they’re Liberals after all.

        Like

  45. Liz J says:

    It appears Shiny is loathe to join other countries in condemning China’s human rights abuses. He does admire how “they can turn their economy around on a dime” which obtusely means he’s not too concerned how they do it, how they treat people.

    Like

  46. gabbyinqc says:

    Re: Tony Clement and his reportedly “creepy” online behaviour, especially towards staffers, as commented on by CBC power panelist Marcella Munro. Ms. Munro stated that it was a well-known fact that Mr. Clernent’s behaviour was inappropriate. The question then arises: why didn’t any of the women who were thus affected do something about it? Apparently that behaviour had been going on for years, if I understood Ms. Munro correctly. And yet … another panelist, Althia Raj, during yesterday’s P&P panel stated that in all the years she had any contact with Mr. Clement, he never was out of line.

    Of course, the media will continue to exploit the story, the narrative being how come the CPC leader Andrew Scheer did not know about it, or even hinting that there was a cover-up. Mr. Scheer should keep emphasizing the fact the agencies in charge of vetting members of that super-secret committee Mr. Clement sat/sits on didn’t seem to be in the know either.

    It is difficult to understand why anyone — especially a married person — would engage in such behaviour, especially the sexting part. I guess some owners of “smart phones” lose all their “smarts”.

    Like

  47. Liz J says:

    We were blessed this Remembrance Day, the Prime Minister is out of the country. Choosing to spend it where he might get world wide admiration perhaps?

    Like

  48. Miles Lunn says:

    Ford is apparently go to raise the minimum threshold for official party status to 12 seats. Asides the argument of this looking vindictive, I actually think this is a bad idea for the PCs. To win as a conservative in Ontario, you generally need strong splits on the left so having the Liberals disappear increases the likelihood of the left uniting behind the NDP. Also whenever the public decides to turf the PCs, I would rather the Liberals as opposed to NDP return to power. While Wynne was more or less an NDP premier, at least you have a strong centrist element which won’t be great but won’t do too much harm whereas if the NDP wins, you are guaranteed a left wing government that will be a disaster for Ontario. What are others thoughts? I think removing the Liberals from office is desirable, but I don’t think seeing them wiped off the political map is, rather having them in opposition is I think the best for the province.

    Like

  49. Liz J says:

    Well, the NDP definitely would be a disaster in power for sure, they’ve proven it. The Liberals need a good stretch of time in the weeds. We need to hear Ford’s reason for this but I don’t think it will make that much difference.

    Like

    • Miles Lunn says:

      I agree Liberals need a good stretch in opposition, just saying when people finally do tire of them which hopefully isn’t for a while, I would rather the Liberals as opposed to NDP be the party that returns to office and hopefully their leader is a centrist type like Paputello, not an NDP lite one like Wynne.

      Like

  50. Miles Lunn says:

    While Nanos numbers are downright depressing, mainstreet has been doing their quarterly poll and Abacus did one in Alberta, while MQO for all Atlantic provinces. Both show UCP with a strong lead so unless he makes some big blunder, Kenney will likely be joining the emerging conservative alliance at the provincial level. Mainstreet shows the PCs still well ahead. Ford’s policies seem to be unpopular amongst those that didn’t vote PC, but popular amongst those who voted PC so not gaining votes, but not losing either which is fine. In BC, Insights West and Mainstreet research show the referendum on PR will be a nail biter and while I fear it might pass, a year ago the pro PR side had a 20 point lead so good to see things tighten up. I was almost positive the PR side would win, whereas now I am at least somewhat hopeful the FTFP side will come out ahead.

    In Atlantic Canada, MQO also gives federal numbers for each province. While Liberals well ahead in PEI and Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick numbers look more encouraging. Tories are three points ahead in New Brunswick, while 16 points behind in Nova Scotia, but at 34% which is only 3% below what Harper got in 2011 and better than he got in 2004, 2006, and 2008. Main problem there like elsewhere is NDP is very weak so we don’t have the splits like we did in 2004, 2006, and 2008. Still my guess is with Atlantic Canada, Liberals will win the majority of seats in 2019, but it won’t be a sweep and the Tories will at least have some seats unlike 2015 and in the case of New Brunswick might even win the majority. And of the Atlantic provinces, New Brunswick is the closest to a bellwether so how we do there as opposed to other three is probably best indicator of how things will go nationally. Greens in double digits in New Brunswick and PEI so probably spill over from strong provincial support and it seems them rather than NDP is the party we can most hope for to provide the vote splits.

    Like

  51. Liz J says:

    We’re not hearing much about the “price on pollution” any more. Guess the people have been sold on Justin’s promise to give back more than they pay on what is a carbon tax plus GST.
    This might change when people pay up front at the gas pumps and their heating bills and everything else they need to survive in their day to day lives.

    Like

    • Miles Lunn says:

      I wonder though if the Tories not taking a strong stance on climate change is hurting them. While Nanos numbers move up and down, I am bit worried with the trend. Off course maybe other pollsters will show a bit different numbers or could be something different. I think on climate change, doing nothing could hurt the Tories as Canadians generally don’t tend to like parties they see appealing to people’s selfishness. Now obviously there are plenty of other ways to deal with it than a carbon tax. Perhaps a hard cap on industries is a better alternative. Also Nanos numbers could be due to other factors. With a lot of focus on midterms, it is possible that is driving Tories down, but once the focus turns back to domestic issues they will rebound. Joseph Angolano at Mainstreet Research tweeted their numbers are not as bad for Scheer, but he has nothing to celebrate either so I guess we shall see what that means. Also perhaps as mentioned a little over a year ago, Canadians like centrist governments so when we had mostly left wing governments at both levels, Tories were gaining to balance that out, but now with mostly right of centre governments at the provincial level, we’ve achieved that equilibrium.

      I suspect 2019 will ultimately solve the carbon tax issue. If the Tories win, the Liberals won’t dare run on it for at least another decade, probably longer. If Liberals win and Tories don’t gain seats or make minimal gains, I suspect Chong’s position of a revenue neutral one will be the party’s position in 2023 (note Liberal one is not revenue neutral). Off course maybe other events will play a bigger role and it will be a side issue. After all we are overdue for another recession and if that happens next year, which is very possible, how to deal with that will be the main issue and since this will likely cause the deficit to explode, Liberals could come under fire for not balancing the budget when the economy was going strong.

      Like

      • Cara says:

        IMO the Conservatives are playing this just right re: their environmental policy, by hanging on to it. It’s much, MUCH too early. It’s not hurting them at all.
        How many times have the left, their supporters and their media friendlies advised Scheer to be different than he is, do something different than he has.
        The polls will not be telling the story in the end Miles. The people will.
        Look at the wins Scheer and his bench have had in two years where the Liberals blink and, back down or as in the case of that murdered move to a lodge changed course completely. If it weren’t for the Conservatives going hard on that issue nothing would have happened. Yet there were those, even Conservatives saying Scheer should back down.

        Like

        • Miles Lunn says:

          Mainstreet is out today and while not as bad as Nanos not exactly promising either. I think the real challenge is the economy is doing quite well and usually when the economy is strong, it is tough to defeat a first term government. The strong economy off course has nothing to do with Trudeau, it is simply a matter of where we are in the current economic cycle. That being said its been almost a decade since the last recession so we are overdue for one and if one begins before the next election that could offer a strong lifeline to the Tories as the Liberals are woefully ill prepared.

          I think it is important when judging the state of where things are, we put aside our personal biases and look at what the evidence says. Anecdotal is a good indication of how things are in one’s neck of the woods but not necessarily nationally as public opinion varies significantly depending on where you live. If you live in Rural Alberta, pretty much everyone loathes Trudeau and cannot wait to see him tossed. If you live in downtown Toronto, pretty much everyone is terrified of the Tories and wants to do everything to ensure they don’t win, but neither are places that decide the outcome as the Tories will win big in the former no matter what and will lose badly in the latter no matter what. As such polls are not perfect, but they are a good snapshot, but they are just that a snapshot of where things stand not a predictor of what will happen. Otherwise the Liberals are in great position to win if an election were held today, but one is not and things can most definitely change between now an election day. Still the Tories have to not assume it will be easy. And they must expand beyond their base and appeal to swing voters who are open to voting Tory, but not there yet.

          Like

          • Cara says:

            If by “evidence” you mean polls Miles, the polls are not IMO the best at judging “the state of the way things are”, voters will do that, and there are way WAY too many variables between now and election day 2019 for the polls to be anything but akin to Wiarton Willy. It’s a nice past time, and you obviously enjoy it so great. It’s just not for everyone. Polls are as often in accurate as they are accurate. I’m glad that you acknowledge the fickleness of polls though.

            I don’t for a minute believe that the Conservatives are taking anything for granted. That honour right now gets bestowed to the Trudeau brain trust and the media that has propped them up from Day One.

            I’m not nearly as convinced as you are of an Liberal victory as you are.

            Like

          • Miles Lunn says:

            I don’t think a Liberal victory is a foregone conclusion far from it, I just think all things equal, Liberals have an easier path to a win than the Tories do but as we’ve seen sometimes the favourite wins sometimes not. Even in 2015, hardly anyone thought the Liberals would win a majority at the beginning. Many thought they would win a minority but not majority so things can change. I think polls shouldn’t be dismissed, but not seen as holy grail either. My thinking more is for whatever reason, Canadians seem to sort of have in a built in timer on governments. Otherwise, first term ones have to mess up really badly to lose, while those who have been in power over a decade have to have horrible alternatives to win. Otherwise, the Liberals have done a lousy job works, but the time for change argument which you had in Ontario provincially won’t as most regardless of political stripe believe 15 years is way too long for one party to be in power while most also believe governments cannot fully deliver on their agenda in 4 years so only if you dislike the agenda do you throw them out after four.

            I also agree it is quite possible the Conservatives are simply keeping their cards close to their chest as they don’t want to give the Liberals too much time to demonize and twist their policies or if popular adopt it themselves and claim credit. Chretien was notorious for adopting popular policies from the opposition and then taking credit himself.

            Like

    • Liz J says:

      Can’t help but wonder how things would go right now if we had Stephen Harper at the helm dealing with Donald Trump. It always helps to have two adults discussing important issues, dealing with affairs of state. Harper wouldn’t be prompted from behind a curtain, he was tuned in, he could answer questions without stumbling and bumbling interjections.

      Like

      • Cara says:

        I know one thing for sure. With Harper as PM there would be no guessing. He had our backs, we knew it.
        He was quick on his feet and yes Liz you’re right, knew his subject matter, rarely spoke from prompts or notes.

        Like

  52. Cara says:

    Looks like hypocrisy is dogging the Trudeau entourage in China (Justin’s most inspirational and admired country).
    https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.4903724?cmp=rss&__&fbclid=IwAR1eNWI16ih62ouoMZpq3X2kVI1a2GX_cguduBNdItVst_PAPKSCDSrfpsw

    Like

    • joannebly says:

      Great catch Cara! This Trudeau government oozes hypocrisy.

      Like

      • Cara says:

        Hopefully with that he’s losing the trust and confidence of Canadians.

        Like

        • joannebly says:

          He’s only losing the trust of those who aren’t willfully blind.

          Like

          • Miles Lunn says:

            I think the biggest thing helping the Liberals now is the economy is doing well even though that has absolutely zero to do with them, but people often blame and credit whomever is in power. Off course US economy is also strong and Trump is polar opposite of Trudeau. If the economy tanks before the election, I think you will see a big change in people’s attitudes and we are overdue for another recession. Most people have busy lives so unless a government policy impacts them directly, they don’t tend to care too much. I do think if more actually paid as close attention as we do, Trudeau would be far less popular although I think there would still be a strong level of skepticism towards both the Tories and NDP as well.

            Like

          • Cara says:

            Miles wrote “I think the biggest thing helping the Liberals now is the economy is doing well even though that has absolutely zero to do with them, but people often blame and credit whomever is in power.”
            The problem for the Liberals however is that the economy appears to be doing well, but Canadians don’t fee they are doing well under a supposedly blossoming economy.
            Just how this all plays out will unfold in the coming months.

            Like

          • Miles Lunn says:

            Actually polls show most think it is doing well, but regardless as someone in the financial sector, governments can only move the needle about 0.5% in either direction. And here is the thing Trudeau does have to worry about. If we have a mild recession like 2001, deficit will swell to $48 billion, if we have a bad one like 2008, it will swell to over $100 billion so the fact he is running a $20 billion one when economy is growing at 3% could come to bite him. And the Liberals should also worry about this too: The longest we’ve ever gone without a recession is exactly 10 years. That means if we make it to June 2019 without falling into one, that will be the longest growth period so history very much says the next recession is not far away. Trudeau might luck out and have it come just after the election, but could also hit just before too. So while if I had to bet money on who would win, I would bet another Liberal one for the simple reason the last time a fresh majority federally was reduce to opposition was in 1935 under RB Bennett (during the middle of the great depression), but politics today has broken so many traditional assumptions that I would probably wouldn’t want to bet too much on any particular outcome. Certainly I’ve seen lots of much larger political surprises such as NDP winning in Alberta, BC Liberals’ comeback in 2013, Labour Party in UK getting over 40% under Jeremy Corbyn in 2017, Trump winning in 2016. Heck even a Liberal majority in 2015 only seemed plausible to me about a week before the election, I assumed all along 2015 was going to produce some type of minority, it was just a matter of which party it was going to be. Also Ontario, BC, Manitoba, and Quebec all had similarly strong economies at the time of the last provincial elections and people still decided to turf the sitting governments. Now true those were all governments who had been in power a bit longer, but still shows a good economy helps but is not a guarantee by any means. Alberta’s likewise is doing quite well now, but I would be very surprised if Notley gets re-elected next year.

            Like

  53. Liz J says:

    Sick of the overkill on environment/climate change/whatever. We were told the tale of the polar bears dying out and now we find out they are anything but, they are at a point they have become a danger to the people who live in that frigid, godforsaken climate. Did the climate change or were we fed lies and more lies to feed an agenda and donate big bucks.

    Like

  54. Liz J says:

    Can someone tell me how any political leader of any stripe would know what individual members of their cabinet/caucus are up to in their private time?

    Like

    • Cara says:

      If this wasn’t a conservative or a Ford there would be nothing to see here. I find the media in the scrums growing more aggressive and persistent like they did with Rob Ford.
      Easy targets.
      It would be helpful though if Ford were to just come out with a straight answer. He too is relying a LOT on his same old talking points.
      Re: this latest decision to increase the number of elected to 12 from 8 to achieve official party status has not been explained by Ford or his MPPs nearly well enough, leaving it to sound petty.

      Like

    • Miles Lunn says:

      They cannot so you cannot fault them if things go wrong. What you can do is judge them by how they handle it when it is made known. Otherwise if an MPP or cabinet minister is doing something inappropriate in their personal lives, it is not the party’s fault it happened, it is the individual. But the leader and party are responsible for how the deal with it after it becomes known and if they take swift action, that is a good thing, but if they shuffle it under the rug than it is not.

      Like

  55. Miles Lunn says:

    Looking over the US election results, it looks like it was a good night for the Democrats, but the GOP can take solace that although they have weaknesses, they still have a strong enough base that they can win in 2020. Congress was a mild blue wave but not massive. What was more indicative was where the shifts were. Suburbs which tend to be battlegrounds clearly shifted in the Democrats favour which bodes well in 2020 for the president, but not so well for capturing the senate as every state has two senators regardless of population. By contrast GOP has maintained their grip on rural America even in the rural areas Obama won in 2008 and 2012 meaning they are not totally out of it. The senate went well for the GOP although they had a very favourable map as only 1/3 of seats up for grabs and 10 Democrat ones were in states Trump won while 5 of those were states Trump won by double digits. By contrast of the 9 GOP ones up for grabs, only one was a state Clinton won (Nevada) and only one other was close (Arizona) and the Democrats won both of those. Of the 10 Trump states Democrats were running in, the Democrats held four of the five competitive ones (Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Ohio) while only lost one close one (Florida). If the five Trump won by double digits, GOP picked up three of those (Indiana, Missouri, and North Dakota while fell short due to popularity of Democrat incumbent in West Virginia and Montana).

    Looking at all three results including those for governor, the Democrats look in reasonably good shape to hold every state Clinton won as well as regain the three Blue Wall states in the Midwest they lost (Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania), however doing this would only narrowly win the election with little room for error. Florida still looks like a slight GOP edge although enfranchising 1 million people with criminal records might help the Democrats (this was passed by an initiative). Despite the Democrat gains in the upper Midwest, GOP still in good shape in Ohio and quite competitive in Iowa. Of the Sun belt states, tough to judge North Carolina as only congressional, no senate or governor, while Arizona looks like a toss up. Georgia and Texas are definitely trending Democrat, but the GOP still has a slight edge and looking at long term trends, the advantage for the Democrats in those states will probably come after 2020, not before. I think the GOP’s biggest problem is the strong swing amongst white females with college degrees away from them. Romney win this group by six points in 2012. Clinton by six points in 2016, while in the midterms Democrats won this by six. Gender gap and educational divide amongst whites has grown a lot even since the Obama era thus meaning you could see a shift in where the battlegrounds are. White females with college degrees swinging heavily towards the Democrats while white males without college degrees swinging heavily towards the GOP.

    Like

  56. Miles Lunn says:

    With poll numbers for Scheer looking bleak, I think he might want to take a page from Harper in 2006. Harper’s poll numbers in February 2005 were even worse than Scheer’s yet he won. Much like Harper in 2006, I believe Scheer should have five easy to remember priorities and do them on issues that impact a lot of Canadians directly and are easily doable. It was this more so than sponsorship scandal that allowed Harper to overcome a large deficit going in and win. Off course those five priorities must be different as the world has changed a lot since 2006, but the concept I still think is quite sound. Trying to be everything to everyone ultimately hurt Martin as its much easier to achieve positive results if you have a focused government than one all over the place. Also much like Ford did in the final 10 days when NDP was closing in on PCs, get a strong roster of candidates and showcase them, otherwise focus less on Scheer who is likeable but dull and boring. Otherwise emphasis the Tories have the stronger team that is ready to govern.

    There are a few traps though I think Scheer has to avoid and I believe he absolutely can avoid them, but if he steps in them could be fatal. Liberals will no doubt try to bait him here and he needs to not take the bait. The five biggest dangers I can see which I will also list how to avoid are as follows.

    1. No plan to deal with climate change. Canadians care deeply about this and having no plan plays to the stereotype that Tories are the selfish party who appeal to people’s narrow self interest not the greater good and with Canada being one of if not the most compassionate country on earth, this can be deadly unlike elsewhere. Good news is Scheer has an easy out, promise hard caps on major polluting industries thus make it Liberals have a carbon tax that will hurt working Canadians, Tories will go after the real polluters not working Canadians. One can still be pro energy and pipeline as the Liberals are at least in rhetoric although not action.

    2. Gun Control. This may not be a top issue for most, but a mass shooting happens south of the border during the campaign (which is quite likely due to frequency), this is political gold for the Liberals if Scheer doesn’t get this off the table. Gun owners make up an important part of the CPC base and most want looser gun laws, but the vast majority of Canadians want as strict or stricter gun laws. Gun owners are going to vote CPC no matter what, but many of your soccer suburban moms might be turned off the CPC if they are seen as too pro-gun. My advice, Tories will repeal C-71, but no further deregulation beyond that, otherwise same laws as we had in early 2015. More than anything get this issue off the table completely. Liberals want it to be an issue, Tories need it to be a non-issue.

    3. Tax cuts for rich and big corporations. Reducing taxes for both is economically wise, but politically unwise. As such if they plan to do either, which there are good reasons to, make sure the tax cuts for the middle and working class are even bigger. Mike Harris cut taxes for the rich and big corporations, but he made sure tax cuts for the middle and working class were larger so this neutralizes the Liberal attack the Tories are only in it for the rich, not ordinary Canadians.

    4. Tories will make big spending cuts to programs to balance the budget. Much as Doug Ford’s promise to save 4 cents to the dollar, the Tories need to zero in on all the new programs the Liberals have created and ask if they’ve really helped. Otherwise do not promise a major round of austerity, just promise to keep spending increases below inflation + population growth and bring government spending as a percent of GDP back to what they were pre-Trudeau as most think government is wasteful and spends more than it needs to, but at the same time oppose cuts to frontline services.

    5. Tories are anti-immigration. Continue to focus on the illegal border crossings, but state over and over again, Tories are pro legal immigration.

    These are all traps the Liberals hope the Tories fall in and could be devastating if they do, but thankfully they are easily avoidable and if the Tories don’t take the bait here, Liberals will appear desperate so rather than helping them, it will backfire.

    Like

    • Cara says:

      If your list of 5 items matters to Canadians in the next months you may be right. If they don’t, we will see.
      1. Climate Change via the carbon tax pushback provinces is a battle Trudeau will lose. Running a campaign on raising taxes, especially under a Liberal government is not a vote-getter.
      2. Gun control – this will be an issue based on hand-guns. If the Liberals revisit a full-on gun control promise they will lose whatever rural MPs they have left.
      3. Tax cuts for rich and big corporations. Voters will not fall for this again after the entitlement list of the Trudeau Liberals grows longer by the day. The Conservatives are more trusted than the Liberals on lowing taxes.
      4. Tories will make big cuts – oh yes, the big old secret plans gimmick that the left use. So far the Liberals have amassed more surprises and hidden agenda than we thought possible.
      5. Immigration – You’re right that the Conservatives need to drive home the illegal immigration issue and how really messed up the plans have been by the Trudeau government and how they’ve left provinces high and dry financially.

      Like

      • Miles Lunn says:

        1. I am not sure the provinces being opposed necessarily hurts the Liberals. Part of the reason you have mostly conservative provincially is turnout is generally lower and a lot of the millennials who showed up in 2015 didn’t provincially so this may or may not motivate them. Every poll I’ve seen shows Ontario is slightly in favour (note 58% voted for pro carbon tax parties provincially), Prairies strongly opposed but Tories already hold most seats there, Atlantic Canada slightly opposed, while Quebec and BC strongly in favour. I don’t think most Canadians hate taxes as much as Tories think. They hate waste and they don’t want excessive taxes, but they don’t mind them if they feel they serve a purpose.
        2. Hand gun ban will hurt Liberals in rural areas, but help them in suburban areas and it is the suburbs not rural areas the Tories need to win. While many can question the effectiveness of a hand gun ban, with ownership unlike hunting rifles being only 1-2% of households and negative connotations of them I don’t think it is a vote loser.
        3. Concerns about income inequality which even Harper discussed haven’t gone away so yes most voters want lower taxes for the middle class and poor that is true, but selling tax cuts for the rich and big corporations even if economically wise is a tough sell. Even the US where attitudes towards taxation is much more negative than Canada, polls show Trump tax cuts split public opinion evenly and most oppose tax cuts for the rich and big corporations but favour them for middle class and small businesses.
        4. I don’t think Tories will make big cuts but Liberals will use that fear. How well it will work is tough to say. Didn’t work for Ford, but then again he promised no frontline service cuts, just greater efficiencies and eliminating waste so Tories should take this
        route.
        5. Generally agree, but Tories must emphasize they are against illegal immigration but for legal immigration, they cannot allow the Liberals to portray them as anti-immigrant.

        Like

  57. Miles Lunn says:

    That being said despite my less rosy picture for federal politics than others here, if you look at all levels of government are looking a lot better than 1 year ago. At the beginning of the year, 6 provinces with 2/3 of the population had Liberal governments. Today it is only 3 provinces with only 5% of the population. A year ago, 2 provinces with 7% of the population had centre-right governments, today it is 5 provinces (probably six next year as Alberta looks likely to swing rightward) with 70% of the population (and assuming UCP wins in Alberta will be over 80% by next year) so the left wing dominance we had a year ago is thankfully over. Now its just a question if left wing dominance will make a full transition to conservative dominance or split governance next year. And here is the other thing, two provincial Liberal governments are up for re-election while unless the New Brunswick government falls on a non-confidence, no centre-right government faces re-election so Liberals on the provincial front until 2022 really have only one direction to go which is down even further whereas Tories until at least 2020 have only one direction to go, which is up even further. And this does matter is Trudeau used to have lots of provincial allies, now rather few so anything he wants to do that requires provincial cooperation, he is going to have trouble implementing. Otherwise only areas that are under exclusive federal jurisdiction does he have a free reign. And likewise there is only one taxpayer so he may be raising taxes, but hopefully provincial governments will be cutting them meaning our overall tax rate will stay the same, all that changes is the ratio paid to each level. So however gloomy federal polls may look, we do have good news to celebrate on the provincial level at the very least.

    Like

  58. Miles Lunn says:

    Anybody here about Patrick Brown’s new book. It seems Brown like Bernier is another sore loser. Brown made some stupid decisions earlier in his life and paid for them while Bernier failed to win, but rather than be a team player and work with Scheer to help win in 2019, he decides to go off and do his own thing since he couldn’t be leader. I can understand Brown is disappointed he didn’t get to become premier, which he almost certainly would have had he stayed on as leader, but politics is a rough and tumble sport and lots of good people don’t win, its all about being in the right place at the right time. Ignatieff and Dion were infinitely more qualified than Trudeau yet both lost and I don’t see either complaining about how unfair this is. It seems his smears are just petty vengeance since he wasn’t able to get in the premier’s seat.

    Like

    • Liz J says:

      In his book, Brown is apparently accusing Fedeli of sexual misconduct, here we go again, another politician having to defend himself against such allegations. What are we to believe?
      If sexual misconduct is that rampant in politics maybe we need a famine or plague to clean it up, shift their focus to a loftier plain.
      Women have to make some changes as well….IMO the MeToo movement went off the rails.

      Like

      • Cara says:

        Interesting that we seem to get distracted by issues like this. You are noticing a trend in postings torqued to make bring out the suspects among Conservatives but again, Miles doesn’t give equal treatment to Liberals or NDP who have been caught up in similar issues.
        It’s a distraction and diversion here as it is in the media – and yesterday in Ontario it was all over the media. They and the The viewpoints from the Classical Liberal side of the Liberal Party of Canada, can’t seem to get enough.
        Right up there with the Star’s Heather M……………SQUIRREL!

        Like

        • Liz J says:

          It’s a perfect distraction for sure,this is made to order for them to lap up and spew far and wide. They better be careful, when the ball gets rolling the tables can turn quickly in this kind of environment.
          What are we and our political leaders to do with crap that can’t be defended and can’t even be proven? If this is the sort of stuff we have to deal with maybe we need someone like Trump to start with the blunt language people will take notice of, call them out on fake news, set them back on their heels.
          Let the puritans stand and be counted. Shame and respect have been lost in the present environment, it seems to be rampant everywhere. Morals? What morals?

          Like

        • Miles Lunn says:

          Actually I just report on what is showing up in the media and in the case of the Toronto Star which has a strong Liberal bias this is front page so fair or not, anytime something is front page we have to deal with it even if the paper is highly biased like the Toronto Star is. I do think though Warren Kinsella’s tweets on this are quite interesting and although a Liberal I find he is pretty fair to both sides unlike most Liberals today and never mind worked for Chretien who unlike Trudeau was good at pivoting when circumstances changed. He more or less thinks by end of 2019, Ford not Brown will come out the winner here. His thinking is this will just push Ford to amalgamate Brampton and Mississauga and likely appoint Bonnie Crombie as mayor thus getting rid of Patrick Brown. He may feel betrayed by the party, but most in the party cannot stand him and have no interest in being nice to him. In fact most PC members backed Linda Jeffries in the Brampton mayoral election despite being a card carrying Liberal for the simple reason they wanted to keep Brown out.

          Like

          • Liz J says:

            Patrick Brown is his own worst enemy at this point. He’s putting himself out of politics across the board with his “tell all” tattle on the people he worked with.
            This sort of behaviour doesn’t work well in any workplace setting let alone politics.
            You have to wonder if he doesn’t need to seek counseling to deal with it.

            Liked by 1 person

          • Liz J says:

            I agree with you on Warren K, but there comes a time when they have to look past their bias or lose credibility themselves. Warren knows the difference. I don’t think he’s a fan of the present Liberal leadership.

            Liked by 1 person

  59. Ruth says:

    A lot of misinformation floating around the twitter world about Patrick Brown’s book, I would think. I’m sure any corrections won’t be tweeted once people read the book …..”Please see our official statement pertaining to the Premier’s tweet and Lisa MacLeod’s statement. #onpoli Go to http://www.optimumpublishinginternational.com

    Like

    • Liz J says:

      One would imagine the Premier and Lisa McLeod have read the book. If there’s anything in it the Opposition and media can use against PC’s we can be sure it will be a top seller.

      Like

  60. Miles Lunn says:

    Fall update introduced. In many ways it is lot like Buckley’s cold medicine, tastes awful but works. Thanks to the recklessness of the Liberals over the last 15 years, the PCs have no choice but to make some unpopular and tough cuts. I think most would rather not do this, but when you spend beyond your means you have no choice. Glad they are taking action now since we are due for a recession and if we don’t get the deficit under control, the next recession could cause the deficit to explode to $20 billion maybe even $30 billion. Liberals seemed to only follow Keynesian economics during bad times, not good times as Keynesian economics says you run deficits during downturns but offset this by running surpluses during good times, very few credible economists favour running deficits at all points in the economic cycle. Cyclical deficits are fine, but structural deficits are not and in Ontario we have a structural one not cyclical.

    Like

  61. Liz J says:

    Patrick Brown’s book is out today priced at $39.95!! I for one am not buying it at any price!

    Like

    • Miles Lunn says:

      Ever since he resigned in January, he always struck me as very bitter and unwilling to accept what happened. Fair or not, any cloud of suspicion is not something a leader can have going into an election. He should have quit politics, by all means taken CTV and the women to court if what they said was false (I’ve heard although not a predator, he was known as a creep), but moved on. Besides has the guy ever had a job in the private sector? I’ve always thought politics was about serving your country not a lifetime career, so while I don’t support term limits per se, I tend to have a negative view of those who spend their whole career in politics.

      Like

      • Liz J says:

        The only way to end career politicians is to have term limits at all levels.
        An extreme case is Goodale who must have his butt in parliament for over 30 years. I can’t see him as doing a good job at this time, even his experience is stale. I can’t stand the sight of him bobbing and weaving trying to come up with answers and look like he knows what the blank he’s talking about.

        Like

        • Miles Lunn says:

          Term limits do have advantages for that reason, but I sort of feel at the same time, it is voters’ responsibility to ensure politicians don’t stay in power too long. Otherwise as long voters support them, I don’t know that banning it is really the solution. I think more we as voters should regardless of partisan affiliation, start sending more career politicians packing. I agree when it comes to ones from our own party, we don’t want to vote them out in a general election since whatever party you vote for directly effects who is PM or premier, but I do think maybe this should be a strong motivation to get involved with your riding association and for party nominations, vote out those have been there too long.

          Like

  62. Cara says:

    Serious stuff today. Once journalists became unionized that was the end of a free press…so, so sad…and we wonder why the media gives the Conservatives such a hard time.

    https://www.spencerfernando.com/2018/11/15/dias-bias-union-representing-thousands-of-canadian-journalists-calls-themselves-resistance-against-scheer/?fbclid=IwAR224h52iAB_QTHcagMwf1nUA864EN4W-Mr3rWIjA3vJTFB2s_3mSbCRFSw

    Like

  63. Florence Engelbrecht says:

    Rant taxes capital gains tax is the most regressive of taxes think about it. You have saved a little and can. Invest but your buying power the year you invest is good 2 years go by and you cash your investment you have a capital gain you are taxed on this gain but you soon learn your buying power is much lower than when you made your investment groceries house prices and price of clothes has all increased often a larger amount than any gain on your investment anyone. Agree

    Like

    • Miles Lunn says:

      I don’t support Bernier’s plan though of eliminating capital gains taxes. I support the lower rate in general and also the fact they exclude inflation is problematic. However, I think the danger of eliminating capital gains taxes is you have some wealthy CEOs whom make over 90% of their income from stock options so this could result in some millionaires paying almost no tax. I don’t support the left who believe the top marginal rates should be over 50%, that is wrong, but I don’t on the other end support the idea of millionaires paying a lower effective tax rate than working and middle income Canadians. Top rates should be higher than what they are for middle and lower income Canadians, but still competitive and not excessive. As such I think top marginal rates in the low 40s (that is what it was in BC not too long ago, 43.7% to be precise) is about the ideal rate for the wealthy.

      I think more if investing in start ups perhaps larger deductions as opposed to just buying shares in a publicly owned company. Also for homes since once you sell you have to buy a new one, I think it makes sense to keep capital gains taxes low. The only area where I would raise taxes is on those who flip homes. Otherwise you should have to own the home for say a minimum period of 1 year or 2 years or a tax on flipping it is applied. The reason for this is here in BC, real estate flipping has been a big cause of housing prices skyrocketing and becoming unaffordable for so many even many with upper middle incomes. In fact it is so bad in Vancouver now that if you are making a 100K a year (only 6% of Canadians make over this) and are a first time home buyer, you probably won’t be able to afford a detached home and I think if you are middle class you should be able to afford a home. The BC Liberals in fact recently proposed replacing the misnamed School tax (this is a property tax on properties worth over $3 million) and replacing it with a 15% tax on real estate flipping. The former negatively affects seniors as many older people here are on paper very rich since they bought their homes many years ago when must cheaper, but due to how much housing prices have gone up they are now considered rich despite the fact their incomes were never particularly high. I would keep capital gains taxes at 50% of regular income tax (that means if your tax bill is 30% for a certain amount on normal income you would pay 15%), but only tax on real gains not nominal gains so if due inflation it is worth less you are not taxed. Also have lower rates for those investing in start ups as we want to encourage that and allow sales of primary residence to be tax free, but tax gains on sales of secondary residences or flipping properties. Also I would support a Warren Buffet rule that if your income is above a certain level, you have to pay a minimum tax (I would suggest around 30% total combined federal + provincial) thus limiting deductions so as to ensure no millionaire is paying a lower effective rate than a person making 50K.

      Liked by 1 person

  64. joannebly says:

    Going to try to get a new post up sometime today.

    Like

  65. Liz J says:

    Why isn’t the Federal government dealing with getting the postal strike settled. There’s a limit to what they should be allowed to get away with.

    Like

  66. Cara says:

    The Star’s Chantal Hebert is just one of two columnists there who I can tolerate. I’m posting this today because I too believe that there’s a risk for Scheer in getting buried in Ford nation and not in a good way. Scheer, at a time when he needs to be carving out his own identity and path, needs to avoid some of the pitfalls of decisions that might be great provincially but damning for Scheer’s federal fortunes.
    Not overly confident about the Scheer/Ford bromance.
    https://www.thestar.com/politics/political-opinion/2018/11/16/andrew-scheer-gets-clipped-by-doug-fords-budget-cuts.html
    https://www.thestar.com/politics/political-opinion/2018/11/16/andrew-scheer-gets-clipped-by-doug-fords-budget-cuts.html

    Like

    • Liz J says:

      For federal leaders to be all things to all people is a tough feat. Liberals get away with mediocre, Trudeau is an example of that, anything that comes up with him, groping, making a fool of himself abroad and us, or whatever, is short lived.
      We have situations where they have to walk on eggs to appease even when it may not all be for the common good, which creates divisions and endless haggling.

      Scheer might be wise to observe, keep his cards close. As with everything they say or do the media is always ready to pounce, demanding answers and they better be prepared.

      We need that pipeline, let Scheer make that his priority, may as well die on the hill of common sense.

      Like

      • Cara says:

        Agree Liz. Scheer needs to stand apart from Ford IMO because he is he CPC leader not Ford. I’ve already heard the left suggesting that Ford’s crowding Scheer out of his national message.

        Like

        • Miles Lunn says:

          Fully agree here. Wynne really hurt the Liberal brand, but now that she is gone they are rebounding. Regardless of what one thinks of Ford, Ontario is in a bad fiscal mess requiring tough and unpopular decisions and I suspect Ford will try to do those early on as he wants to win in 2022, so Scheer needs to establish himself, not been seen as the national version of Ford or as a matter of fact even Kenney.

          Like

  67. Pingback: Monitoring the Media Party | Blue Like You2

Comments are closed.