You can't use section 26 to go over section 28?
Presumably if the ISG decide to stop every Scheer bill, he's going to have to do something.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Canada PoliERA |OT| Two Years of Sunny Days? That’s Scheer Madness!
- Thread starter Caz
- Start date
- Status
Presumably if the ISG decide to stop every Scheer bill, he's going to have to do something.
Not directly "Canadian politics" related but this tweet has a Chinese "Click farm" clip that shows the huge centers where Chinese manufacture opinions on the Internet. You can see hundreds of phones showing/posting the same videos. This is how elections are now won. People were discussing PR and why it failed for instance on the previous page. Manipulations like these are truly one way people can win their cause.
EDIT : And for our economic perspective for the coming years. WaPo OP on why a recession is coming and why Trump will make it worse. Reasons listed are the huge corrections the market is going through right now, Trump Tariffs, Trump's lack of cooperation with allies among other items. They say he's in a poor position to help recovery since he's already running huge deficits so he won't be able to inject money quickly to help. Our poor retirements funds and TFSA T.T
EDIT : And for our economic perspective for the coming years. WaPo OP on why a recession is coming and why Trump will make it worse. Reasons listed are the huge corrections the market is going through right now, Trump Tariffs, Trump's lack of cooperation with allies among other items. They say he's in a poor position to help recovery since he's already running huge deficits so he won't be able to inject money quickly to help. Our poor retirements funds and TFSA T.T
Last edited:
We've gotten to a point where a political campaign has a big push against it online, we can be assured that foreign interference is involved. I won't be surprised if the anti-PR rhetoric had click farms like this in play. And oh, the egg on the faces of the BC Liberals if that happened and it came out, they'd be raked over the coals for being on the same side as a foreign power's interests, whether they knew it or not.
Yah i have lost thousands in my RSP. My TFSA isn't so bad right now but still in the negatives. It's going to get a lot worse before it gets better.
Yeah I'm in a similar position :( . I guess banks are starting to feel the heat a bit. I was contacted by my financial planner at my bank for an appointment about adding the maximum money from my account to my retirements fund to save on taxes. Definitely not the time to dump a huge amount.
The federal output-based carbon pricing system works because it's not an exemption
This week, the federal government announced more details of their Output Based Pricing System (OBPS) which targets greenhouse gas emissions from large, industrial facilities. These policies are complex (although perhaps not as complex as their acronyms make them sound) and build on a long line of similar policies proposed and/or implemented in Canada. In this post, I take you through the history of these policies, discuss which facilities are covered, and explain why the system implemented in Alberta and now being implemented as part of the federal backstop is far better than other systems in preserving competitiveness and providing rewards for innovation.
The basic elements of the federal OBPS mirror the Carbon Competitiveness Incentive Regulation (CCIR) implemented in Alberta which, itself, borrowed much of its design from Alberta's Specified Gas Emitters Regulation (SGER) first implemented in 2007. You can trace the lineage even further back in time to the Chretien/Martin era Project Green policies and the version of those policies which became part of the Harper Government's Turning the Corner Plan in 2006. Each of these policies shares two common elements – a price on carbon emissions and a system of allocations through which firms receive some number of emissions credits for free. Think of your income taxes, which define a rate and offer a series of tax credits, and you're on the right track.
Who do these rules apply to? These rules only apply to large facilities (those with 50,000 tonnes or more of CO2e emissions during any of the 2014, 2015, 2016 or 2017 calendar years), although smaller facilities (still facilities with expected emissions of more than 10,000 tonnes of CO2e annually) may choose to opt-in. These rules also only apply to facilities in provinces covered by the federal backstop policy, so Ontario, New Brunswick, Manitoba, Prince Edward Island, Saskatchewan, Yukon and Nunavut.
As you can see from the figure above, the policy ends up covering a relatively small share of emissions in the provinces it affects, as the emissions shown in grey will be covered in large part by the carbon price. Most of the emissions covered come from utilities, manufacturing (which includes refining), and mining with some oil and gas facilities covered in Saskatchewan.
Much of the coverage of this system has framed the OBPS as an exemption from emissions pricing for large emitters, but that hides the importance of the two, linked programs – the carbon price and the output-based allocation of credits. The carbon price provides an incentive to reduce emissions while the output-based allocation of credits provides an incentive to increase output and reduces or even reverses the incentive to reduce emissions through reducing output here in Canada. The combined system lowers the average cost of emissions policy on large emitters while maintaining the incentive to reduce emissions and deploy new technology. This would not be true it the program simply offered an exemption for a given percentage of emissions from the tax, as the system is often framed.
...
I've lost about 10% combined so far. Keep telling myself to hold on instead of locking in losses.
My plan is to add a lump sum to my RRSP but then to drip feed it in over half a year to try to harness some dollar cost averaging if we keep sailing down down down.
https://www.lapresse.ca/debats/editoriaux/paul-journet/201812/26/01-5209256-monsieur-deni.php
Nice article regarding Scheers utter lack of climate policies.
Nice article regarding Scheers utter lack of climate policies.
My hopes in next years election lies in Quebec's sensibilities of climate action.
Can we get the article stating his lack of just about any policies that aren't "the opposite of Trudeau", because he has publicly stated, what 2-3 things since becoming opposition leader - of which I can think of one off hand - the embassy moving to Jerusalem bit he mentioned when trump did it
The best part is probably this :
It's not really illogical though. It's what they want. They are looking to gain support from those annoying people that know better than the experts in the field because they have "common sense" and absolutely no credentials. This is more or less what Scheer is peddling.
Also pledging to end birthright citizenship months before that orange bigot tried to enact that via an executive order.
I think the connection to what is going on South of the border and here is kinda coincidental. The birthright citizenship issue was raised by Richmond BC area MPs and party members because that city in particular is dealing with a significant amount of non-Canadians (1 in 5) entering its hospital purely to give birth. Recently someone dashed on a $1.2 Million bill.
I have no idea if this is an issue beyond Richmond BC.
I'm sure the idea of ending birthright citizenship attracts a fair amount of support from anti-immigration persons, but this particular issue is mostly about ultra rich gaming the immigration system, so I think the issue is gaining broader support than you'd think for that reason.
https://www.richmond-news.com/news/...ond-hospital-becomes-passport-mill-1.23064245
Last edited:
The thing is... there are much better ways to stop birth tourism than to outright remove a fundamental civil right. How shortsighted can these people be?
Aside from it being a deeply problematic solution to an issue that is a non-issue outside of Richmond, there's also the consequences that would result from revoking jus soli, namely an increase in "stateless" individuals.
I certainly agree that ending jus soli seems like a total sledgehammer approach to a relatively minor problem, and there's surely ways to limit this issue without such major legislative changes.
Taking the devil's advocate position here though, I question whether the Conservative Party's stance here is indeed "deeply problematic". Canada is actually a rare exception in the world for having jus soli, and it seems like a trivial exception to give Canadian citizenship in cases where a person would otherwise be stateless.
I personally do feel there is a problem here that does need to be addressed. Ending jus soli is the most direct foolproof solution, though it'd be nice if the issue could be addressed without such impactful new legislative changes.
Taking the devil's advocate position here though, I question whether the Conservative Party's stance here is indeed "deeply problematic". Canada is actually a rare exception in the world for having jus soli, and it seems like a trivial exception to give Canadian citizenship in cases where a person would otherwise be stateless.
I personally do feel there is a problem here that does need to be addressed. Ending jus soli is the most direct foolproof solution, though it'd be nice if the issue could be addressed without such impactful new legislative changes.
Short of direct mind control, the only viable solution is to deny entry to visitors that are extremely near-term, unless they are visiting for exceptional circumstances. Anything more than that would be extremely dicey in terms of human rights.
Hong Kong, for instance, had a similar problem years ago when people from the mainland would have babies in Hong Kong to get residency rights.
The birth tourism issue is simple: have jus soli be provisional. If the parent evacuated the country after birth and has not returned for... let's say 5 years and stayed in the country for a year once they have returned, the jus soli is revoked. No one who actually lives here would get hurt and citizenship would default to jus sanguinis, which most countries observe. Jus soli DOES mean "right of the soil", so it only seems sensible that the child gaining citizenship should have actually stepped on said soil for a while before becoming an adult and claiming citizenship benefits. It's literally just adding another few lines to Subsection 3(2) of the Canada Citizenship Act to add another exemption.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli
I wouldn't really say Canada is a rare exception. It's more a and old vs new world divide.
I wouldn't really say Canada is a rare exception. It's more a and old vs new world divide.
Though if you limit the set of countries to rich, developed, G7 or even G20 countries then Canada is in the minority. I assume the increased incidence of Jus Soli in the new world was probably related to the fact that the new world wanted citizens in a hurry. Not really so much an issue any more.
Glancing at Wikipedia it looks like Australia has something similar to what Terrell proposed:
Glancing at Wikipedia it looks like Australia has something similar to what Terrell proposed:
That's a bit of a problem if someone moves away from work for a considerable amount of time -- or even school -- but then has kids along the way.
Or another scenario: that they were conscripted if they have dual citizenship.
I'm not sure I'm understanding what you mean. If it's a Canadian leaving the country for work/school shortly after childbirth with their newborn, it defaults to jus sanguinis, which means that citizenship by birth is determined by whether one of the parents is a citizen. So perhaps you need to give an example, since I clearly am not understanding this.
Oh, I forgot to delete the rest of the quote, referring to the jus soli being revoked.
At any rate, reverting to jus sanguinis after leaving does solve a few problems for citizens leaving, but still doesn't really resolve the problem of babies being born here.
I mean, Europe had huge issues with this in the latter part of the last century due to immigrant populations not having citizenship (or proving the nationality of parents), and has only been rectified to some degree in the past 20-odd years with the relaxation of various jus sanguinis laws.
Well, given our permanent residency laws, I would think that people who give birth in Canada who intend to keep their permanent residency would already fall within the boundaries I set out. If you give up your permanent residency, why should citizenship be bestowed on your children because you waited to give birth to them here?
And orphaned children abandoned in the country after being born would gain citizenship because they stayed in the country, to avoid those edge-cases from making ugly public headlines and trouble-wrought childhoods.
Also, I can understand wanting to ensure that a child has human rights that they'd lose as citizens in their own countries, along with other extenuating circumstances, and there are exceptions that could be made to the rules for specific circumstances in advance, but in the broader sense of the law without edge-cases, since the law is being exploited via loopholes, citizenship should be a bit more of a commitment than the equivalent of checking your baby into a location on Foursquare.
I can certainly agree to the sentiment to some extent, but I've seen enough cases throughout history to know that revoking jus soli -- or putting up arbitrary barriers for citizenship -- goes down a very steep slope.
(On a more personal note, I actually am a person that is directly affected by a lack of jus soli from my birth country. To this day, I remain purely a naturalized citizen. Many of the people from my homeland do not have this privilege, as they were rendered citizens of another country despite the country being under colonial rule for nearly 100 years.
Or to put it less lightly: they made a special designation for these specific British subjects -- the British National Overseas designation -- such that they could not have residency rights in the UK. And it was only in 2002 that other BDTC/BOTCs were allowed Right of Abode in the UK.)
(Another case study is French Algiers, but that would encompass more than this reply can hold.)
The historic examples you provide have key points that I don't believe apply here, particularly their ties to colonialism. As a former colony itself, I can't fathom a situation where Canada would back-slide that far unless we sit on our hands and let a Conservative government enact a policy to close this loophole in the least-conscientious way possible.
But much like with everything else from them, when you remove the talking points that allow them to insert regressive policy into their platforms, they go "awww nuts" and tend to leave the issue alone (see: gay marriage). So better to close the loophole delicately than to let them do it indelicately.
However, let's run with this idea that we'd eventually take away any right to citizenship by birth in this country by back-sliding into it. Is there an alternative?
Because we can't do NOTHING, people are essentially obtaining citizenship to Canada for their children in bad faith, to the tune of 300-700 per year. Depending on how long the practice has been going on, that's several thousands of people who will collect government services when they come here as teenagers and adults, which is most certainly the game plan behind it, without their parents paying the taxes to fund said services.
It's more than just about citizenship, bceause those engaging in this practice are effectively using it as a tax loophole. And if nothing is done, the practice will likely only continue to expand.
Here's the best alternative suggestion I can come up with: would putting limits on a newly-adult citizen's access to government services based on the taxes paid to the government by their parents up until they achieve their own taxable earnings be a better solution than what I have proposed, to keep any back-sliding on the citizenship issue at bay?
Last edited:
So we're just going to ignore them trying to redefine marriage as being between a man and a woman when Harper formed a minority government and only left it alone after the motion was defeated in Parliament?
You cannot count on the CPC to not stoop to such a low when they've demonstrated a willingness to go that low when they have power (see: Harper's niqab ban). If they say they're going to revoke birthright citizenship, there is no reason to not believe them not to believe that they won't do so in the most callous manner possible if they have the power to do so.
Australia is correct in their decision on revoking citizenship from that ISIS member,
it's a bad look when Omar Khadr won the $10 million jackpot at the terrorism lottery. The Government should not have settled. Even if they lost in court, it would have shown that the government was against giving the money.
it's a bad look when Omar Khadr won the $10 million jackpot at the terrorism lottery. The Government should not have settled. Even if they lost in court, it would have shown that the government was against giving the money.
Money was going to be paid to him regardless though. Which is why it's especially pathetic that the party of fiscal responsibility was basically upset that more money wasn't spent.
Oh boy the New York Times just printed an article about Richmond BC area birth tourism. That ought to add more fuel to the fire.
lolol yeppp.
lolol yeppp.
I agree in principle, but I'm fine with Khadr not walking away with even MORE millions of taxpayer money. Besides, Liberals are always the ones picking up the tab for shitty Tory mistakes, I see the wisdom in trying to reduce the bill owed for a change.
The optics of losing even more taxpayer money would be worse. They'd be raked over the coals for doing poorly in court and costing taxpayers about double what Khadr was actually paid. They were damned if they did, damned if they didn't.
Besides, considering how intensely concerned the Liberals are with public perception, if they made the choice they did, it's because it was the better look.
They knew they were going to lose the motion before they tabled it. The moment that they had the power to plow it through Parliament, Harper walked away, despite being questioned about it constantly by the media. It was posturing for the far-right contingent of the party with no follow-through because they knew the war was already lost the moment that religious institutions weren't getting their arms twisted into performing same-sex wedding ceremonies and the fabric and sanctity of marriage was no worse off for allowing it.
They've already made their justification for ending ju soli known, and "birth tourism" is it. Take the teeth out of an issue that riles the CPC base and they'd be doing it JUST to do it, which they have a long history of backing away from when the talking points and justifications run out.
I mean, it's 2018. We've seen all fine and well what Conservative governments can and will do, even in the Western world.
(Having said that, I also have zero faith in any political party truly believing in minority rights unless it was politically expedient.)
And like I said earlier, the best way to mitigate against birth tourism is just better border controls. Or, even better, just implement a (stricter) VISA requirement -- the Chinese government currently requires that from Canadian citizens when they visit China anyway.
Predictions for 2019?
The CPC will try to make a lot of hay out of carbon taxes and the CPP enhancement (pocket book issues) and this will backfire because the ridings they need to flip actually support those things and nobody had actually heard about the CPP enhancement until they brought it up. (CPP premiums will start to increase in 2019 and maybe people will finally notice what is maybe the Liberals biggest economic policy change)
Singh will lose the by-election
Unemployment will hit 4.X% before the federal election, all but guaranteeing a Liberal majority. Unemployment is already at the lowest level in recorded history, but getting to 4 something will be a big deal psychologically.
Turnout, including youth turnout, will actually hold up from the 2015 election
The Liberals will take at least one of the seats in Windsor-Essex from the NDP
The Liberals will take 200+ seats in the federal election
The Green Party will form government in PEI
The Bank of Canada will do 3 rate hikes over the year to bring their key interest rate from 1.75% to 2.5%.
Colombia, Indonesia, Taiwan, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, and the United Kingdom will join the CPTPP.
Neon Genesis Evangelion will be mentioned or referenced by at least one the parties social media accounts or leaders.
The CPC will try to make a lot of hay out of carbon taxes and the CPP enhancement (pocket book issues) and this will backfire because the ridings they need to flip actually support those things and nobody had actually heard about the CPP enhancement until they brought it up. (CPP premiums will start to increase in 2019 and maybe people will finally notice what is maybe the Liberals biggest economic policy change)
Singh will lose the by-election
Unemployment will hit 4.X% before the federal election, all but guaranteeing a Liberal majority. Unemployment is already at the lowest level in recorded history, but getting to 4 something will be a big deal psychologically.
Turnout, including youth turnout, will actually hold up from the 2015 election
The Liberals will take at least one of the seats in Windsor-Essex from the NDP
The Liberals will take 200+ seats in the federal election
The Green Party will form government in PEI
The Bank of Canada will do 3 rate hikes over the year to bring their key interest rate from 1.75% to 2.5%.
Colombia, Indonesia, Taiwan, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, and the United Kingdom will join the CPTPP.
Neon Genesis Evangelion will be mentioned or referenced by at least one the parties social media accounts or leaders.
Last edited:
Trudeau being having a majority will depend a lot on what will happen in QC I feel. CPP enhancements don't affect QC as we have a provincial pension plan so that's a dud here. With how it's going in the country as a whole it will also be a decisive time for the Bloc imo. Either they dissolve away or they make a comeback and force a heavy vote splitting. Ford treating badly Francophones, NB having an Anti-Francophones party and slowly putting away bilingual requirements for government jobs, Alberta throwing it's tantrum against QC are all factors that traditionally helped the Bloc. In 2019 their selling point is nationalism and protections of Francos and they have the cards in their hand to show that Canada doesn't care about this.
Moreover in the first quarter of 2019 the Legault government wants to go along with it's bill to ban religious symbols in public and governments jobs which will be supported by the bloc and where Trudeau cannot do anything as he will be walking on thin ice. Polls also showed that in the province support for the bill is at least above 55% (and go up) depending on the jobs affected. Reminder that the same issue helped tank Mulcair in QC when he ran. I also feel his public opinion took a hit in 2018 in the province. Every year in the province on Dec 31 near midnight, there is a hugely popular TV show with humorists and actors that reviews the whole year with humor highlighting the biggest events of the year. Last year Trudeau was shown as a superstar good at dealing with Trump and helping Canada while last night he was shown as an idiot changing costume abroad, pretending to love environment yet bought a failed pipeline and smokes weed to forget about his issues. That's quite the change.
Dairy farmers are numerous here and they absolutely despise the trade agreement with the US and Mexico. They will surely have a role to play in the next campaign and probably for Scheer or Bernier.
For Canada as a whole I don't see a bright future for Singh. If he loses in Burnaby I think the NDP will try to "Patrick Brown" it. If they actually find someone better then it will help to split the votes even more. Many economists are predicting a slowdown this year and a recession for 2020. These could affect the government negatively. Especially since the Liberals appears to be literally burning money even when the economy is doing well. There was also a statement released a few weeks ago highlighting that the finance experts working for the government don't expect the government to balance a budget until 2040. These aren't reassuring.
If his pipeline fails again in court he will loses all of his seats in Alberta and if it wins he will loses seats in BC so I don't think it's a really winning issue for him either.
Trudeau can definitely win a second mandate but he's very lucky to have weak opponents.
Moreover in the first quarter of 2019 the Legault government wants to go along with it's bill to ban religious symbols in public and governments jobs which will be supported by the bloc and where Trudeau cannot do anything as he will be walking on thin ice. Polls also showed that in the province support for the bill is at least above 55% (and go up) depending on the jobs affected. Reminder that the same issue helped tank Mulcair in QC when he ran. I also feel his public opinion took a hit in 2018 in the province. Every year in the province on Dec 31 near midnight, there is a hugely popular TV show with humorists and actors that reviews the whole year with humor highlighting the biggest events of the year. Last year Trudeau was shown as a superstar good at dealing with Trump and helping Canada while last night he was shown as an idiot changing costume abroad, pretending to love environment yet bought a failed pipeline and smokes weed to forget about his issues. That's quite the change.
Dairy farmers are numerous here and they absolutely despise the trade agreement with the US and Mexico. They will surely have a role to play in the next campaign and probably for Scheer or Bernier.
For Canada as a whole I don't see a bright future for Singh. If he loses in Burnaby I think the NDP will try to "Patrick Brown" it. If they actually find someone better then it will help to split the votes even more. Many economists are predicting a slowdown this year and a recession for 2020. These could affect the government negatively. Especially since the Liberals appears to be literally burning money even when the economy is doing well. There was also a statement released a few weeks ago highlighting that the finance experts working for the government don't expect the government to balance a budget until 2040. These aren't reassuring.
If his pipeline fails again in court he will loses all of his seats in Alberta and if it wins he will loses seats in BC so I don't think it's a really winning issue for him either.
Trudeau can definitely win a second mandate but he's very lucky to have weak opponents.
Singh losing the Burnaby by election i feel will be big and will lay the ground work for the election.
Liberals losing alberta seats i find will not make that big of a dent. Don't they only have 3 seats in AB? I'd rather keep the seats in BC and make gains if you can.
The pipeline issue is more of a catch 22, he can't really make gains with that issue one way or the other.
Liberals losing alberta seats i find will not make that big of a dent. Don't they only have 3 seats in AB? I'd rather keep the seats in BC and make gains if you can.
The pipeline issue is more of a catch 22, he can't really make gains with that issue one way or the other.
If economic good times guaranteed electoral success, then Stephen Harper and Christy Clark would still be in power. BC had the best economy in Canada during the last BC Election, but the BC Liberals still declined in popular support and eventually lost government.
Both of these governments ran dull electoral campaigns, coasting on their economic success. If Trudeau does the same I think he'll suffer for it.
My theory is that counter intuitively during good economic times people start demanding more than the basic economic fundamentals, and that they're so comfortable and at ease that they they're more likely to take electoral risks. This can of course be hazardous for the incumbent. Trudeau then can't take his foot off the gas pedal, so I'll expect him to announce some big ticket new spending items (eg. Pharmacare).
I'm going to disagree with these two. In several ways Trudeau's policies have made his new supporters reason to be cynical and stay at home, from buying the pipeline to ignoring electoral reform to abandoning promises of limited deficit spending. Every sign to me points to young progressives and indigenous new voters staying home and Red Tories returning to the Conservatives. Given that Trudeau won not due to a big dip in Conservative support but rather new voters this is a big hazard and could result in a Minority Liberal government.
I'm going to wager that Singh wins the byelection. His recently announced Liberal opponent is a failed BC Liberal candidate and hardly a super star. He should be able to beat her. If he doesn't well I still think he'll be the leader going into 2019 because there's simply not enough time to find anyone else to do the job, but I'd guess he'd probably run in Brampton. Singh has done a really weak job and he's going to have to have a hell of a 2019 election campaign if he's going to save the NDP from a big decline in numbers.
I'm going to predict that Trudeau and the Liberals hold onto power thanks to, as someone said, weak opponents. A decline in turn out however could mean he's held to a Minority. I'd certainly expect him to lose his Albertan seats and would not be surprised if a Conservative/NDP pinch results in the loss of several BC ones.
Sheeeeer has hired a phone poll on the carbon tax, trying to get people ginned up against it for October.
I got a robo telemarketer poll call me about the carbon tax and I immediately hanged up because it was so obvious what is was
I got a robo telemarketer poll call me about the carbon tax and I immediately hanged up because it was so obvious what is was
What's the point of running that in QC? It's a provincial government tax here lol. Good Lord that man is dumb.
I am also curious to see how much noise Jason Kenney makes during Alberta's provincial election on equalization, he may hurt Sheer's ambitions Federally in Quebec if he keeps this up
He's a fat bigmouthed asshole. He's going to make all sorts of noise about it because Albertans fucking love hearing about how much Canada steals from them and how everyone else only has food on their table and roofs over their heads because the Feds give them Albertans misappropriated funds.
Oh he will for sure. You always blame everyone else for your trouble.
In other news. It might be time to bring back the guillotine.
Rocco Rossi is also a former National Director of the Liberal Party of Canada.
Every once and a while someone messes up and reveals the Liberal Party's true colours as the party of establishment Bay Street. Good thing for them that Canadians are easily distracted by feel good imagery like having the leader paddle a canoe, walk in a gay pride parade, etc.
- Status