Federal Government & Politics II

[P'tit Renard]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Harper had as many or more scandals than Trudeau and as annoying as Trudeau's woke virtue signalling can be Harper had lots of the same on Conservative issues.

Just when you think things have hit rock bottom with Trudeau's handling of the immigration ponzi scheme:

Government officers told to skip fraud prevention steps when vetting temporary foreign worker applications, Star investigation finds
https://www.thestar.com/business/gov...e5d2241d2.html

The TFW fake international student scandals alone is bigger than anything I can recall from the Harper era.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Acajack

The Harpercons still got 99 seats, over 30% of the vote, and finished 7% behind the Liberals in 2015.

It was hardly a Mulroney 1993 spanking when the Tories were reduced to 2 seats and 15% of the vote.

The right wing has a floor of around 30%. In 1993 the PCs got 16% of the vote, good for 2 seats, and the Reform got 18%, good for 52 seats. Talk about vote inefficiency(!)

[theman23]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

How is "eh just don't check for fraud in TFW applications" not a huge red flag? Terrible, terrible policy, and the minister responsible should be forced to resign.

Originally Posted by P'tit Renard

Just when you think things have hit rock bottom with Trudeau's handling of the immigration ponzi scheme:

Government officers told to skip fraud prevention steps when vetting temporary foreign worker applications, Star investigation finds
https://www.thestar.com/business/gov...e5d2241d2.html

A month or two ago an ESDC employee posted an AMA on various subreddits about LMIA fraud, which this article now basically confirms to be true. I wonder if the Star's source is the same person.

Essentially, the poster claimed that the massive surge in TFW applications thanks to Trudeau policy changes has overwhelmed ESDC and they are no longer able to due their due diligence. Unscrupulous immigration consultants and accountants have taken advantage of this to make millions, to the detriment of Canadian workers and the TFWs themselves.

The upside of all of this is that McDonalds coffee is still just $1.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by P'tit Renard

Just when you think things have hit rock bottom with Trudeau's handling of the immigration ponzi scheme:

Government officers told to skip fraud prevention steps when vetting temporary foreign worker applications, Star investigation finds
https://www.thestar.com/business/gov...e5d2241d2.html

The TFW fake international student scandals alone is bigger than anything I can recall from the Harper era.

Harper's scandals were mostly inconsqeuential and those that mettered were mostly minor election cheating which the general public doesn't care about.

If this is true it is beyond a firing level offence on it's own. I really can't believe that a Minister would tell them to just ignore fraud. Was the business lobby so effective the government really thought we were about to collapse without a massive immigration surge?

[theman23]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Harper's scandals were mostly inconsqeuential and those that mettered were mostly minor election cheating which the general public doesn't care about.

If this is true it is beyond a firing level offence on it's own. I really can't believe that a Minister would tell them to just ignore fraud. Was the business lobby so effective the government really thought we were about to collapse without a massive immigration surge?

In fairness, they weren't told to ignore fraud. They were to told to streamline the process and skip steps to deal with the deluge of applications thanks to the loosening of TFW rules by the Trudeau government. They took a "risk based" approach understanding that a certain small percentage of fraudulent applications would get through, not realizing that immigration consultants would easily learn how to game the system.

[ssiguy]

Originally Posted by acottawa

An interview with Canada's Gas Guru doesn't seem like a particularly strong source that the Liberals and NDP are going to implement a new policy of partial slates for next year's election. Yeah, people have been talking about it for years, probably decades, but it would be almost impossible to implement without some sort of clear geographic distinction (as exists in Germany and Australia). This would almost certainly require changes to both party's constitutions, and it would require some mechanism to decide which party got to run candidates in which ridings, which would require lengthy negotiations that are unlikely to happen before the writ is dropped in 12 months.

Yes, LeDrew is certainly a Conservative but these were not his words but rather the one of an ex-Liberal MP.

This would NOT be any form of merger between the Liberals & NDP so no party constitutional issues would arise. This would simply be an agreed upon riding by riding decision where either the Liberal or NDP candidates/support is basically irrelevant as they have no chance of winning it but much of that small support would be shifted over to the other party which means a LOT in close swing ridings. Elections are not won by rural Alberta or downtown Montreal but rather those key swing ridings in the 905 and our mid-size cities where the vote is much more fluid.

I doubt it would stop a PP victory but could very much hold them to a minority gov't. This would allow the Tories to run a gov't for a couple years and then bring it down but still given themselves some time to rebuild their respective war chests. Such a scenario would also make potential leaders far more likely to put their hat in the ring ie Carney. He would not be enthralled by sitting on the wrong side of the House for 5 years but would be for just 2 and after 2 years the Tories would have had their far share of corruption scandals and disliked policy decisions to shift those current disenfranchised Liberal voters back into the party fold.

There are also real financial benefits of such a move. The Liberals & NDP don't have near the war chest the Tories currently have and by withdrawing from ridings where they have no chance of winning, they are saving large sums of money that could be redirected at much more competitive races.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Harper's scandals were mostly inconsqeuential and those that mettered were mostly minor election cheating which the general public doesn't care about.

If this is true it is beyond a firing level offence on it's own. I really can't believe that a Minister would tell them to just ignore fraud. Was the business lobby so effective the government really thought we were about to collapse without a massive immigration surge?

If Jughead and the NDP actually had a spine they would bring the gov't down over this.

[Build.It]

Stephen LeDrew is a Liberal actually.

The Liberal Party of Canada is no longer liberal.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by whatnext

If Jughead and the NDP actually had a spine they would bring the gov't down over this.

Yes if the defintion of having a Spine is going over the top of the trench to certain death rather than waiting to see if some miracle artillery shows up.

The conservative talking point about an obvioulsy smart strategic decision by the NDP to get basically an NDP government without the Bond Market panic and imposition of fiscal order seems brilliant to me. How much further left could a Jagmeet government be? If I am an NDP voter I prefer that. Getting daycare, dental coverage rather than the 2006 vote the Libs down and trigger 10 years of Con governments. Sure we get that anyway in 2025 but there is a lot more to unwind. Daycare probably stays with only minor tweaks.

[FactaNV]

I know they have a snowball's chance in hell but I hope the Canadian Future Party can make a run of it in some ridings. I like what they're selling. At least maybe they can help moderate the CPC and LPC the way the PPC made the CPC turn further right.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Yes if the defintion of having a Spine is going over the top of the trench to certain death rather than waiting to see if some miracle artillery shows up.

The conservative talking point about an obvioulsy smart strategic decision by the NDP to get basically an NDP government without the Bond Market panic and imposition of fiscal order seems brilliant to me. How much further left could a Jagmeet government be? If I am an NDP voter I prefer that. Getting daycare, dental coverage rather than the 2006 vote the Libs down and trigger 10 years of Con governments. Sure we get that anyway in 2025 but there is a lot more to unwind. Daycare probably stays with only minor tweaks.

Certain death? It's not like the NDP are going to any better 14 months from now, so why prolong the agony?

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Yes, LeDrew is certainly a Conservative but these were not his words but rather the one of an ex-Liberal MP.

This would NOT be any form of merger between the Liberals & NDP so no party constitutional issues would arise. This would simply be an agreed upon riding by riding decision where either the Liberal or NDP candidates/support is basically irrelevant as they have no chance of winning it but much of that small support would be shifted over to the other party which means a LOT in close swing ridings. Elections are not won by rural Alberta or downtown Montreal but rather those key swing ridings in the 905 and our mid-size cities where the vote is much more fluid.

I doubt it would stop a PP victory but could very much hold them to a minority gov't. This would allow the Tories to run a gov't for a couple years and then bring it down but still given themselves some time to rebuild their respective war chests. Such a scenario would also make potential leaders far more likely to put their hat in the ring ie Carney. He would not be enthralled by sitting on the wrong side of the House for 5 years but would be for just 2 and after 2 years the Tories would have had their far share of corruption scandals and disliked policy decisions to shift those current disenfranchised Liberal voters back into the party fold.

There are also real financial benefits of such a move. The Liberals & NDP don't have near the war chest the Tories currently have and by withdrawing from ridings where they have no chance of winning, they are saving large sums of money that could be redirected at much more competitive races.

McTeague is Canada’s Gas Guru

You’re making it sound more simple than it could possibly be. “simply be an agreed upon riding by riding decision” is a life and death decision for local riding associations and local candidates. What is it based on? The last election? Current polling? Some sort of historical average? What do you do with sitting MPs? Do the leaders tell them they can’t run for re-election?

Take a riding like Davenport. The Liberals defeated the NDP by 76 votes. Is the NDP just going to give up that riding? Would the Liberals if the “simple decision” was that the NDP had a better chance?

[casper]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Certain death? It's not like the NDP are going to any better 14 months from now, so why prolong the agony?

Well 14 months is a long time.

It is going to be a very different election in 14 months. Interest rates will be lower. Inflation will be in check. The US will have a new president that will be doubling down on the green agenda, "wokeness" (as our conservative friends like to say), among other policies.

The Liberals will have engineered a slight deflation in housing prices. A soft landing.

The Liberals and NDP have everything to gain by waiting and nothing to lose.

Yes, 14 months is still enough time to bring in a new Liberal leader before the next election. Something that is critically needed.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by casper

Well 14 months is a long time.

It is going to be a very different election in 14 months. Interest rates will be lower. Inflation will be in check. The US will have a new president that will be doubling down on the green agenda, "wokeness" (as our conservative friends like to say), among other policies.

The Liberals will have engineered a slight deflation in housing prices. A soft landing.

The Liberals and NDP have everything to gain by waiting and nothing to lose.

Yes, 14 months is still enough time to bring in a new Liberal leader before the next election. Something that is critically needed.

That’s an extremely optimistic prediction. Harris will face a hostile Congress and will be very limited in her agenda. Trudeau will be the same tired old leader the Liberals have been Uncle Bernieing for over a decade. Changes made now to immigration will not start having macroeconomic impact until 2026 which will force the Bank to keep interest rates higher than they should be. Housing will still be a crushing burden on millions of Canadians. The super low 5 year mortgages of 2020 will have come due.

[ssiguy]

Originally Posted by acottawa

McTeague is Canada’s Gas Guru

You’re making it sound more simple than it could possibly be. “simply be an agreed upon riding by riding decision” is a life and death decision for local riding associations and local candidates. What is it based on? The last election? Current polling? Some sort of historical average? What do you do with sitting MPs? Do the leaders tell them they can’t run for re-election?

Take a riding like Davenport. The Liberals defeated the NDP by 76 votes. Is the NDP just going to give up that riding? Would the Liberals if the “simple decision” was that the NDP had a better chance?

As I stated earlier, I am NOT talking about competitive races between all 3 parties or Liberal/NDP battle ones. I am talking about ridings where one party is basically irrelevant but by splitting the leftwing vote they are allowing the Tories to win the seat. I looked up the 338Canada federal map and I found a whopping 18 seats in the GTA alone where the Liberals are going to lose the seat or are potentially going to but in all of them NDP support was 15% or less. There are similar cases in AC. There are also several ridings in BC & Alberta where the NDP could potentially hold/gain the seat where Liberal support is under 15%. Both parties could make a general cut-off rule of about 15% to 20% where they have no chance of winning but the other one does.

Again, this would also have huge financial benefits. Renting the office space and all those signs and ads cost a lot of money and yet is essentially money down the drain in ridings where neither party has a hope. That would save their respective parties monstrous amounts of money, time, and effort and could funneling those resources into ridings they are competitive in.

Don't get me wrong, there are many, especially Liberals, who wouldn't like the idea but with a 100 of them one year away from unemployment, they may see it as their only chance because there are, quite literally, no other options. If it was anyone else but JT, I think such an idea would not be contemplated {and PET would be turning over in his grave} but you have to remember that Justin cares as little about the Liberal Party as he does about the country itself.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

As I stated earlier, I am NOT talking about competitive races between all 3 parties or Liberal/NDP battle ones. I am talking about ridings where one party is basically irrelevant but by splitting the leftwing vote they are allowing the Tories to win the seat. I looked up the 338Canada federal map and I found a whopping 18 seats in the GTA alone where the Liberals are going to lose the seat or are potentially going to but in all of them NDP support was 15% or less. There are similar cases in AC. There are also several ridings in BC & Alberta where the NDP could potentially hold/gain the seat where Liberal support is under 15%. Both parties could make a general cut-off rule of about 15% to 20% where they have no chance of winning but the other one does.

Again, this would also have huge financial benefits. Renting the office space and all those signs and ads cost a lot of money and yet is essentially money down the drain in ridings where neither party has a hope. That would save their respective parties monstrous amounts of money, time, and effort and could funneling those resources into ridings they are competitive in.

Don't get me wrong, there are many, especially Liberals, who wouldn't like the idea but with a 100 of them one year away from unemployment, they may see it as their only chance because there are, quite literally, no other options. If it was anyone else but JT, I think such an idea would not be contemplated {and PET would be turning over in his grave} but you have to remember that Justin cares as little about the Liberal Party as he does about the country itself.

But those GTA ridings where the NDP has single digit support the extra support is not going to add up to a Liberal victory if it is a Tory wave election (look at 2011 results in these risings) plus a lot of the NDP vote will go to the greens, plus the NDP would give up a lot of popular vote (even single digits in a part of the country where millions live will have a big impact) plus their fundraising (who is going to donate money where there are no local candidates).

This is a scheme for desperate Trudeau fanboys.

[casper]

Originally Posted by acottawa

That’s an extremely optimistic prediction. Harris will face a hostile Congress and will be very limited in her agenda. Trudeau will be the same tired old leader the Liberals have been Uncle Bernieing for over a decade. Changes made now to immigration will not start having macroeconomic impact until 2026 which will force the Bank to keep interest rates higher than they should be. Housing will still be a crushing burden on millions of Canadians. The super low 5 year mortgages of 2020 will have come due.

I think it comes down to what is PP campaigning on.

Is PP still going to be going on and on about carbon tax, when you have economists starting to come out questioning the merits of eliminating the tax. There was a Scotiabank writeup from a day or two ago:

The Federal Carbon Tax: An Axe to Grind

Is PP going to be there saying: "Vote for me because conservatives will take the prime rate from 3.5% to 3% by cutting your social programs?" Is he going to promise to bring down inflation while the Bank of Canada is trying to stimulate the economy?

What ever government we elect in 2025, goes immediately into the 2026 review of the Canada, US and Mexico trade deal. You can bet that a Harris government is going to put North American supply chains on electrical vehicles (EVs), batteries, and semiconductors at for front. With due regard for environmental and labour union protection.

Where does PP and the conservatives stand on the type of investment that is needed to provide a secure and green North American supply chain? All we know at this stage is he has come out saying he wants to cancel the deals that have been made between industry, Quebec, and Ontario to bring that type of manufacturing back to North America. Deals that are mirrored after what the US is already doing.

We don't know much about where PP standards on trade with Europe other than he wants to open up existing trade deal to remove provisions requiring carbon trading (aka carbon taxes).

Wound not surprise me to see him push for Keystone. A project that is dead and industry has moved on.

[FactaNV]

Originally Posted by casper

I think it comes down to what is PP campaigning on.

Is PP still going to be going on and on about carbon tax, when you have economists starting to come out questioning the merits of eliminating the tax. There was a Scotiabank writeup from a day or two ago:

The Federal Carbon Tax: An Axe to Grind

Is PP going to be there saying: "Vote for me because conservatives will take the prime rate from 3.5% to 3% by cutting your social programs?" Is he going to promise to bring down inflation while the Bank of Canada is trying to stimulate the economy?

What ever government we elect in 2025, goes immediately into the 2026 review of the Canada, US and Mexico trade deal. You can bet that a Harris government is going to put North American supply chains on electrical vehicles (EVs), batteries, and semiconductors at for front. With due regard for environmental and labour union protection.

Where does PP and the conservatives stand on the type of investment that is needed to provide a secure and green North American supply chain? All we know at this stage is he has come out saying he wants to cancel the deals that have been made between industry, Quebec, and Ontario to bring that type of manufacturing back to North America. Deals that are mirrored after what the US is already doing.

We don't know much about where PP standards on trade with Europe other than he wants to open up existing trade deal to remove provisions requiring carbon trading (aka carbon taxes).

Wound not surprise me to see him push for Keystone. A project that is dead and industry has moved on.

What grinds my gears about the carbon tax is its useless. Keep the money and actually use it to improve green infrastructure and invest in green tech. Sure I don't get my pittance of a cheque quarterly but we can fund some serious investments with the collected moolah. In its current iteration it's a feel-good climate charade pretending it isn't just wealth redistribution. Take the money and fund grants to build urban and intercity mass transit systems, wind farms, nuclear plants, investments in green manufacturing, water protections, conservation initiatives, etc ad nauseum so on so forth. What a missed opportunity that is now a poisoned well for 50% of the population.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by casper

I think it comes down to what is PP campaigning on.

Is PP still going to be going on and on about carbon tax, when you have economists starting to come out questioning the merits of eliminating the tax. There was a Scotiabank writeup from a day or two ago:

The Federal Carbon Tax: An Axe to Grind

Is PP going to be there saying: "Vote for me because conservatives will take the prime rate from 3.5% to 3% by cutting your social programs?" Is he going to promise to bring down inflation while the Bank of Canada is trying to stimulate the economy?

What ever government we elect in 2025, goes immediately into the 2026 review of the Canada, US and Mexico trade deal. You can bet that a Harris government is going to put North American supply chains on electrical vehicles (EVs), batteries, and semiconductors at for front. With due regard for environmental and labour union protection.

Where does PP and the conservatives stand on the type of investment that is needed to provide a secure and green North American supply chain? All we know at this stage is he has come out saying he wants to cancel the deals that have been made between industry, Quebec, and Ontario to bring that type of manufacturing back to North America. Deals that are mirrored after what the US is already doing.

We don't know much about where PP standards on trade with Europe other than he wants to open up existing trade deal to remove provisions requiring carbon trading (aka carbon taxes).

Wound not surprise me to see him push for Keystone. A project that is dead and industry has moved on.

You're writing the Clerk's briefing for PP if he is elected. It is a good briefing, but doesn't really relate to the electoral reality that JT and PP will face next fall.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by FactaNV

What grinds my gears about the carbon tax is its useless. Keep the money and actually use it to improve green infrastructure and invest in green tech. Sure I don't get my pittance of a cheque quarterly but we can fund some serious investments with the collected moolah. In its current iteration it's a feel-good climate charade pretending it isn't just wealth redistribution. Take the money and fund grants to build urban and intercity mass transit systems, wind farms, nuclear plants, investments in green manufacturing, water protections, conservation initiatives, etc ad nauseum so on so forth. What a missed opportunity that is now a poisoned well for 50% of the population.

I generally agree with this statement.

In it's present iteration, the carbon tax is a financial form of rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. You take from consumers, pass it through several tens of thousands of new civil servants at Revenue Canada, and then return it back to the taxpayers in a slightly altered form. It truly is wealth redistribution in a highly inefficient form.

If I have to pay the tax, then apply the funds to improving Canada's green infrastructure rather than letting Bill down the street to be able to afford a cup of Timmies several times per week.