MigL

And again, S Harper wasn't running in this election ( if he was he would have gotten my vote ) , so what does any of this have to do with the OP ? Tell us how many times S harper wore black-face and then had to apologize for it. J Trudeau seems to preach racial harmony and inclusivity, but then does things like put on black-face, wear a t-shirt with bananas on it, stuffs something large down his pants, and jumps around like a gorilla. Real Prime ministral behavior. And J Trudeau was so outraged, he adopted S Harper's GHG reduction targets, and then proceeded to not lower emissions, but actually raise them, compared to the previous S Harper Government. And flew around in this election campaign using 2 gas guzzling older jets, because he bought carbon credits, which makes it OK for rich people to keep polluting. He seems so contrite because he's had to apologize for so many things in 4 short years, in which he did little else other than legalize pot. He is a spoiled rich brat, and the very definition of white privilege, who got his job simply because of his dad's name. And he reminds me of the Church with his "do as I say, not as I do" attitude; hell, he doesn't have to abide by the same rules as us normal people, if he doesn't like the law, and the Minister of Justice won't change it to suit him, he simply fires her ( And she gets re-elected as an independent ) Oh, did I forget to mention he claims to champion women's rights ? Only until they disagree with him, I guess. I'm surprised he didn't grope her before firing her, like he did with that other woman in Kokanee, 18 yrs ago. You remember, the one who might have perceived things differently than he did. Old news but at least they pertain to the OP. I'm just glad to be discussing something/someone other than that moron D Trump or Brexit, for a change, INow. I think I've now done most of the complaining that my vote entitles me to. I'd better quit now, or I may not be allowed any more complaining during the next 4 yrs of 'Trudeau-mania'.

The courts will decide what to do about SNC-Lavelin's wrongdoings. You don't seem to understand that our sitting Prime Minister tried to prevent that. And that is an ethics violation at least, and possibly criminal. By the way, SNC stock is jumping, now that the BQ can put pressure on the PM to give them Deferred Prosecution, and they have the combined seats to pass it. I don't put people in Liberal or Conservative 'Boxes'. J Chretien's liberals got my vote every time, as did P E Trudeau. I even voted for P Martin's Liberals ( the first time ), who was a fiscal Conservative, and made all the cuts to the federal contributions to Ontario that M Harris usually gets blamed for in the early 90s. And I voted Socialist ( NDP ) in the last provincial election, so I don't see where your comments are coming from. "Snark', like offense, is taken, not given. And you seem to take it whenever things don't go your way.

And what about that deal is illegal ? Is giving Bombardier hundreds of millions and then having them sell the C Series to Airbus for a dollar illegal ? Is bailing out GM and Chrysler to the tune of a billion dollars and then having them close up plants all over Canada illegal ? What J Trudeau did was try to subvert justice by putting pressure on his Justice Minister ( J Wilson-Raybould ). It has nothing to do with SNC-Lavelin's alleged wrongdoing or not. It is about a Prime Minister putting Himself above the law, or at the very least, favoring his friends or large contributors to the party. And he was the only PM found to have violated the Conflict of Interest Act by the Ethics Commissioner. TWICE ! And if you can't see the distinction you better stay away from those 'famous' BC mushrooms. ( and you Americans thought your country was polarized, eh ? )

What part of SNC liability ? If you have proof, he's now a private citizen and can be brought up on charges. Please present your proof. But as I've said, He was not on the ballot in this election. So what does he have to do with the OP = Canadian Election.

Sorry. Edited my post. And no, I'm not OK with the trade agreement S Harper made with the Chinese. But that's not what we're discussing is it ? As far as I know neither S Harper nor D Ford were running in this election.

No , what J Trudeau did wrong was... "After a six-month-long investigation, Ethics Commissioner Dion issued a report that concluded that Trudeau had contravened Section 9 of the federal Conflict of Interest Act by improperly pressuring Wilson-Raybould." straight from Wikipedia. Also, Deferred Prosecution Agreements were only introduced in 2018 by J Trudeau; 3 yrs after S Harper left office. You might wanna look into that.

We were having a perfectly reasonable discussion until you started slinging shit with the comment "No need to apologize. You're fine with the removal of our constitutional rights and leaving citizens holding the bag for the pollution it causes. Thank you for clearing that up." seven hrs ago. And speaking of reading each other's posts... I don't recall ever saying I was in favor of the pipeline. I said we'll probably end up getting it so that J Trudeau won't have to call another election and to placate the west. Don't throw stones if you live in a glass house.

So how exactly are your Constitutional rights being taken away ? you are free to challenge any decision in the courts, are you not ? Its not like anyone has used the Notwithstanding Clause to stop such actions. Yet I don't hear a single peep from you about the rights of Religious Quebeckers ( or even J Singh who wears his Religious symbol on his head ! ) being taken away and the Notwithstanding Clause has been threatened again ( like they did last time ) in Quebec. Are only your Constitutional rights important to you ? I think any "lip service and political quackery" are on your part !

Its not one or the other for me, RangerX. Any pipeline I care about would be coming to Ontario. TMX is something to be worked out between BC and Alberta. I might add that there is already talk of 'Wexit' ( I guess the West has learned from Quebec ). So you tell me the solution !

Simple. J Trudeau has to stay in power. If he lose confidence of the House, and calls another election too soon, he will be punished by the electorate and lose large. He has to be willing to make deals with any parties that will prop up the Liberals. That's what I know.

Wow, you and your wife really are 'Loony Tunes'.

If you read carefully ( I know that's asking a lot ), I implied that its a bad thing, hence 'monster under the bed'. If you'd rather pick fights, don't worry, I've got much more.

I say it's a 'monster under the bed' and you stretch that to mean Ther's no winning with you, is there, Rangerx ? I only went 'sideways' into the debt problem, INow, because it was an election issue, as J Trudeau seemed to be running against D Ford, judging by how often he mentioned his name and the 'massive' cuts he's done to Ontario social services. They don't Zap. The only thing that can nullify our constitution is the 'Not-withstanding Clause', which only Quebec seems to use. Edit: Treaties however are a different matter.

Some of the best memories of my youth ( early 70s ) are of Saturday evening dinner. Me and my brother would prepare supper after school, always chicken and potatoes in the oven ( only thing we knew how to make ), and my mother would make a quick salad when she got home from work at 5 pm ( we had just immigrated to Canada a few years earlier ). The best part was, that we didn't have to eat at the table on Saturday evenings, but could eat in the living room while watching 'The Bugs Bunny/Road runner Hour'. Oh, and re-runs of 'Star Trek' at 7 pm. ( first episode I ever saw was 'Who Mourns for Adonis' with the 'God' Apollo )

The 'monster under the bed', INow, is J Trudeau's need to retain power. To ensure his government doesn't fall, he will partner with the Conservatives to build pipelines for Alberta oil and northern BC gas to the coast, where surprisingly, the Conservatives won seats through the proposed corridor. ( sorry Rangerx ) And to ensure BQ support/confidence for his Government, he will pander unashamedly to Quebec, their intolerant Bill C21 ( no religious symbols in workplaces ) , give the crooks at SNC-Lavelin a 'get out of jail free card' ( their stock is already jumping ), and re-negotiate the North American free trade agreement to protect Quebec dairy farmers with unfair protectionist and price fixing rules ( who knows what the rest of the markets will lose to D Trump ). ( sorry rest of Canada ) PS I don't get it Dim.

So we all agree with Raider's assertion that there is good debt and bad debt. And bad debt is to be avoided, while good debt can provide economic stimulus. What about when a party ( just to bring this back to the Canadian election ) promotes a platform for the next several years relies on borrowing just to run the government as the Liberals have? Who knows how much larger it will be with the BQ and NDP making demands of them. To be fair the Conservatives also projected deficits for 4 yrs, but a balanced budget on the fifth, and we have 4 yr terms so they may not be in power in the 5th yr. ( good way to cover your ass, isn't it ? ) And these are favorable economic times. What happens if a recession doe hit us next year ( as has been predicted by some ) ? My understanding ( I'm not an economist either John ) was that economic stimulus, through deficit spending, is provided in bad economic times, while good economic times allow for balanced budgets and re-payment. Doing otherwise seems foolish to me. And what you call your currency has little to do with its value/amount, INow. Greece was simply spending more than it could afford. They maxed out their credit card, and the lenders imposed a re-payment plan on them. ( just like household budgets, isn't it ? )

You can look at it any way you want INow, but ( again using the Ontario 2019-20 budget numbers because I'm familiar with them ) that 8.2 % of Government revenue that has to be paid to service the debt, is NOT available for program spending. IOW it will not grow the economy or provide services. IOW it is equivalent to a 'cut' of 13.1 Bill dollars which could otherwise ( if there was no debt ) be used for program spending. It's simple addition and subtraction. ( by the way, I also enjoy our head-butting, as you've never made it personal )

You saw the numbers I posted 5 hrs ago regarding the Ontario budget. Even if we don't pay off the debt ( ie never borrow again ), our Provincial Government pays 8.3 % of all tax revenue to nameless banks ( who are making Billions of dollars profits every year ). Isn't that equivalent to a 'cut' of 8.3% ? !3.1 billion dollars of money that can't be used to grow the economy or provide services is certainly much higher than the 1 billion in 'cuts' D Ford is accused of making ( and as CharonY posted above, he hasn't ). And that's just our Provincial Government. And yes, sometimes if you borrow too much, your creditors see you as a higher risk of defaulting and lower your credit rating ( it has happened in the past ), resulting in even higher interest payments and even less money available to grow the economy and provide services. The solution from some political parties is not to 'tighten their belts' but to borrow even more, thereby making the situation even worse, with higher interest rates and larger interest payments. How do you think Greece got in such a mess ? ( sorry INow, I remain a fiscal Conservative, but feel free to try and convince me otherwise )

Well you're from the coast, so you're aware of the risks, and it seems you've lived it. ( scariest fire I've ever fought is 2 tons of molten Phosphorus metal all over the floor of a building ) All I'm saying is you can't tell one ( large ) portion of the country 'stop what you're doing and go back to an agricultural lifestyle' without giving them a viable alternative. That's where our politicians are failing us.

As our American friends say... "Get over it. Everyone does it."

I can't figure that one out either, CharonY. D Ford is accused of making massive cuts while spending more money. Talk about politics of 'fear'. Must be 'fake news'.

"Is it wabbit season? I tought it was duck season." ( said in a porky voice )

Sorry, my mistake... The biggest problem is politicians not sticking to election promises. Those are just used to buy votes with our own money.

We do have our ideological differences Rangerx. I happen to think that one of our bigger problems in Canada is the spiralling debt. And I know you dislike D Ford, but at least he ran on a platform of debt reduction; seems disingenuous to complain about the debt reduction after everyone votes him in. As an example, enrollment in Ontario public schools decreased by 110000 ( 5.2 % ) during the years of 2006 -16 while spending increased by 30 %, from 15 Bill to 21 Bill, and I think threats from custodial staff ( 3 weeks ago ) and high school teachers ( coming up ) to strike, directly affected the results of the federal election in Ontario at least. ( J Trudeau seemed to be campaigning against D Ford, not A Sheer ) Consider also the of the 2019-20 Ontario budget, total program expenditures of 150.4 Bill, Interest on debt of 13.1 Bill, and total revenues of 157.6 Bill, leaves Ontario with a shortfall of 5.9 Bill. The interest on the debt is edging closer to 10 % of program costs. Think about how many more programs could be had if that interest didn't have to be paid, and that 10 % could go into general revenues. Borrowing money effectively reduces the amount you can spend on programs ( and is equivalent to cutting programs ). And that isn't even considering the fact that increased borrowing lowers your credit rating and forces higher interest payments, or that the interest payments go directly to big lenders/banks. and so could be considered a give-away to the rich ( and the people who got bailed out by governments after 2008-9 ). I'm sure Canada as a whole, is in much the same situation as Ontario with its debt. Ironically Alberta/Saskatchewan probably are not. As for pipelines, I agree that AGW is a major issue and something need to be done about it sooner rather than later. However I expect a government for ALL people. If the Government proposed a tax to install quick charge plugs at every gas station and every home, so that people can make the switch to E-cars, I wouldn't have a problem with that. What our 'progressive' parties are proposing instead is a tax on usage, so that the wealthy ( J Trudeau used two older fuel inefficient jets in his campaign ) who can afford it can go on polluting while the poorer middle class suffers. Things like mass transit may be practical in big cities, but try making do without a truck in Alberta. It is inexcusable that we should ask Westerners to give up their livelihood and suffer ( without any real plan ) so that the rest of us can stick to our ideals and be 'good' environmentalists (yes I mean you Quebec ) while still receiving equalization payments from Alberta. You may wonder what this has to do with pipelines ( sorry for the long-windedness ), but pipelines are still the safest way to transport oil, and until an actual plan to reduce oil dependency and GHG emission reduction is proposed/implemented, instead of no plan to actually reduce emissions and simply collecting more money for Government/rich people, they are our safest bet. I also have an issue with J Singh, and his refusal to bring up Quebec's discriminatory Religious freedom bill. Why didn't he ask " what do you find so offensive about my turban ?". Or are his ideals of rights and freedoms easily compromised by the lure of gaining/not losing seats in Quebec ? I can see your point of view ( except for the Greens aligning with Conservatives, please explain ), but a Government needs to be for ALL the people. While J Trudeau attacked the Conservatives for spreading fear and being divisive, everyone of his speeches mentioned fear of what a Conservative Government 'might' do, and have divided the country more than it has ever been. ( maybe it had to do with the fact that Liberal and Conservative platforms were very similar, so they had no other talking points )

The fact that A Sheer couldn't win against a 'damaged' Prime Minister like J Trudeau ( whose only kept promise is the bungled legalization of pot, and a multitude of scandals ) doesn't bode well for him; we may just see P Mackay leading the Conservatives in the next election. J Singh is a likeable enough person ( not as weasel-y as the others ) but he reduced the NDP seat count by almost half; his chances don't look good for 2023 either. M Bernier and his party are toast, but E May comes across as sincerely believing her vision for the future of Canada, and will be around. I don't even know what a provincial party like the BQ is doing, running in a federal election, as they certainly don't represent anyone outside Quebec, but Y-F Blachett has brought the BQ back as a regional power and again raises the specter of separation. And when you combine that with the solid 'blue as far as the eye can see' between the Ontario/Manitoba border and the Rockies of Western alienation, I don't see how this is good for Canada. I hope your optimism is warranted.