Canadian Politics Thread

[Maninthebox]

2 hours ago, Warhippy said:

I don't know if that is a prereq worth noting.

 

But I would pay for the PPV of that for sure!  Donate the money towards food banks or something.

 

In fairness, we should eschew our party system and just hold a lottery.  339 total seats available.  Everyone of voting age in Canada up to age 60 gets entered, 1 person wins the Pms seat and the other 338 get to be MPs.  Their lives get put on hold and they get to serve a 4 year term where in people can vote to keep the group or hold another lottery.

 

No parties, random people with real world problems and issues and understandings.

 

And we still get to see Maninthebox beating Trudeau and Pierre around a ring!

 

4 years may be asking too much, but otherwise I'd prefer a system like that. Parties are the bane of democracy.

 

No man who seeks power ought be granted it.

[UnkNuk]

1 hour ago, Optimist Prime said:

The columns with a minus sign are the ones paying more

 

I dunno. I think, in previous reports, the columns with the minus sign are the ones receiving money.

 

Consider, the title of the report is:  "Average household net cost of the federal fuel charge in 2030-31 by income quintile".

 

So what's the net cost for a Newfoundland househould in the third quintile? It's $183.  They'll be paying $183. 

 

What's the net cost for a Newfoundland household in the first quintile?  It's -$798.  That is, it's not a cost at all.  It's a receipt of $798.

 

 

 

 

[Optimist Prime]

5 minutes ago, UnkNuk said:

 

I dunno. I think, in previous reports, the columns with the minus sign are the ones receiving money.

 

Consider, the title of the report is:  "Average household net cost of the federal fuel charge in 2030-31 by income quintile".

 

So what's the net cost for a Newfoundland househould in the third quintile? It's $183.  They'll be paying $183. 

 

What's the net cost for a Newfoundland household in the first quintile?  It's -$798.  That is, it's not a cost at all.  It's a receipt of $798.

 

 

 

 

Well now you have thinking you are right. Lmao... I will have to have a closer look tomorrow.

 

Yup, i retract. Thank you, and good eye 

[Maninthebox]

2 hours ago, Optimist Prime said:

the bottom THREE, 60%, 40% and 20%

AND then inside the next level up is the crossover point, most of the 80% group will net benefit with the roughly 75% to 80% portion of that fourth segment losing dollars. Unfortunately it is broken into fifths, so I can't say for sure where in the 75% to 80% that point really is with this one slide. So yeah you are reading it wrong. The columns with a minus sign are the ones paying more than getting the top 20% of earnings households will pay more than they would get back, and some of the next one down as well. 
The overwhelming majority of voters/Canadians will get back more than they pay in. 

The richest of incomes can easily afford the a few thousand a year in extra taxes. Like if you have 250 thousand a year of income; does anyone really lament that you have to pay 1275 dollars of it in carbon tax? Just the rich, but for some reason the right wing is convincing the majority to vote against their own interests using cool slogans and tight tshirts. lol Nice hair indeed.

 

I've never cared about the wealth redistribution the carbon tax boasts. For myself, that is a negative aspect, not a defense. How does taking $1'000.00 from me and giving it to Suzy Welfare benefit anything other than Suzy?

 

What does it do for the environment? How much does the government net? How much is bureaucratic waste? What innovation has it supported? Why does it apply to essentials such heating our homes, or to food production and distribution? Does it actually deter people from excess, or merely increase hardship on those who already struggle on a day to day basis? Does a quarterly rebate really help anyone, or is it just another 'handout' that keeps people reliant on social support?

 

I'm tired of the politicians arguing over how to interpret the numbers; assuming those numbers aren't manufactured to begin with, or invalidated months later.

 

Ultimately, if you (general you...) want to make changes to help the environment, or at least reduce your personal impact on the environment, you will. If you want to help others, go out and help others. Relying on taxation and punitive governmental measures to affect meaningful change seems foolish.

 

[Satchmo]

5 minutes ago, Maninthebox said:

 

I've never cared about the wealth redistribution the carbon tax boasts. For myself, that is a negative aspect, not a defense. How does taking $1'000.00 from me and giving it to Suzy Welfare benefit anything other than Suzy?

 

What does it do for the environment? How much does the government net? How much is bureaucratic waste? What innovation has it supported? Why does it apply to essentials such heating our homes, or to food production and distribution? Does it actually deter people from excess, or merely increase hardship on those who already struggle on a day to day basis? Does a quarterly rebate really help anyone, or is it just another 'handout' that keeps people reliant on social support?

 

I'm tired of the politicians arguing over how to interpret the numbers; assuming those numbers aren't manufactured to begin with, or invalidated months later.

 

Ultimately, if you (general you...) want to make changes to help the environment, or at least reduce your personal impact on the environment, you will. If you want to help others, go out and help others. Relying on taxation and punitive governmental measures to affect meaningful change seems foolish.

 

How do you know all the money goes to Suzie?

 

If you have any interest in how getting rid of carbon tax goes google: australia carbon tax repeal or just australia carbon tax

Discount those who say it was a bad idea as radical lefties if you wish but I think their argument is pretty good.

 

As one person said of the repeal by the Australian Labor Party:

"The difference between Labor's policy and ours is that Julia Gillard introduced a scheme where big polluters paid Australian taxpayers. Tony changed it so that Australian taxpayers pay big polluters."

[Optimist Prime]

1 hour ago, Maninthebox said:

 

I've never cared about the wealth redistribution the carbon tax boasts. For myself, that is a negative aspect, not a defense. How does taking $1'000.00 from me and giving it to Suzy Welfare benefit anything other than Suzy?

 

What does it do for the environment? How much does the government net? How much is bureaucratic waste? What innovation has it supported? Why does it apply to essentials such heating our homes, or to food production and distribution? Does it actually deter people from excess, or merely increase hardship on those who already struggle on a day to day basis? Does a quarterly rebate really help anyone, or is it just another 'handout' that keeps people reliant on social support?

 

I'm tired of the politicians arguing over how to interpret the numbers; assuming those numbers aren't manufactured to begin with, or invalidated months later.

 

Ultimately, if you (general you...) want to make changes to help the environment, or at least reduce your personal impact on the environment, you will. If you want to help others, go out and help others. Relying on taxation and punitive governmental measures to affect meaningful change seems foolish.

 

I get your position. Making the richer folks pay for pollution incentivizes especially them to make more eco friendly choices.

Myself as an example: I bought a 1958 small farmhouse on an acre in 2022. I invested in a heat pump and electric hot water on demand pretty early on. Now my heating and cooling and hot water is all generated by hydro power.

I have plans to renovate my pumphouse into a battery house and install a solar roof inside the next 3 or 4 years, when the old triple thick cedar shake roof is ready to be replaced on its natural life cycle. 

Then all my properties energy needs will be hydro backed and mostly self powered through solar generation. My next car will be an EV when the life cycle of my current gas Kia Soul ends in a few years time.

I am currently not making any money on carbon rebates, so my house is a net payer. 

We were incentivized to make these infrastructure changes knowing we will enjoy savings on carbon taxes over the lifespan of our improvements, along with government rebates offered on making those economic friendly changes.

 

I am not sure we would have made these choices the way we did just on the good for the environment side of the argument without the rebates and future savings factored into the math of doing all the work.

[Optimist Prime]

28 minutes ago, Maninthebox said:

Relying on taxation and punitive governmental measures to affect meaningful change seems foolish.

Every tax and levy we have on almost everything is what you consider "punitive" though. 

 

Cigarettes are taxed through the ass and that tax is 100% punitive towards smokers.

Alcohol tax too, punishes drinkers.

The provincial and federal taxes on gas punishes drivers.

The GST punishes people who spend disposable income on boats, atvs and travel trailers.

Our graduated tax brackets seemingly punish high income earners.

 

If you view taxes as punishment then they all are, not just the carbon levy.

[Optimist Prime]

Quote

Total federal, provincial, territorial and local government spending fell by $7.1 billion in 2022. Spending by all levels of government in Canada, excluding consumption of fixed capital, totalled $962.7 billion in 2022, a decline of 0.7% or $7.1 billion from 2021.

This quote is from statscan. 

a trillion a year, give or take is what it currently costs to run our country, buy F-35's, build hospitals, pay teachers: and a million other line items that make up what it takes to run Canada. 
I don't view paying my lets say between 35 and 40k share of those taxes. I know people with less than me pay less in taxes, and in some cases like GST and Carbon Levy they get some or all or even more than they pay in back. I am perfectly happy with this, because I know people who have more than my household in annual income pay even more than me, and I am fine with that too. The secret is I have more than i need. I am fortunate. Those with more than me have far more than they need. They are even more fortunate. Those with less than me are less fortunate, and some of my dearest friends actually earn less than we pay in taxes in a full year. I am absolutely thrilled they get some little bits back and can make use of 10 dollar a day childcare and look forward to the carbon rebate coming out soon (in two days the money starts going out the door).

 

I just don't view taxes as a punishment, i view them as a way to contribute to the wellbeing of my community and those less well off than me. 
I think it is just a perspective issue. My brother in law dwarfs my household income, and he is threatening to leave to Texas to avoid the taxes.. But he doesn't remember that his three kids didn't cost him a penny in the hospital, the last one was born early in October this year and has been back to emergency twice in his first few weeks on earth. All free. He was a drain on society for the first 29 years of his life, getting by on the social safety net and a 100 bucks a weekend gig as a DJ. His perspective has been wildly influenced by Pierre Poilievre's rhetoric and his situational change now that he is done his schooling (heavily subsidized by you guessed it: taxpayers) and is in his chosen career. 
perspective. 

[aGENT]

10 hours ago, Boudrias said:

As is typical in socialist societies it is always greed and envy that are used to explain social ills. How about a real discussion about why the middle class is in trouble? Attacking the return on invested capital is short sighted if there is to be any hope for improving incomes for so many. 

 

If taxing the rich will solve the problems of the sinking middle class then throw that option on the table and talk it thru. What happens when you tax those rich people? To your earlier point about the carrying cost of federal debt at $45 billion which will exceed $50 billion next year. How about the billions $ of criminal money  that have been laundered in BC and invested in real estate. Higher real estate prices make housing unaffordable. Drugs sap the social fabric of our society and that trade doesn't care who they destroy. Finally we have a federal government who brought over 2 million people into our country with no clear idea of how to house them or provide social services. It has overwhelmed most aspects of infrastructure. 

 

IMHO the destruction of the middle class is a prerequisite for the political extremes, left and right, to enact the changes they want. It is working very well for them in Canada. Canadians smugly point fingers at the Americans and assume we are doing so much better. We aren't. 

 

Personally, as one of the dreaded "centre-lefties" here I'd rather see people's income increase compared to CEOs for once. Just give the workers a fairer cut off those records profits. Rather than "tax the rich", I say "pay the poor".

 

I'd also LOVE to see people's purchasing habits change. Support companies that treat and pay their employees fairly. Support companies that make an honest effort to minimize their environmental impact. Support companies that make/design/serve their product /service locally and or domestically. That gets a lot easier if we "pay the poor" too. Stop the race to the bottom, off shore everything, make everything disposable nonsense. And pay people.

[the destroyer of worlds]

7 minutes ago, aGENT said:

 

Personally, as one of the dreaded "centre-lefties" here I'd rather see people's income increase compared to CEOs for once. Just give the workers a fairer cut off those records profits. Rather than "tax the rich", I say "pay the poor".

 

I'd also LOVE to see people's purchasing habits change. Support companies that treat and pay their employees fairly. Support companies that make an honest effort to minimize their environmental impact. Support companies that make/design/serve their product /service locally and or domestically. That gets a lot easier if we "pay the poor" too. Stop the race to the bottom, off shore everything, make everything disposable nonsense. And pay people.

Decades of Labour getting shit on and barely keeping up with inflation while CEO pay, productivity, housing costs all went up through the roof should be enough.  But EVERY TIME people talk about increasing wages they get the usual complaints that it will ruin the economy.  Businesses/factories/workplaces will shut down cause reasons.  EVERY TIME.  Decades of that crap.  I guarantee that if you go back to the early 90's when they were pushing to raise the minimum wage to $6.00 an hour, there were numerous letters to the editor of your local paper or editorials in said paper crapping all over that plan.  

[Gurn]

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/canada-expels-indian-high-commissioner-five-other-diplomats/ar-AA1sfiQE?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=1cb55168cc154599a86254aa2e0e7f00&ei=20

"

OTTAWA — Canada has expelled six Indian diplomats, including the high commissioner.

A senior government official with knowledge of the situation says the expulsions come as Canada has evidence of ongoing violent criminal activity linked to the Indian government.

India had said earlier it was withdrawing its diplomats, but the Canadian official says India's announcement came after Canada had declared high commissioner Sanjay Kumar Verma and five other diplomats persona non grata.

The RCMP is holding a news conference at its Ottawa headquarters today to provide more details about the investigation.

Canada's decision to expel the diplomats comes amid an ongoing investigation into the 2023 death of Sikh leader Hardeep Singh Nijjar in British Columbia.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Oct. 14, 2024.

[Warhippy]

1 hour ago, Gurn said:

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/canada-expels-indian-high-commissioner-five-other-diplomats/ar-AA1sfiQE?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=1cb55168cc154599a86254aa2e0e7f00&ei=20

"

OTTAWA — Canada has expelled six Indian diplomats, including the high commissioner.

A senior government official with knowledge of the situation says the expulsions come as Canada has evidence of ongoing violent criminal activity linked to the Indian government.

India had said earlier it was withdrawing its diplomats, but the Canadian official says India's announcement came after Canada had declared high commissioner Sanjay Kumar Verma and five other diplomats persona non grata.

The RCMP is holding a news conference at its Ottawa headquarters today to provide more details about the investigation.

Canada's decision to expel the diplomats comes amid an ongoing investigation into the 2023 death of Sikh leader Hardeep Singh Nijjar in British Columbia.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Oct. 14, 2024.

Good.  Now do China and their policing stations.

[NewbieCanuckFan]

44 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

Good.  Now do China and their policing stations.

They should've been done first as I don't recall India holding Canadians hostage in a tit-for-tat move when one of their high ranking party members was detained.

Edited Monday at 06:37 PM by NewbieCanuckFan

[Warhippy]

40 minutes ago, NewbieCanuckFan said:

They should've been done first as I don't recall India holding Canadians hostage in a tit-for-tat move when one of their high ranking party members was detained.

The sad thing is, aside from this move I don't see either of the 2 big parties actually wanting to upset or piss off China or India to the point of diplomatic angst that would lead to economic turmoil

[The Arrogant Worms]

Poilievre non-committal on increasing pension payments after supporting motion in the House

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/poilievre-old-age-pension-1.7348714

[The Arrogant Worms]

Alberta government proposing additional restrictions on wind and solar energy

https://calgary.ctvnews.ca/alberta-government-proposing-additional-restrictions-on-wind-and-solar-energy-1.7073358

[Warhippy]

32 minutes ago, The Arrogant Worms said:

Alberta government proposing additional restrictions on wind and solar energy

https://calgary.ctvnews.ca/alberta-government-proposing-additional-restrictions-on-wind-and-solar-energy-1.7073358

Waiting patiently for this to blow up in her face and the O&G development groups

 

Because this would be a total restriction on ALL energy development or simply prove that it would be against strictly green energy projects only.  It would also restrict farmers entirely from allowing open grazing on grasslands which disrupts the environment.

 

Come on lawsuits

 

That approach includes preventing renewable energy projects from being within 35 kilometres of "pristine viewscapes" and parks and protected areas, and a near total ban where soil conditions are prime for yielding crops.

"We need to ensure that we're not sacrificing our future agricultural yields, or tourism dollars, or breathtaking viewscapes to rush renewables developments," Smith said at the time.

Back in February Smith also said the government was planning to go beyond viewscapes and cropland and would consider imposing further restrictions related to Alberta's native grassland areas and irrigated and irrigable land.

A first look at what those grassland and irrigated land restrictions could be was made available when the government asked some municipalities, industry officials, and landowners for input this summer.

Edited Monday at 08:54 PM by Warhippy

[Bob Long]

37 minutes ago, The Arrogant Worms said:

Alberta government proposing additional restrictions on wind and solar energy

https://calgary.ctvnews.ca/alberta-government-proposing-additional-restrictions-on-wind-and-solar-energy-1.7073358

 

Oh the irony of Danielle Smith being anti hot air.

 

[4petesake]

28 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

Waiting patiently for this to blow up in her face and the O&G development groups

 

Because this would be a total restriction on ALL energy development or simply prove that it would be against strictly green energy projects only.  It would also restrict farmers entirely from allowing open grazing on grasslands which disrupts the environment.

 

Come on lawsuits

 

That approach includes preventing renewable energy projects from being within 35 kilometres of "pristine viewscapes" and parks and protected areas, and a near total ban where soil conditions are prime for yielding crops.

"We need to ensure that we're not sacrificing our future agricultural yields, or tourism dollars, or breathtaking viewscapes to rush renewables developments," Smith said at the time.

Back in February Smith also said the government was planning to go beyond viewscapes and cropland and would consider imposing further restrictions related to Alberta's native grassland areas and irrigated and irrigable land.

A first look at what those grassland and irrigated land restrictions could be was made available when the government asked some municipalities, industry officials, and landowners for input this summer.

 

Quite odd that when O&G wanted to explore and drill on our prime crop land  in Alberta we had no say in the matter other than a little bit of quibbling over compensation. Sacrificing crops & view for pump jacks never seemed to be an issue then or now, and never mind the issue of orphan wells taking up valuable crop and grasslands all across the province. 

[Warhippy]

1 hour ago, 4petesake said:

 

Quite odd that when O&G wanted to explore and drill on our prime crop land  in Alberta we had no say in the matter other than a little bit of quibbling over compensation. Sacrificing crops & view for pump jacks never seemed to be an issue then or now, and never mind the issue of orphan wells taking up valuable crop and grasslands all across the province. 

But if you put solar banks on your home, outbuildings or on your land or even a windmill oh man.....you better love those 16 dead wells and 3 defunct pump jacks and like it.

 

And don't piss and moan about the views because we're mining the mountains anyway

[Optimist Prime]

2 hours ago, Warhippy said:

Waiting patiently for this to blow up in her face and the O&G development groups

 

Because this would be a total restriction on ALL energy development or simply prove that it would be against strictly green energy projects only.  It would also restrict farmers entirely from allowing open grazing on grasslands which disrupts the environment.

 

Come on lawsuits

 

That approach includes preventing renewable energy projects from being within 35 kilometres of "pristine viewscapes" and parks and protected areas, and a near total ban where soil conditions are prime for yielding crops.

"We need to ensure that we're not sacrificing our future agricultural yields, or tourism dollars, or breathtaking viewscapes to rush renewables developments," Smith said at the time.

Back in February Smith also said the government was planning to go beyond viewscapes and cropland and would consider imposing further restrictions related to Alberta's native grassland areas and irrigated and irrigable land.

A first look at what those grassland and irrigated land restrictions could be was made available when the government asked some municipalities, industry officials, and landowners for input this summer.

She is batsgit crazy and an embarrassment to Canadian politics. Even P.P  seems perfectly normal when held up beside her for comparison 

[Maninthebox]

2 hours ago, 4petesake said:

 

Quite odd that when O&G wanted to explore and drill on our prime crop land  in Alberta we had no say in the matter other than a little bit of quibbling over compensation. Sacrificing crops & view for pump jacks never seemed to be an issue then or now, and never mind the issue of orphan wells taking up valuable crop and grasslands all across the province. 

 

Was Smith premier then? Does she have a stance on this now?

[4petesake]

13 minutes ago, Maninthebox said:

 

Was Smith premier then? Does she have a stance on this now?

No she wasn’t. So far as I can tell her government’s stance hasn’t changed for oil & gas rights of way. Most landowners in Alberta don’t own mineral rights. The Province owns 81% of those rights so oil companies obtain them by leasing from the province at a closed auction. 
 

I might be corrected but I believe her stance is “drill baby, drill.”

[Maninthebox]

On 10/13/2024 at 4:36 PM, Satchmo said:

How do you know all the money goes to Suzie?

 

If you have any interest in how getting rid of carbon tax goes google: australia carbon tax repeal or just australia carbon tax

Discount those who say it was a bad idea as radical lefties if you wish but I think their argument is pretty good.

 

As one person said of the repeal by the Australian Labor Party:

"The difference between Labor's policy and ours is that Julia Gillard introduced a scheme where big polluters paid Australian taxpayers. Tony changed it so that Australian taxpayers pay big polluters."

 

It's irrelevant how much Suzie gets. My curiosity tends toward the less than 10% of the collected carbon tax that isn't slated for wealth redistribution.

 

The Australian example doesn't appear to answer any of my questions. It wasn't in effect long enough to bear much fruit. The additional cost of the tax appears to have been born largely by the consumer. Those costs disappeared after the repeal. The conjecture that a longer carbon program would likely have led to further 'green energy' development is probably accurate, though such development has continued at a (speculatively) slower pace in some fields, as it has virtually everywhere. Australia being heavily reliant on imported coal is an obvious concern, but without a greater understanding of their politics, it would seem Australians didn't feel a carbon tax was part of their solution. 

 

This is all a very basic summary of the information I read. I did not look up opinion pieces or similar articles. Was there something else I should have paid more attention to?

[Maninthebox]

12 minutes ago, 4petesake said:

No she wasn’t. So far as I can tell her government’s stance hasn’t changed for oil & gas rights of way. Most landowners in Alberta don’t own mineral rights. The Province owns 81% of those rights so oil companies obtain them by leasing from the province at a closed auction. 
 

I might be corrected but I believe her stance is “drill baby, drill.”

 

You're probably correct. The somewhat recent (?) controversy regarding cleaning up those defunct wells, returning unspent funding to the feds, etc, was disheartening. 

 

I don't actually have an issue with the general idea of limiting placement of (any) structure, (particularly where it would impact agriculture, less so tourism), but we'll have to see how it comes into effect. 

 

Never been a fan of the laws regarding mineral rights. God money, and all that.