Canadian Election

[MigL]

Just waiting around on the results of our election.
I assume you've already voted and got results for your area, JC, and if you haven't gotten out yet Rangerx, make sure you go vote.
I may have a preference of our 5 main parties ( depending on criteria for 'party' ) but I sure am glad none of ours sink to the level of some American parties ( and even some of the Brits' ).

"Get over it" you Americans.
( to quote your President's Chief of Staff )

[rangerx]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Just waiting around on the results of our election.
I assume you've already voted and got results for your area, JC, and if you haven't gotten out yet Rangerx, make sure you go vote.
I may have a preference of our 5 main parties ( depending on criteria for 'party' ) but I sure am glad none of ours sink to the level of some American parties ( and even some of the Brits' ).

"Get over it" you Americans.
( to quote your President's Chief of Staff )

I voted. For the man, not the party. Our local rep is an incumbent and he's done a very good job. On more than one occasion he has garnered unanimous, bi-partisan support on important bills that affect me directly and my community at large.

I hope your candidate of choice performs as well also.

Win or lose, it's my license to complain.

Edited October 22, 2019 by rangerx
spelling

[rangerx]

A liberal minority. Not my first choice for PM, but our local guy, (not a liberal) kept his seat.

Trudeau is fair game for my anti-TMX position and I'll persist in my voice and abilities to that end.

Maxime Bernier had his ass handed to him. Zero seats, including losing his bid. Just so our American friends know, Bernier emulated the Trump campaign style and it blew up in his face.

Andrew Sheer was horrible candidate and would have been a worse leader. For the life of me, I don't know why the Tories didn't run Peter MacKay. He would have made a considerable difference and swung a lot of liberal votes.

Jagmeet Singh ran a good campaign, well spoken and straight forward. Quebec didn't like that though, apparently. The BQ picked up several seats. 32 at the time of this post.

It's all far from perfect, but I think it was good day for Canada.

[CharonY]

Well, it looks like that Canada is headed for a Liberal minority government.

 

Edit: cross-posted.

[MigL]

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.
 

[rangerx]

Even if the Tories won a landslide, I would not deride Canada. It's my home and we are greatly respected around the globe.

Even before this night has ended, the sore losing is quite apparent. "Bad for Canada" is an alarmist's take on the outcome. It's anti-democratic at it's height.

Western alienation you say? Like that's a new thing? We have been getting the shit end of the stick from both side of the house since it's bricks were laid.

I don't like it either, but I can live with it, because our standard of living in BC is among the highest in the country. If our revenue helps a school or hospital in the Maritimes, I'm all for it.

Our quality of life is outstanding, especially when compared to other countries. I love to travel, but I never have misgivings about leaving, because I'm coming home to Canada.
 

Quebec.... now that's something yet again.

I'm French Canadian, but a nationalist. Not a separatist.

Most of the PQ seps are not even French, but immigrants who assimilated by learning French. After a couple of centuries of speaking a bastardized, anglicized version of archaic French, they like to think that makes them distinct. I beg to differ.

My family were Ste. Marie among the Huron in Ontario long before confederation and remain to this day,  despite being nearly completely wiped out in the Matheson Fire of 1916.

Edited October 22, 2019 by rangerx
grammar and ommissions

[studiot]

10 hours ago, MigL said:

and even some of the Brits' ).

Only some? can't think of any of our lot I'd call honest.

At least Canada managed to complete an election.

Not like our unseemly shambles.

 

[iNow]

11 hours ago, MigL said:

I sure am glad none of ours sink to the level of some American parties

I don’t know. Sure seemed to me that this election was much more about attacking the other guy than about making the future better. That’s right out of the American playbook. 

[rangerx]

2 hours ago, iNow said:

I don’t know. Sure seemed to me that this election was much more about attacking the other guy than about making the future better. That’s right out of the American playbook. 

Not to mention, Sheer who neglected to tell us he is an American. His excuse was, we didn't ask. As though we didn't need to know? Who does that?

He had paid Trump operatives on his campaign and when asked about it, said "we have all kinds of volunteers all across Canada with diverse backgrounds". He was nothing but double speak. Period. When asked about women's issues, he could not come up with a single policy, program or assurance. He was about eminent domain and stripping rights from first nations and shoving a flimsy pipeline carrying dirt oil through impassible terrain and pristine water at a financial loss, sold out by then conservative PM Steven Harper. Canadians remembered that.

I'm no fan of Trudeau, especially for his part in the TMX debacle, but he's nowhere near the insidious entity as Sheer and as I said previously, it was the conservatives who got us in that mess in the first place. The same goes for SNC Lavalin. That was conservative's doing and Trudeau became the boogie man for their own undoing. They mewled about Trudeau "paying off terrorists" when in reality it was Harper, who violated a youth offender's constitutional right to a fair trial. Trudeau merely settled, to save money and further embarrassment.

The Conservatives, Liberals and PPC ran negative, finger wagging campaigns. The NDP and Bloc ran straight talk. The Greens fell flat, having aligned themselves with conservatives.  Jagmeet Singh was articulate, compassionate and avoided the rancor for the most part. He made his viewpoints clear, including TMX. Alberta didn't like that, which tells me all I needed to know. Same with the Bloc Q. I'm no separatist, but their campaign was honest and pretty much free of the American style of nasty as well.

Not the result I'd have wanted, but pretty much as I expected and I'm okay with it. Moreover, we dodged a bullet and sent a loud and clear to conservative America.

We dodged a bullet and said it loud and clear that we refuse to go down the tubes Trump style.

Doug Ford and Donald Trump are the living, breathing examples of why conservatives are unfit to govern at this moment in time.
 

3 hours ago, studiot said:

Only some? can't think of any of our lot I'd call honest.

At least Canada managed to complete an election.

Not like our unseemly shambles.

 

Clearly on point, thank you. +1

[MigL]

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 )

Edited October 22, 2019 by MigL

[John Cuthber]

5 minutes ago, MigL said:

We do have our ideological differences Rangerx.
I happen to think that one of our bigger problems in Canada is the spiralling debt.

Then, whatever you do, don't elect a Conservative.
They got elected here in the UK on a ticket of "Paying down the debt".

Since then, they have borrowed more than all Labour governments put together and the national debt has doubled.

[MigL]

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

[CharonY]

2 minutes ago, MigL said:

And I know you dislike D Ford, but at least he ran on a platform of debt reduction;

But here is the thing, while he did run on such a platform, but apparently in the 2018-19 fiscal year the PC government spent more than the proposed budget by Wynne (sure you could make the argument that they would have blown that one, too) and even according to conservative think tanks such as the Frasier institute  they were massively overspending (and now promise to balance after the next election). And I would again note that debt is not fundamentally bad, depending on interest rates and how it is spent (e.g. if they help generate surplus in the future). But since that is a difficult subject with many nuances that probably needs an expert, we may as well skip it for now.

 

19 minutes ago, MigL said:

Ironically Alberta/Saskatchewan probably are not.

I think that both provinces suffer from the strong reliance on natural resources, their debt seems to be tightly coupled to resource prices which basically means that if debt is the critical element, government actions will be dictated by external forces. I do not think that this is a sustainable model for the future.

[MigL]

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'.

[John Cuthber]

8 minutes ago, MigL said:

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'.

Over here they managed that by the simple expedient of giving lots of money to rich people.

[CharonY]

10 minutes ago, MigL said:

D Ford is accused of making massive cuts while spending more money.
Talk about politics of 'fear'.

Well, as usual it is about what kind of cuts you are making. The conservatives complain that the overall cuts are not enough i.e. they were not massive. However, those that are affected by cuts are going to complain about those that are made. I understand that you were making a joke, but as a whole nuance has gone out of the window, it seems. Too often such statements are taken at face value for the sake of soundbites, influencing serious decisions.

It remains a fact that as a whole the budget does not seem significantly different than what the previous government proposed, which could mean that there is not a whole lot that can be cut. And among things that are cut, one needs to look at long-and short term costs. Cutting public health funds, for example could save money now, but if, say disease monitoring and prevention is compromised, you may look at a huge bill in the future. Other investments, such as better food programs for low-income children, have been associated with surprisingly significant savings later on due to reduction in welfare costs. 

As a whole, however, I would say that the Canadian election has shown less divisiveness than what we see in other countries. The largest number of votes went to the centre-right and centre-left parties whereas the further right PPC failed. Contrast it to the rise of far-right parties of Europe, or look at the state of the conservatism in US, which basically has to bow to a TV personality, I think it is still in a decent shape. Of course there have always been the conflict between say Western and Atlantic Canada, or the fact that the Prairies are often overlooked (or feel like they are), which certainly causes resentments. These have recently been massively fueled by social media and other new ways of communication, but again, in comparison as a whole Canada is holding it together somewhat well.

 

[MigL]

2 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Over here they managed that by the simple expedient of giving lots of money to rich people.

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

[iNow]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Borrowing money effectively reduces the amount you can spend on programs

I think you have this backwards.  

[rangerx]

21 minutes ago, MigL said:

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.

The rest of your post is valid in your concerns, even though I'd differ on who's the better spender/saver. No point in going around in circles there.

However, your outlook on pipelines entirely misses the point. The issue has been conflated into demonizing pipelines themselves, not the issues surrounding them.

Tar sand is hugely abrasive, unlike other liquified or gaseous products. Then there is the issue of the solvent. The biggest point that gets missed is to support the pipeline, the inbound tankers are loaded with it. By virtue alone, this automatically doubles the risk to the environment. Compound that with an increase in traffic, it's another four fold. At the end of the day, we on the coast are 8x at greater risk. This is also the reason why pipeline flows cannot be reversed to Ontario. One only needs to examine the tar sand spill in Kalamazoo to know the extent of damage, the difficulty to clean it up and the protracted nightmares dragged out in the courts.

I run an aquaculture operation and the cost of crop insurance won't be increased, it will be denied altogether. I suppose we could find an underwriter, but it would be too costly in an already marginal industry. The same applies to beach resorts and residents, fishermen, first nations and a whole lot more.

Steven Harper killed Coast Guard stations. He scrapped ships. He closed the Kits spill base. He sold tar sand to China and allowed a secret tribunal to sue Canada for reneging on any part of the deal. That is why Trudeau had to go along with it, his hand was forced or Canada would pay dearly, and for what? I've been around the block with oil companies and their spills. I led volunteers in a major incident in the late 80's and spent 10 years in every court in the US and Canada. I prevail, but could not make them pay. NOTHING has changed. Not one depot for equipment, not one at the ready, not one crew trained, nothing. The assertion that "they" will have safe response in place, no less a supposed world class one is a pipe dream and little else.

I was a co-ordinator for the Alaskan fishermen and an advisor to the Governor of Alaska during the Exxon Valdez spill. I was with the Canadian crew from Red Deer, who extinguished 85% of the oil well fires in Kuwait after the Gulf War.

Do we need add first nations issues and eminent domain? Do we need to discuss the stability of the terrain in BC?

I'm sick and tired of platitudes that lead nowhere. I'm ashamed of the ignorance and arrogance of Albertans toward anyone but themselves.

Quite simply put, if they don't give a rat's ass about us, our environment and our livelihoods so they can piss and moan about pennies at the pump or manipulate who's in power, where should our care begin?


I'm all for using oil responsibly, so long as we are proactive reducing emissions. It's baby steps. Fractions of a percent each step. Tar sand to China (at a loss no less) flies in the face of all that. Carbon tax provides funds to clean spills and compensate losses. It's an incentive to develop newer, cleaner technologies.

I challenge you (or anyone for that matter) to show me ONE incident of greater than a thousand tonnes spilled, where the polluter was prompt in their response, diligent in their cleanup and forthright in compensation. Truth is, you can't. Nobody can.

Go ahead MigL, I'm sure you'll tell me I need to live under a rock for my criticisms, but remember one thing. Edison invented the light bulb which brought us into a new era. Surely you don't mean to suggest he should have worked in the dark because he hated candle makers and lamplighters? That's the narrative I have have to deal with every day, with Albertans and narrow minds back east.

No sir, I'm no bleeding heart liberal. I'm in Trudeau's face on this issue. My case stands as precedent in the TMX case and stands in Canadian, US and International Maritime and Admiralty law.

It's not about a pipe or jobs, it's about corruption, greed and the law.

[J.C.MacSwell]

2 hours ago, iNow said:

I think you have this backwards.  

...only in the short run

[MigL]

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.

[iNow]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

...only in the short run

Only if your creditors see you as a risk to repayment. So long as you pay on time and consistently, you could technically borrow forever. Especially when you can print your own money (wherein inflation becomes a bigger risk, but that’s been at record lows for over a decade)

https://tradingeconomics.com/canada/inflation-cpi

Quote

The annual inflation rate in Canada stood at 1.9 percent in September 2019, its lowest level since March, unchanged from August and below market expectations of 2.1 percent. <...> Inflation Rate in Canada averaged 3.13 percent from 1915 until 2019

 

I suppose I should’ve said for over a century...

[MigL]

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 )

[rangerx]

37 minutes ago, MigL said:

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.

Indeed they've failed us, but politicians ought not be our go-to guys for information on these topics because you know as well as I do how that comes out.

I'll admit there are those who want tar sand stopped entirely. I'm not in that camp. I'm in the it's okay so long as you're responsible camp, but that never gets discussed because it's almost always conflated into something it's not. Alberta isn't just tar sand. It has plenty of good quality crude. It has standards and regulations for extraction and transportation. It has responsible companies and workers. Largely, they have trucks, trains and pipes that are well maintained and operated by responsible people. My issue is not with them or that. We all clearly understand that reduction of emissions ought to be the priority, one small percentage point at a time, not increasing it with the the sham that is the tar sand deal.

My issue is with Harper selling our resources while they are still in the ground and for allowing secret tribunals to penalize us for reneging on any aspect. China will only pay X/barrel, irrespective of the price of oil at the cap, yet can refuse the oil at the base. That's not fair to any Canadian, pro or anti. China has not provided one iota of spill recovery equipment nor can they be sued if they spill it on our shoreline,(or at least not before going through the IMO and Admiralty Law which is exceedingly burdensome and costly). As if litigating wasn't hard enough as it is, Harper took away that right from us all together. The secret agreement dictates government cannot sue China on behalf of individual or groups Canadians, so if it spills on us, we lose on every level. That's going backwards, because in 1989, I had more rights then, but they still never paid anyway. The Appellate Court in San Fransisco ruled my claim stands and the law of the affected country shall prevail. Instead of bucking up and suing the polluter on behalf of Canadians, Harper secretly changed the law so we lost that right instead. It's third world treatment. Yet where are the so-called constitutionalists on the issue? Crickets.

So in retort, all I'm saying is you can't tell one (large) portion of the country that they must allow access, give up our lands and waterways for something where we gain no economic benefit and carry all the risk and liability at the same time.

[Raider5678]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Only if your creditors see you as a risk to repayment. So long as you pay on time and consistently, you could technically borrow forever. Especially when you can print your own money (wherein inflation becomes a bigger risk, but that’s been at record lows for over a decade)

This is true. However at some point it becomes impossible to borrow more.

I.E, if you keep borrowing money, the interest get's higher and higher. The payments get higher and higher. If your GDP doesn't continue to grow at the same rate, a larger and larger portion of your money is going to paying off loans. The biggest risk is what happens if a recession hits and you're forced to either print crap tons of money, or default on your loans. One can lead to a domino effect of inflation, and one will cause your interest rates to sky rocket. In either case, massive cuts to your spending will be required, and we all know that spending cuts are extremely popular in democracies. 

A better way to describe it is to think of it in terms of investments.

If you borrow money to invest in rebuilding schools and building new trade schools, that's a good case for borrowing money. (In my opinion.)

If you borrow money so that you can increase the education budget of schools, that's a bad case for borrowing money. (In my opinion.)

 

The two scenario's are similar, but not the same in a very fundamental way. The first scenario is borrowing money for a large up front investment. The second scenario is borrowing money for a perpetual payment. 

If you're borrowing money for a perpetual payment, you'll often result in a deficit. A deficit will result in more debt, more debt will result in more interest, and more interest will result in requiring more money to make that interest payment. Requiring more money to make an interest payment will often result in borrowing more money, spending cuts, or finding a way to generate more revenue(often taxes.) Upfront, people will probably not pay as much in taxes. But by the time their grand kids are paying taxes, they'll be paying more taxes just to pay for the payments their grandparents opted for.

You can't perpetually borrow money.

 

Heck, think of it at a personal level. If you had to borrow money every year to put towards your rent, and you didn't pay off that borrowed money by the end of the year, but you did make the payment, you'd continually have to borrow more and more money. But since you're making the payment on time, every time, the bank is willing to lower the interest and lend you more money.(Hypothetically). Surely, here, you can see where the process can be drawn out, but won't last forever. 

However, if you borrow money for a house, and spend 30 years paying it off, eventually the payment goes away, and you're left with a house. That's not a terrible way to borrow money.

Borrowing money is not inherently bad. Perpetually borrowing money is. Payments come due. And they'll perpetually grow larger. So unless your economy is growing as fast as/faster than your debt, it simply decreases the financial cushion you have when there's a recession and you still need to make that payment.