Canadian Politics - 2019 Election

[GuitarStv]

My vote is in the mail! Nothing to do but look forward to watching the Thanksgiving bickering unfold.

What's the procedure for mailing in your vote?  I've always just gone to the local polling station.

[daverobev]

My vote is in the mail! Nothing to do but look forward to watching the Thanksgiving bickering unfold.

What's the procedure for mailing in your vote?  I've always just gone to the local polling station.

https://elections.ca/content2.aspx?section=svr&dir=app&document=index&lang=e

They send you an envelope and an envelope to go in the envelope and an envelope to go in the envelope. And a piece of paper to write your candidate's name on.

Your write your candidate's name on, then put it in the envelope, then put that envelope in an envelope, than put that envelope in an envelope, then send it back.

[GuitarStv]

Weird that this is not simply done through a website.

[daverobev]

The general feeling is that it is too abusable, even though IIRC studies show tiny tiny percentages of plausible voter fraud.

I can see why they'd want to verify, but signature and warning about jail time aside...

I mean, RBC won't let me wire money without being physically in branch. Um, I'm in France. I can't get to a branch.

[RetiredAt63]

Weird that this is not simply done through a website.

I did my last municipal voting online.  It worked fine. 

I had to go online with Elections Canada to register, since I have moved.  If they can do my registration online, why not my voting as well?

I wonder if they worry about security more if the voting is on a larger scale?  Or given the ongoing mess with Phoenix, they may worry about having a system that can handle the job.

[TrMama]

Weird that this is not simply done through a website.

I did my last municipal voting online.  It worked fine. 

I had to go online with Elections Canada to register, since I have moved.  If they can do my registration online, why not my voting as well?

I wonder if they worry about security more if the voting is on a larger scale?  Or given the ongoing mess with Phoenix, they may worry about having a system that can handle the job.

I'll likely do advance voting in person. My polling station is open Oct 11-14 from 9am-9pm. That sounds way more convenient that trying to get in on a weekday with the rest of the masses.

[Metalcat]

Weird that this is not simply done through a website.

I did my last municipal voting online.  It worked fine. 

I had to go online with Elections Canada to register, since I have moved.  If they can do my registration online, why not my voting as well?

I wonder if they worry about security more if the voting is on a larger scale?  Or given the ongoing mess with Phoenix, they may worry about having a system that can handle the job.

I'll likely do advance voting in person. My polling station is open Oct 11-14 from 9am-9pm. That sounds way more convenient that trying to get in on a weekday with the rest of the masses.

I always vote in advance. I truly don't understand why people don't do it more often. I'll be voting next Saturday, it will probably take 5 minutes.

[PoutineLover]

I usually don't like advance voting when I haven't decided who to vote for yet, and last minute events could still sway me. But this year, the fact that all the advance voting days are on Thanksgiving weekend is the reason I can't, since I'll be out of town. I think the advance polling days were really poorly scheduled this time around, I'm sure I'm not the only person who will be traveling that weekend.

[RetiredAt63]

Advance polls on Thanksgiving weekend?  That is just plain stupid.

[TrMama]

Advance polls on Thanksgiving weekend?  That is just plain stupid.

But for those of us who still work and aren't travelling it means we get an entire extra day to vote at our leisure. I think it's fantastic.

[scottish]

So what's your take on deficit spending?   Is this a non-issue because the federal debt looks good compared to other countries?  (I'm a little worried that this calculation excludes the provincial debt...)

I'm kind of appalled by the forecast deficits, especially of the liberals.   This is expensive for an individual and it will be expensive for a country.   Is the deficit necessary for Canada to compete in the world by paying for education and medical programs?    Or is it just needed to bribe us with our own money?

Or perhaps all the parties will have big deficits, so it just doesn't matter...

[RetiredAt63]

Advance polls on Thanksgiving weekend?  That is just plain stupid.

But for those of us who still work and aren't travelling it means we get an entire extra day to vote at our leisure. I think it's fantastic.

True. But unless your polling area is super busy, or you will be away, what is bad about just voting on the day?  I may be spoiled by having been a rural voter for decades, I  never had more than a 10 minute wait.  I will have the urban experience this time. Although my apartment complex could amost rate a polling station or 2 based on our numbers.

[RetiredAt63]

So what's your take on deficit spending?   Is this a non-issue because the federal debt looks good compared to other countries?  (I'm a little worried that this calculation excludes the provincial debt...)

I'm kind of appalled by the forecast deficits, especially of the liberals.   This is expensive for an individual and it will be expensive for a country.   Is the deficit necessary for Canada to compete in the world by paying for education and medical programs?    Or is it just needed to bribe us with our own money?

Or perhaps all the parties will have big deficits, so it just doesn't matter...

Education and health care are technically provincial; how much federal subsidy is there?  Given how fiscally non-conservative the Conservatives are, I  figure they are all going to spend money, we just have to choose where we want it to go.

Is it hubris or irony or what appropriate term, that after the last election when the Conservatives fussed about dual citizenship re Mulcair and Dion, it turns out Scheer also has dual citizenship?

[snacky]

I have a master's in politics, and here is some of the thinking around deficit spending.

Government spending does a ton of things. It funds social services of all kinds, infrastructure, and encourages economic activity. Yes, debt is absolutely a drag on the economy, but not as much as you'd think. In general economists and policy wonks aren't worried, unless drumming up worry about debt is to their benefit.
If Canada went hard on the debt, enacted austerity measures across the board, the resulting economic downturn and political chaos would be more harmful to the national economy than the reduced debt would justify. If you and your family stopped eating and turned the heat off in winter to pay off the mortgage, you would die. The reduced debt wouldn't be worth it. Recovering from that event would be outrageously expensive, both in the short and long term, and it would be political suicide for the current regime. When governments talk about austerity they mean cutting programs to the poorest people, who don't have the economic power to do much of anything anyways.

A lot of the spending is technically debt, but not really. When a government commits to funding project X with 10 million over 10 years, they are paying 1 million and incurring 9 million in debt on the books. There is no interest being paid on the 9mil. In a decade that million that is being paid to the project isn't worth what it was when the project started, so the commitment gets cheaper over time, at the rate of inflation.

When people seeking election or criticizing the government start making noise about the deficit, look at what they are trying to draw attention away from. It isn't the crisis situation it seems to be.

Canadian consumer debt, however...

Edit to add:
The government also subsidizes industries. Resource extraction, tourism, agriculture, the film industry... Almost everything has some sort of direct or indirect subsidy. There is no ROI for the government on this spending, but if it stopped the net good done to the national economy as a whole would dry up. It's worth the debt, if you look at the big picture. So deficit spending is a fixture and Canada has a strong and diverse economy, considering our population size.

[RetiredAt63]

Thanks Snacky for shedding some light on this.  So basically we look at where the various parties propose to spend money and vote for the ones who spend money where we want it spent?   

I can't help but remember that Harper cut taxes to get federal revenue down so he could cut federal support to things he didn't like.  In some things Harper was a lot like the Bloc, he wanted a lot less federal government and a lot more provincial government.

[Wrenchturner]

I have a master's in politics, and here is some of the thinking around deficit spending.

Government spending does a ton of things. It funds social services of all kinds, infrastructure, and encourages economic activity. Yes, debt is absolutely a drag on the economy, but not as much as you'd think. In general economists and policy wonks aren't worried, unless drumming up worry about debt is to their benefit.
If Canada went hard on the debt, enacted austerity measures across the board, the resulting economic downturn and political chaos would be more harmful to the national economy than the reduced debt would justify. If you and your family stopped eating and turned the heat off in winter to pay off the mortgage, you would die. The reduced debt wouldn't be worth it. Recovering from that event would be outrageously expensive, both in the short and long term, and it would be political suicide for the current regime. When governments talk about austerity they mean cutting programs to the poorest people, who don't have the economic power to do much of anything anyways.

A lot of the spending is technically debt, but not really. When a government commits to funding project X with 10 million over 10 years, they are paying 1 million and incurring 9 million in debt on the books. There is no interest being paid on the 9mil. In a decade that million that is being paid to the project isn't worth what it was when the project started, so the commitment gets cheaper over time, at the rate of inflation.

When people seeking election or criticizing the government start making noise about the deficit, look at what they are trying to draw attention away from. It isn't the crisis situation it seems to be.

Canadian consumer debt, however...

Edit to add:
The government also subsidizes industries. Resource extraction, tourism, agriculture, the film industry... Almost everything has some sort of direct or indirect subsidy. There is no ROI for the government on this spending, but if it stopped the net good done to the national economy as a whole would dry up. It's worth the debt, if you look at the big picture. So deficit spending is a fixture and Canada has a strong and diverse economy, considering our population size.

Why are we paying so much in interest annually then, if your statement regarding interest is correct?

I support the Conservatives' move to reduce foreign aid though. 

In other news: Scheer is turning out to be the spineless coward I thought he might be.  He should have revoked his US citizenship years ago, not when it was convenient for him.  I don't mind that people have dual citizenship but a leader of a country should not hold a second citizenship.

[TrMama]

Advance polls on Thanksgiving weekend?  That is just plain stupid.

But for those of us who still work and aren't travelling it means we get an entire extra day to vote at our leisure. I think it's fantastic.

True. But unless your polling area is super busy, or you will be away, what is bad about just voting on the day?  I may be spoiled by having been a rural voter for decades, I  never had more than a 10 minute wait.  I will have the urban experience this time. Although my apartment complex could amost rate a polling station or 2 based on our numbers.

Traffic. Traffic is a major problem when you don't live and work in the same riding. Since I live in a mid-sized urban city my office and home are in different ridings. If I had to vote on election day I'd do it very early in the morning on my way to work and it wouldn't be so bad. However, that's not possible for everyone.

Yes, yes I know our employers are supposed to give us time off to vote, but it's still a big PITA.

I also really like taking my kids with me to vote. That's a heck of a lot easier on a weekend.

[Jouer]

I have a master's in politics, and here is some of the thinking around deficit spending.

Government spending does a ton of things. It funds social services of all kinds, infrastructure, and encourages economic activity. Yes, debt is absolutely a drag on the economy, but not as much as you'd think. In general economists and policy wonks aren't worried, unless drumming up worry about debt is to their benefit.
If Canada went hard on the debt, enacted austerity measures across the board, the resulting economic downturn and political chaos would be more harmful to the national economy than the reduced debt would justify. If you and your family stopped eating and turned the heat off in winter to pay off the mortgage, you would die. The reduced debt wouldn't be worth it. Recovering from that event would be outrageously expensive, both in the short and long term, and it would be political suicide for the current regime. When governments talk about austerity they mean cutting programs to the poorest people, who don't have the economic power to do much of anything anyways.

A lot of the spending is technically debt, but not really. When a government commits to funding project X with 10 million over 10 years, they are paying 1 million and incurring 9 million in debt on the books. There is no interest being paid on the 9mil. In a decade that million that is being paid to the project isn't worth what it was when the project started, so the commitment gets cheaper over time, at the rate of inflation.

When people seeking election or criticizing the government start making noise about the deficit, look at what they are trying to draw attention away from. It isn't the crisis situation it seems to be.

Canadian consumer debt, however...

Edit to add:
The government also subsidizes industries. Resource extraction, tourism, agriculture, the film industry... Almost everything has some sort of direct or indirect subsidy. There is no ROI for the government on this spending, but if it stopped the net good done to the national economy as a whole would dry up. It's worth the debt, if you look at the big picture. So deficit spending is a fixture and Canada has a strong and diverse economy, considering our population size.

Why are we paying so much in interest annually then, if your statement regarding interest is correct?

I support the Conservatives' move to reduce foreign aid though. 

In other news: Scheer is turning out to be the spineless coward I thought he might be.  He should have revoked his US citizenship years ago, not when it was convenient for him.  I don't mind that people have dual citizenship but a leader of a country should not hold a second citizenship.

Are we paying too much in interest? The amount of interest as a percentage of GDP hasn't increased in the past 4 years and in fact is lower than say 20 years ago.

So I agree that $25B is a lot to pay in interest payments a year. It's a big scary number. But it would take 100's of billions of dollars in budget cuts to remove that $25B in interest payments. That amount of cuts would severely decrease our revenue, leaving us worse off than status quo.

In summary: best to look at both sides of the ledger when discussing debt. 

[RetiredAt63]

Advance polls on Thanksgiving weekend?  That is just plain stupid.

But for those of us who still work and aren't travelling it means we get an entire extra day to vote at our leisure. I think it's fantastic.

True. But unless your polling area is super busy, or you will be away, what is bad about just voting on the day?  I may be spoiled by having been a rural voter for decades, I  never had more than a 10 minute wait.  I will have the urban experience this time. Although my apartment complex could amost rate a polling station or 2 based on our numbers.

Traffic. Traffic is a major problem when you don't live and work in the same riding. Since I live in a mid-sized urban city my office and home are in different ridings. If I had to vote on election day I'd do it very early in the morning on my way to work and it wouldn't be so bad. However, that's not possible for everyone.

Yes, yes I know our employers are supposed to give us time off to vote, but it's still a big PITA.

I also really like taking my kids with me to vote. That's a heck of a lot easier on a weekend.

I've never worked and lived in the same riding. 

I guess there is traffic and then there is hellhole traffic. I had an hour drive commute, longer if I  went straight from work to the polls, but with short lineups at the polls it never seemed that bad.  When DD was little I  just picked her up on the way and she came with me.  I thought that seeing her parents vote in every election was part of her learning to be a responsible citizen.  I would still prefer the option of voting online, as long as it doesn't make it harder for those who don't have easy online access to vote.

Given that this is the first time for me living in an urban area for an election since I was a student, I  hope my voting experience this time doesn't end up with me ranting about it here    😕

[techwiz]

The discussion on debt is very interesting thanks to @snacky  & @Jouer I started to look at in a different light. Kind of like the pay the mortgage off or not discussions!

The math/logic makes sense, debt is not always bad. This is contrary to my default gut reaction that debt is bad.  I had to read this to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_public_debt get a better understanding.

I wish the political news and debates were discussed at this level so the general public could make informed decisions, rather than listening to all the mud slinging, and fear attacks.   

[Wrenchturner]

I have a master's in politics, and here is some of the thinking around deficit spending.

Government spending does a ton of things. It funds social services of all kinds, infrastructure, and encourages economic activity. Yes, debt is absolutely a drag on the economy, but not as much as you'd think. In general economists and policy wonks aren't worried, unless drumming up worry about debt is to their benefit.
If Canada went hard on the debt, enacted austerity measures across the board, the resulting economic downturn and political chaos would be more harmful to the national economy than the reduced debt would justify. If you and your family stopped eating and turned the heat off in winter to pay off the mortgage, you would die. The reduced debt wouldn't be worth it. Recovering from that event would be outrageously expensive, both in the short and long term, and it would be political suicide for the current regime. When governments talk about austerity they mean cutting programs to the poorest people, who don't have the economic power to do much of anything anyways.

A lot of the spending is technically debt, but not really. When a government commits to funding project X with 10 million over 10 years, they are paying 1 million and incurring 9 million in debt on the books. There is no interest being paid on the 9mil. In a decade that million that is being paid to the project isn't worth what it was when the project started, so the commitment gets cheaper over time, at the rate of inflation.

When people seeking election or criticizing the government start making noise about the deficit, look at what they are trying to draw attention away from. It isn't the crisis situation it seems to be.

Canadian consumer debt, however...

Edit to add:
The government also subsidizes industries. Resource extraction, tourism, agriculture, the film industry... Almost everything has some sort of direct or indirect subsidy. There is no ROI for the government on this spending, but if it stopped the net good done to the national economy as a whole would dry up. It's worth the debt, if you look at the big picture. So deficit spending is a fixture and Canada has a strong and diverse economy, considering our population size.

Why are we paying so much in interest annually then, if your statement regarding interest is correct?

I support the Conservatives' move to reduce foreign aid though. 

In other news: Scheer is turning out to be the spineless coward I thought he might be.  He should have revoked his US citizenship years ago, not when it was convenient for him.  I don't mind that people have dual citizenship but a leader of a country should not hold a second citizenship.

Are we paying too much in interest? The amount of interest as a percentage of GDP hasn't increased in the past 4 years and in fact is lower than say 20 years ago.

So I agree that $25B is a lot to pay in interest payments a year. It's a big scary number. But it would take 100's of billions of dollars in budget cuts to remove that $25B in interest payments. That amount of cuts would severely decrease our revenue, leaving us worse off than status quo.

In summary: best to look at both sides of the ledger when discussing debt.

I misread the third paragraph.  Obviously a commitment to spend in the future is not the same as debt in the present.

If we are paying less in interest now, it's worth assessing how much of that is due to lower rates.  Low rates hide high principals.  See: housing!

[scottish]

Hmmm, when you combine the provincial and federal debt, the debt statistics don't look so rosy.   It's on both the wikipedia page and in this timely article in the globe and mail (warning, this is a cautionary article about public debt):

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-heavy-lifting-seven-reasons-why-voters-should-worry-more-about-big/

It looks like debt and politics are hopelessly intertwined.   If politicans can use spending to achieve an electoral advantage they will.   The years of budget surpluses under the last Liberal government were an anomaly.

[Jouer]

I have a master's in politics, and here is some of the thinking around deficit spending.

Government spending does a ton of things. It funds social services of all kinds, infrastructure, and encourages economic activity. Yes, debt is absolutely a drag on the economy, but not as much as you'd think. In general economists and policy wonks aren't worried, unless drumming up worry about debt is to their benefit.
If Canada went hard on the debt, enacted austerity measures across the board, the resulting economic downturn and political chaos would be more harmful to the national economy than the reduced debt would justify. If you and your family stopped eating and turned the heat off in winter to pay off the mortgage, you would die. The reduced debt wouldn't be worth it. Recovering from that event would be outrageously expensive, both in the short and long term, and it would be political suicide for the current regime. When governments talk about austerity they mean cutting programs to the poorest people, who don't have the economic power to do much of anything anyways.

A lot of the spending is technically debt, but not really. When a government commits to funding project X with 10 million over 10 years, they are paying 1 million and incurring 9 million in debt on the books. There is no interest being paid on the 9mil. In a decade that million that is being paid to the project isn't worth what it was when the project started, so the commitment gets cheaper over time, at the rate of inflation.

When people seeking election or criticizing the government start making noise about the deficit, look at what they are trying to draw attention away from. It isn't the crisis situation it seems to be.

Canadian consumer debt, however...

Edit to add:
The government also subsidizes industries. Resource extraction, tourism, agriculture, the film industry... Almost everything has some sort of direct or indirect subsidy. There is no ROI for the government on this spending, but if it stopped the net good done to the national economy as a whole would dry up. It's worth the debt, if you look at the big picture. So deficit spending is a fixture and Canada has a strong and diverse economy, considering our population size.

Why are we paying so much in interest annually then, if your statement regarding interest is correct?

I support the Conservatives' move to reduce foreign aid though. 

In other news: Scheer is turning out to be the spineless coward I thought he might be.  He should have revoked his US citizenship years ago, not when it was convenient for him.  I don't mind that people have dual citizenship but a leader of a country should not hold a second citizenship.

Are we paying too much in interest? The amount of interest as a percentage of GDP hasn't increased in the past 4 years and in fact is lower than say 20 years ago.

So I agree that $25B is a lot to pay in interest payments a year. It's a big scary number. But it would take 100's of billions of dollars in budget cuts to remove that $25B in interest payments. That amount of cuts would severely decrease our revenue, leaving us worse off than status quo.

In summary: best to look at both sides of the ledger when discussing debt.

I misread the third paragraph.  Obviously a commitment to spend in the future is not the same as debt in the present.

If we are paying less in interest now, it's worth assessing how much of that is due to lower rates.  Low rates hide high principals.  See: housing!

That's right. Some of the reason for low interest payments is b/c of low rates. No doubt. The other part of the calculation is our GDP has increased, which is obviously a good thing.  Yay growth!

[RetiredAt63]

I have a meeting tonight, but I am going to skip it and stay home and watch the debate.  Anyone else tuning in?

It starts in 35 minutes, btw.  So we should all eat our dinners and pour something strong to keep us company while we watch.  ;-)

[Jon_Snow]

I have a meeting tonight, but I am going to skip it and stay home and watch the debate.  Anyone else tuning in?

It starts in 35 minutes, btw.  So we should all eat our dinners and pour something strong to keep us company while we watch.  ;-)

I'll watch, but I don't think I've EVER been as underwhelmed as I have been with this crop of choices this year. I'll definitely be doing the "plugging my nose" as I vote this year. The one individual I actually think has performed well and is somewhat likable, belongs to a party I cannot ever see myself voting for. Speculate away. ;) The fact that this thing starts at 4pm PST has a lot of folks out here a bit cranky BTW. I don't have a job and I know how to work a PVR, so I'm having difficulty mustering up the outrage PERSONALLY. ;)

One thing I am thankful is the fact that we get this all over with quickly compared to our wonderful friends to the south....

[snacky]

I'm enjoying it.

[Lews Therin]

How do people resist throwing up when Bernier talks? Every time he talks, I cringe. MASS IMMIGRATION IS UNACCEPTABLE....

Seriously, we're all immigrants at some point. What's wrong with him?

[snacky]

How do people resist throwing up when Bernier talks? Every time he talks, I cringe. MASS IMMIGRATION IS UNACCEPTABLE....

Seriously, we're all immigrants at some point. What's wrong with him?

He looks like Peter Pettigrew.

[RetiredAt63]

How do people resist throwing up when Bernier talks? Every time he talks, I cringe. MASS IMMIGRATION IS UNACCEPTABLE....

Seriously, we're all immigrants at some point. What's wrong with him?

He looks like Peter Pettigrew.

I still remember Bernier's girlfriend security gaffe.
Scheer still reminds me of a chipmunk.
I like Blanchet's hands, guess I'm still a Quebecer at heart.
Trudeau basically what I  expected.
I am favourably impressed by May and Singh, more than I expected to be.

[RetiredAt63]

Yay Elizabeth. No loss on women's hard-won rights.

[RetiredAt63]

So how come May and Singh were on the ends while Bernier and Blanchet were more in the middle?

The National is doing an analysis, they have some juicy clips.

[six-car-habit]

   ****In other news: Scheer is turning out to be the spineless coward I thought he might be.  He should have revoked his US citizenship years ago, not when it was convenient for him.  I don't mind that people have dual citizenship but a leader of a country should not hold a second citizenship.****

 But if he screws up horribly and is chased [ on foot] out of the country he can just stay here [USA] , well unless we get a wall built on the Northern border sometime soon... 

[RetiredAt63]

How do people resist throwing up when Bernier talks? Every time he talks, I cringe. MASS IMMIGRATION IS UNACCEPTABLE....

Seriously, we're all immigrants at some point. What's wrong with him?

Because ...... um, because .........He has his?  /s

[RetiredAt63]

And Blanchet just refused to answer a question from Rebel News.  Even though it was about western separatism. Interesting about his take on first nations, as in they are nations, Quebec is a nation, Canada is a nation, we do not give them the same rights as nations.  He went after Scheer more than Trudeau in the debate.  It will be interesting to see how the Bloc do in the election.  And which parties lose support to the Bloc.

I should say that often the Bloc have really good candidates,  so if one wants to have a strong Quebec voice in Parliament via the Bloc, there is usually a good candidate to vote for.

[Lews Therin]

And Blanchet just refused to answer a question from Rebel News.  Even though it was about western separatism. Interesting about his take on first nations, as in they are nations, Quebec is a nation, Canada is a nation, we do not give them the same rights as nations.  He went after Scheer more than Trudeau in the debate.  It will be interesting to see how the Bloc do in the election.  And which parties lose support to the Bloc.

I should say that often the Bloc have really good candidates,  so if one wants to have a strong Quebec voice in Parliament via the Bloc, there is usually a good candidate to vote for.

Imagine the shitstorm if each province did what the Bloc does... ''Quebec takes care of Quebec''. Sorta doesn't work if everyone starts working that way.

[RetiredAt63]

And Blanchet just refused to answer a question from Rebel News.  Even though it was about western separatism. Interesting about his take on first nations, as in they are nations, Quebec is a nation, Canada is a nation, we do not give them the same rights as nations.  He went after Scheer more than Trudeau in the debate.  It will be interesting to see how the Bloc do in the election.  And which parties lose support to the Bloc.

I should say that often the Bloc have really good candidates,  so if one wants to have a strong Quebec voice in Parliament via the Bloc, there is usually a good candidate to vote for.

Imagine the shitstorm if each province did what the Bloc does... ''Quebec takes care of Quebec''. Sorta doesn't work if everyone starts working that way.

Oh for sure.  Which is why when I  lived in Quebec I never voted Bloc. Isn't there also a separatist feeling in parts of Alberta? I still remember "Let the Eastern bastards freeze in the dark."

[snacky]

Why was the PQ even there? Inclusion in the debates required that parties run candidates in a high % of ridings.

[RetiredAt63]

Why was the PQ even there? Inclusion in the debates required that parties run candidates in a high % of ridings.

BQ not PQ. They most likely have a candidate in every Quebec riding. The CBC website had the 3 criteria, parties had to meet 2 of 3 and the BQ did.  They got enough seats once to be the official opposition, remember?

What is more surprising is that Bernier's party squeaked in.  Wow he fits the definition of smarmy.  Wonder what Harper and Scheer think of Harper's former Foreign Affairs Minister?

[ElleFiji]

What was the name of the lady I decided to vote for? Was she Donna? I liked how she whipped them into shape and win the debate Imo.

[RetiredAt63]

What was the name of the lady I decided to vote for? Was she Donna? I liked how she whipped them into shape and win the debate Imo.

Elizabeth May was the only woman in the debate, Green Party.

One of the moderators?  I thought the moderators did good jobs under trying circumstances.

[Wrenchturner]

How do people resist throwing up when Bernier talks? Every time he talks, I cringe. MASS IMMIGRATION IS UNACCEPTABLE....

Seriously, we're all immigrants at some point. What's wrong with him?

Mainly due to the socialist welfare state.  Those that "immigrated" hundreds of years ago were settlers.  Many working class people do not like paying for entitlements for people that push their wages down.  See: Trump getting elected.

[GuitarStv]

How do people resist throwing up when Bernier talks? Every time he talks, I cringe. MASS IMMIGRATION IS UNACCEPTABLE....

Seriously, we're all immigrants at some point. What's wrong with him?

Mainly due to the socialist welfare state.  Those that "immigrated" hundreds of years ago were settlers.  Many working class people do not like paying for entitlements for people that push their wages down.  See: Trump getting elected.

Ah . . . the children of the original illegal immigrants - settlers.

"Our parents stole, thieved, and raped their way to a better land for us.  Then we put the children of the people we took the land from into religious based schools where they were routinely tortured to successfully destroy the last vestiges of their culture.  That's why we feel that we've got the moral high ground to refuse to help others.  Canada for Canadians.  (Except the ones who were originally Canadians.  Fuck them.)"

[RetiredAt63]

How do people resist throwing up when Bernier talks? Every time he talks, I cringe. MASS IMMIGRATION IS UNACCEPTABLE....

Seriously, we're all immigrants at some point. What's wrong with him?

Mainly due to the socialist welfare state.  Those that "immigrated" hundreds of years ago were settlers.  Many working class people do not like paying for entitlements for people that push their wages down.  See: Trump getting elected.

Oh sure, just like the Irish were considered to be scum when they fled Ireland and the potato famine.  And died by the thousands at places like Gross Ile.  Scots made homeless by the Enclosure movement.  Hmm, wasn't there some fuss about Ukrainian settlement on the prairies?  Not to mention attitudes about Italians and other Southern European immigrants, hence "Little Italies"?  And then we needed Chinese workers for the railways but didn't want them to actually settle.  Jews turned away after the rise of Hitler.  And on and on.

We have a long history of "I've got mine, go away".  And by the way, Canada cherry picks immigrants, it is not easy to get in.  We are getting the cream of other countries.  Maybe people confuse them with refugees, some of whom will need a lot of help to settle in?   But in a sense, most immigrants to Canada have been refugees, they were hoping for better lives here, rather than starving at home.  And religious freedom, a surprising number of early French settlers were Hugenots.

So yes. Bernier = scuzz.

[Wrenchturner]

Unfortunately Canada is not yet wealthy enough to avoid scarcity thinking.  Too many working class people paying high mortgages.

You can call Bernier names if you like.  Many people like his message since he is promoting a Canada that supports Canadians, rather than attempting to solve the world's problems. 

[GuitarStv]

We're not wealthy?  Canada has the 10th largest GDP in the world https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal).

Canada has historically always had very high immigration.  Immigrants have always been a part of building the country.  In fact, (due to our very low birth rate) our population would be shrinking without a large influx of immigrants.  This is important if you care about the economy, as population growth is closely linked to economic growth https://www.randstad.ca/employers/workplace-insights/job-market-in-canada/how-does-immigration-actually-impact-canadian-jobs/.

It's not like we're grabbing up the dregs of the world - 54.2% of the immigrants we allow in to Canada have a university degree (or higher) https://www.thestar.com/news/immigration/2018/02/01/immigrants-are-largely-behind-canadas-status-as-one-of-the-best-educated-countries.html.  Most immigrants admitted to Canada are skilled workers who fill needed gaps in our workforce.

Indeed, it's not like immigrants are stealing all the jobs.  Canada has a very low unemployment rate at 5.7%.


There is no economically valid reason at the moment to argue against immigration in Canada.  I am surprised by your support of social conservatism at the expense of fiscal conservatism.  Not very Libertarian.

[RetiredAt63]

Unfortunately Canada is not yet wealthy enough to avoid scarcity thinking.  Too many working class people paying high mortgages.

You can call Bernier names if you like.  Many people like his message since he is promoting a Canada that supports Canadians, rather than attempting to solve the world's problems.

How wealthy do we have to be?  We are not exactly poor.  People are living beyond their means, Canadians used to have good savings rates, not any more.  What happens to those mortgages if/When interest rates go up?   There is a reason people on the forums want FI, it is too easy to be swayed by arguments like that when finances are precarious.  And speaking of jobs, NAFTA sure hurt Canadians and I'm not sure we have ever totally recovered.  And it made us more vulnerable to American pressure.  Thanks, Mulroney.  Remember it was a Progressive Conservative government that brought us NAFTA.  And Scheer and Bernier are further to the right, do I trust them with Canada's international trade and diplomacy?  Americans can fuss about Russian influences on their last election, but there is a lot of private American money funding our far right.

Plus, people in Scandinavian countries that have actively worked to reduce income disparity seem generally happier than people in countries that have big income disparities.  Where do we want Canadian policy to take us?

[Wrenchturner]

I'm just outlining the argument, I'm not interested in a prolonged debate. Canada should be generating growth by adding value, adding people is a form of can-kicking.  Our per capita GDP growth is anemic at best, despite very high debt levels.  We can only front load demand for housing so much with little or no wage growth.  Canada is also not well integrated culturally, Anglo and Franco problems are indicative of this.

I expect this conversation will mostly carry on at the polls.

[RetiredAt63]

I figure all those educated immigrants are our way to help offset the brain drain to the US.

I'm a biologist, not an economist, which means I see the earth as a closed system (except for energy, which comes in and goes out).  At some point the planet cannot support increased growth, the resources just are not there.  We've been wedded to the idea of increased growth ever since the "discovery" of the New World, when new resources opened up to Europeans.  But there are no new frontiers on this planet anymore, and it is time we adjusted our way of life and expectations to reality.

Re Scheer's dual citizenship, I saw this elsewhere and thought it was interesting:   both of Scheer’s sisters live in the US and are registered Republicans. His Campaign Outreach Chair, Georganne Burke, also has dual citizenship and voted for Trump and is very proud of that fact. She was also one of the founders of the Canadian Citizens for Charter Rights and Freedoms 1, an anti-Islam group that protested against M103 and Trudeau, and believes we are on the brink of Sharia law in Canada.  So Scheer looks more right-wing than he sounds, with massive close ties to the American Right, and Bernier is even more right wing.  Hell, if I were a Québecoise, I would be voting séparatiste if Scheer gets in.

[snacky]

How do people resist throwing up when Bernier talks? Every time he talks, I cringe. MASS IMMIGRATION IS UNACCEPTABLE....

Seriously, we're all immigrants at some point. What's wrong with him?

Mainly due to the socialist welfare state.  Those that "immigrated" hundreds of years ago were settlers.  Many working class people do not like paying for entitlements for people that push their wages down.  See: Trump getting elected.

Ah . . . the children of the original illegal immigrants - settlers.

"Our parents stole, thieved, and raped their way to a better land for us.  Then we put the children of the people we took the land from into religious based schools where they were routinely tortured to successfully destroy the last vestiges of their culture.  That's why we feel that we've got the moral high ground to refuse to help others.  Canada for Canadians.  (Except the ones who were originally Canadians.  Fuck them.)"

That was beautifully put.

Unfortunately Canada is not yet wealthy enough to avoid scarcity thinking.  Too many working class people paying high mortgages.

You can call Bernier names if you like.  Many people like his message since he is promoting a Canada that supports Canadians, rather than attempting to solve the world's problems. 

That would be awesome if Canada weren't part of the world. Isolationism is proven to be terrible, terrible policy.
Plus he's an ass, so...

Last night Trudeau commented that Bernier says publicly what Scheer thinks privately. He was spot on in that one case.

[The Fake Cheap]

Here is where I am at. 

I haven't really been impressed with the Liberals/Trudeau over the last 4 years.  I feel like Trudeau just throws money at things, is only half sincere, and don't love how SNC Lavalin went down.

I could never vote Conservative federally (I have voted that way provincially once or twice, the locals seem to be not as far to the right).  I mean just the total failure to even acknowledge climate change is mind boggling. 

I really like Singh, and somewhat the NDP platform, but wow that is going to cost a lot of money.  But then again, does a few billion more here and there really make a difference?

The Greens are ok, but they are not going to win my riding, so a vote for them is basically taking away a vote for the Liberals, which is basically giving a vote to the Cons.  (My riding is always between the Cons and Libs.)

No, to the People's party of Canada, a big NO.

So all that to say it is very likely I'll go Liberal again.  If only we could have Singh as leader of the Liberals with a bit of the Green and NDP platform thrown in, that would be alright.