Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

It was great to see that Canada has the lowest debt to GDP ratio of any G7 country. Obviously that meant they could not spend on everything but they did pick some priority areas.

I don't think Canada calculates their debt to GDP ratio the same as other G7 countries.

Canada uses net debt in their calculation, most G7 countries use gross debt.
Net debt is narrower and uses government assets like cpp and QPP in its calculations.

The IMF calculated I think in 2020 that Canada's difference between net debt and gross debt was about $1.5 trillion, because the CPP and QPP in the calculation created one third of the difference.

Gross debt = all government liabilities and debt
Net debt = I think is gross debt by jurisdiction adjusted for currency, debt securities etc.

In 2020 Canada when using net debt was 11th in GDP to Debt, but when gross debt was used it would have fallen to 25th.

Am I saying its terrible, not really, but its certainly not moving in the right direction.

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/site...-countries.pdf

I mean take it for what it will, but the common summary was in a Fraser Institute paper, but it summons up the key factor of net versus gross debt calculations that the IMF talks about, and Canada's use of a different formula.

Canada's gross debt to GDP is here

https://tradingeconomics.com/canada/...nt-debt-to-gdp

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Yoho

https://twitter.com/user/status/1640763836524363791

Would not trust Nanos with a 10 foot pole. Like CTV they are pro Conservative and fudge their results accordingly. Remember when Nanos said that Scheer was ahead by a mile before the last Federal election? And no, I am not a Liberal guy, I think they are all full of crap.

[CaptainCrunch]

Pretty much the poles are all over the place.

Ekos is actually funny because Frank Graves is very active on Twitter with over the top I hate conservatives rants.

But I don't trust any poll not to be either slanted or crippled by the sample size and location.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Would not trust Nanos with a 10 foot pole. Like CTV they are pro Conservative and fudge their results accordingly. Remember when Nanos said that Scheer was ahead by a mile before the last Federal election? And no, I am not a Liberal guy, I think they are all full of crap.

If you were pro-Conservative and wanting to fudge results, wouldn't it be more strategically advantageous to show them lagging behind the Liberals to motivate Conservative voters to head to the polls? Or are they hoping for the opposite; that showing the Conservatives ahead will dishearten other parties' voters and keep them home on election day?

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

With all of that being said, even you would have to admit that there’s clearly some questionable things being reported as being said by these sources that rightfully so should at the very least make people skeptical about the legitimacy and motives of these sources. Specifically I would point to the allegation that Dong said releasing the two Michael’s would make the CPC look good. Now I’m not going to say that he didn’t say that because frankly neither you or I know whether or not he did, but I can say that for the life of me I can’t figure out how anybody could possibly have reached that conclusion and acted on it. If you have a credible explanation for how the liberals getting the Michael’s released earlier would have somehow made the CPC look good I’d be happy to hear it.

Credit where it’s due, at least you’re pumping your breaks a little bit here and starting to more clearly indicate when your statements are based on an assumption. Progress is good, I hope you keep it up.

I literally stated they were allegations from the very start (which you of course replied to by the way with a whataboutism and told your real concern in all this was CSIS based off a wrong assumption of their duties)

Originally Posted by Firebot

New very serious allegations hot off the presses about a Liberal MP committing treason impacting Canadian citizens and already right back to what did the CPC / Pierre do / didnt do.

You guys seriously can't help yourselves with the ridiculous partisanship.

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Should we start making wild allegations like the PM purposefully allowed this to happen?

Would that be more helpful?

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Can the mods make a poll asking people which of the 2 they think is more concerning, that an MP did this or that the 2 national security sources who would have clearly known about this for some time for some reason kept quiet about it until now when it’s literally their jobs to address these sorts of things expeditiously?

I would be very interested to see the results.

Again, some of you guys can't help yourselves being pretty blatant apologist and you keep proving me right that you are very partisan on this.

Was Han Dong being investigated by CSIS for foreign influence and foreign interference connections? - Check
Did Han Dong secretly (and wrongly) meet with a foreign diplomat which we only found out because CSIS had him on surveillance? Check
Did Han Dong talk about the Michaels with this diplomat? Check
Did Han Dong talk about delaying the Michaels delay? There are transcripts that are not being released, unverified at this time and cannot be corroborated by the media.

That's why it's called an allegation? That's why I called it an allegation?

Meanwhile on the bolded, are you claiming that Global has ulterior motives with this story? That's quite the accusation no?

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Firebot

I literally stated they were allegations from the very start (which you of course replied to by the way with a whataboutism and told your real concern in all this was CSIS based off a wrong assumption of their duties)

I mean, when you have to start manipulating facts to make your point one has to consider how serious of a discussion the other party is really looking to have but I’ll respond to your post anyways.

You’ve said at times that they are allegations, and then you’ve also made some bold predictions that you’ve tried to pass off as near certainties. So there’s that.

I actually didn’t say CSIS’s action were the “real” concern, I said that in the interest of preventing anything like these allegations from occurring(if they did) again in the future then addressing the systemic shortfalls that allowed it to go unchecked to this point were in my view more concerning than an allegedly crooked politician doing shady things because I find that to be a symptom of the first problem. That isn’t excusing the behaviour of said politician AT ALL, no matter how many times you desperately try to frame it as such. You’ve been given multiple opportunities to point out what part of that you disagree with and instead opt to continue doubling down on trying to put words in my mouth, which is manipulative.

Again, some of you guys can't help yourselves being pretty blatant apologist and you keep proving me right that you are very partisan on this.

Just because you say it’s proving you right does not make that so, even if try repeating it 3 times while wearing ruby red shoes and clicking your heels together. Just for fun do you care to venture a guess at how many times that I, one of the people you continue to label as a liberal apologist, voted for the liberal party in the last 3 elections? You may be very surprised by what the answer is.

Was Han Dong being investigated by CSIS for foreign influence and foreign interference connections? - Check

Yup. See, we can agree on facts.

Did Han Dong secretly (and wrongly) meet with a foreign diplomat which we only found out because CSIS had him on surveillance? Check

I’m honestly not really familiar with how much interaction MPs have with foreign diplomats. While I would certainly categorize what was allegedly discussed as inappropriate/wrong we still don’t have any hard evidence that proves those conversations occurred as they were alleged to have. Do you not think that we should have real evidence before making decisions on someone’s guilt or innocence?

Did Han Dong talk about the Michaels with this diplomat? Check

That looks to be the case, however what exactly was said is still unknown to us.

Did Han Dong talk about delaying the Michaels delay? There are transcripts that are not being released, unverified at this time and cannot be corroborated by the media.

Yeah and one of the allegations that was made is that Dong claimed releasing the Michael’s without delay would make the CPC look good. Do you care to respond to whether or not you have a theory as to how he could have possibly came to that conclusion? I’m honestly very interested to hear your response on that.

That's why it's called an allegation? That's why I called it an allegation?

Are you asking yourself?

Meanwhile on the bolded, are you claiming that Global has ulterior motives with this story? That's quite the accusation no?

Before I respond, just for fun are you suggesting that there would be no possible political motivations for these whistleblowers?

Did you not notice that I used the word “sources”? As in the anonymous sources that spoke to the news outlets. I made no reference to Global in my comment. Again you’re either at best completely misreading what I’m saying or at worst desperately trying to put words in my mouth to avoid actually responding to questions directly posed to you asking what parts of my position you disagree with and why, I’m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that it’s the former.

Originally Posted by Firebot

I understand the English language is difficult

I would like to take this opportunity to offer my sincere apologies to you, I had previously thought that you had made this remark in an effort to insult me. Had I known that you really were struggling with English comprehension I would have responded differently.

[JohnnyB]

Here's another piece that Global did a few days ago looking into Han Dong's voting record.

https://globalnews.ca/news/9578674/h...n-china-issue/

If you read the facts in the article, it basically shows that on votes related to Chinese interests he has voted twice against Chinese interests, he dodged two votes by being absent, and he has generally voted along party lines.

The framing of the content by Global in the accompanying video isn't what I would call impartial in dealing with this information. The video clearly has an editorial bias and tosses in a few tangential sound bites that work to paint him in a sinister light to keep people riled up about it.

The written article is more balanced, but it also buries the following parts undermining the salacious corruption angle at the end of a long article.

In November 2020, Dong did call for a study on “ways to further protect Canada’s democratic and electoral institutions from cyber and non-cyber interference.”

The study, he said at the time, should include “how new domestic and international stakeholders, as well as other orders of government, can work together to strengthen Canada’s whole-of-society preparedness, resilience and civic engagement in the face of evolving threats to democracy.”

“I voted to condemn China when they sanctioned one of our vice chairs of a standing committee,” he said. “I voted to include Taiwan in the WHO. In 2020, I moved a motion in [an] ethics committee to study election interference, domestic and international.”

China considers Taiwan a breakaway province and views any overture of support as meddling in its internal affairs.

In October 2022, Dong indeed joined 323 MPs in voting for the politically sensitive country to become a WHO member. And in June 2021, Dong joined all 327 MPs in favour of unanimously passing a Parliamentary committee motion to condemn Chinese sanctions levied against Conservative MP Michael Chong.

In February, Dong publicly supported the Liberal government’s move to expand the open-work permit program for Hong Kong residents.

....

“[This] announcement will ensure that Hong Kong residents who share Canada’s values of freedom and democracy will continue to be able to seek opportunities to settle and succeed in Canada,” Dong said in a press release at the time.

Oh, and it also notes about the conversation with the consul general that:

The Globe and Mail reported Thursday that the Trudeau government determined there was no “actionable evidence” after it received a CSIS transcript of a 2021 conversation between Dong and China’s top diplomat in Toronto.

According to The Globe, a senior government source indicated that conclusions could not be drawn that Dong asked Beijing to keep the two Canadians in prison for political reasons.

On the whole, the content from Global on this is pretty unconvincing. To me, it comes across more as reaching to sell a salacious narrative than hard-hitting and rigorous journalism. It's definitely not something that allows for conclusions to be drawn about any wrongdoing.

I support the allegations being investigated by an authority like the RCMP and appropriate legal consequences if there is wrongdoing, but if it's found that there's nothing of substance there I hope Dong wins a large settlement from Global. Global has likely destroyed the guy's political career and a substantial portion of his personal life with allegations that have had people calling him a traitor, but the allegations themselves are still looking pretty dubious at this point.

[GGG]

In the Dong is a spy case why would he publicly vote against party lines. The spy’s goal is gather information and influence policy. None of that occurs in public. Dong the spy and Dong the MP should be behaving to the public identically.

I still don’t see why people are going with Dubious here for the allegations.

Is the Dong was selected as an liberal MP at the rising level with the assistance of China currently under scrutiny? The Ontario MPP linked resigned, the mechanism described existed, the PM was briefed on the issue, no one has said that didn’t happen.

Even on the Michael’s issue the Conversation between the MP and the Chinese diplomat took place and was not through official channels. Generally there are protocols for these things. Also the defamation suit is as of yet unfiled and defamation is the typical threat that everyone uses after being bad mouthed by the media. Irving’s, Klibergers, etc.

I’m not saying everything that global is saying is true but to describe it as dubious seems to intentionally understate the nature of the case. We need a public inquiry to determine what likely happened and how to prevent it riot to the next election.

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by GGG

In the Dong is a spy case why would he publicly vote against party lines. The spy’s goal is gather information and influence policy. None of that occurs in public. Dong the spy and Dong the MP should be behaving to the public identically.

I still don’t see why people are going with Dubious here for the allegations.

Is the Dong was selected as an liberal MP at the rising level with the assistance of China currently under scrutiny? The Ontario MPP linked resigned, the mechanism described existed, the PM was briefed on the issue, no one has said that didn’t happen.

Even on the Michael’s issue the Conversation between the MP and the Chinese diplomat took place and was not through official channels. Generally there are protocols for these things. Also the defamation suit is as of yet unfiled and defamation is the typical threat that everyone uses after being bad mouthed by the media. Irving’s, Klibergers, etc.

I’m not saying everything that global is saying is true but to describe it as dubious seems to intentionally understate the nature of the case. We need a public inquiry to determine what likely happened and how to prevent it riot to the next election.

Well, the specific allegation made in the Global article was

Liberal MP Han Dong, who is at the centre of Chinese influence allegations, privately advised a senior Chinese diplomat in February 2021 that Beijing should hold off freeing Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor

And the Globe apparently has a senior source saying no such conclusion could be drawn.

So, seems dubious.

It certainly could be true, but the reporting so far is hardly persuasive, especially given the seemingly illogical rationale Global alleges he had. Nobody should be rushing to convict the guy based on what's out there now.

[kipperiggy]

Originally Posted by Jacks

CEWS - This was really bad. Basically if you had a business that saw a revenue drop of 30% or more (based on the couple months prior to lock down) then the government stepped in and paid 75% of your labour costs, if your revenue dropped 25% you get nothing. My commercial landlord was in this situation, their revenue was down just shy of 30% mind you the bulk of their costs weren't in labour so it wouldn't help a lot anyway, they got no help except a little bit from CEBA. This creates a situation where if a business qualifies then they are better off turning down revenue going forward to stay under the 30% threshold. It seems so ridiculously easy to instead base it on a sliding scale. If your revenues are down more than 10% we'll cover 20% of labour, 20% down we'll cover 40%, something along those lines. It's not like this would have been difficult to manage, businesses already had to submit monthly calculations to the government as part of the program and were reimbursed after. For many labour based businesses this was a pot of gold.

Imagine having a plumbing company or other labour based business where more than half of your expenses are in labour costs. Say you had 1M in revenue, labour costs of 600K, overhead of 250K and a profit of 150K. If your revenue dropped 30% then you are looking at 700K in revenue, labour costs of 150K, overhead is lower but let's leave it at 250K and the profit jumps to 400K. If you are that owner you are absolutely turning down jobs to stay under that 30% threshold to keep the benefit. Think I just made these numbers up? I didn't. I had a company that was very similar to this. We didn't turn down work because our revenue spiked just before the pandemic due to a couple of large contracts so we qualified every month.

I am certain the government could recover millions from CEWS in particular and I wish they would. When I was still auditing I saw more than one company still claiming CEWS when they likely didn't need it. So frustrating!

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Yeah and one of the allegations that was made is that Dong claimed releasing the Michael’s without delay would make the CPC look good. Do you care to respond to whether or not you have a theory as to how he could have possibly came to that conclusion? I’m honestly very interested to hear your response on that.

Wont get in the rest of the parts (which I think you really need to take a real hard look at your line of thoughts for your argument, as it is getting to the level of trying to convince us the earth is flat)

CPC and Erin O'Toole were very vocal at the time to have retaliatory actions against China following the detainment of the Michaels. Releasing the Michaels prior to the election would turn China into an election rallying point for the CPC in particular, while Liberals could deflect the China question until after the election, stating how the situation is delicate (which is exactly what they did and shamed the CPC claiming they are partisan). Releasing the Michaels at that time would have allowed the CPC to say their pressure on the Liberals helped free the Michaels and give wind to being tougher on China, the same way they cheered when Katie Telford to testify was championed by Poilievre. How that line of thought could not be a possibility to you, I don't know what to tell you. You can see for yourself O'Toole's stance on it.

https://erinotoolemp.com/2019/07/09/the-china-crisis/

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/cons...ains-1.4512949

The video has drawn criticism from the Liberal Party of Canada and Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland’s office.

“It's distasteful and deeply disappointing to see any politician fundraising off of Canadian citizens being arbitrarily detained abroad -- purely for their partisan gain, and against the wishes of loved ones,” read a statement from the party.

In a separate statement, Freeland’s office said, “Our government's priority is the welfare of Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, who have been arbitrarily detained. We commend Mr. Kovrig and Mr. Spavor, and their families, for their fortitude and bravery under incredibly difficult circumstances. It is disappointing that the Conservatives would try to use this difficult situation for partisan political purposes.”

Again. As I stated very clearly that at this point it's an allegation, one that seems too insane to be true because of how much damage it being true would and meaning an elected Canadian MP committed treason. This is one of the allegations we do not want to be true, because it would mean our government has been compromised and irreparably damaged. You better hope that the allegations are false, as the repercussions are extremely dire if they are true.

But you have chosen to not only ignore the scandal, but instead focused on the CSIS side of the story, as if there is a magical barrier anytime someone from your political spectrum could be negligent or complicit, as if 'your' side could ever do a wrong. That's why I say you are an apologist.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

Well, the specific allegation made in the Global article was



And the Globe apparently has a senior source saying no such conclusion could be drawn.

So, seems dubious.

It certainly could be true, but the reporting so far is hardly persuasive, especially given the seemingly illogical rationale Global alleges he had. Nobody should be rushing to convict the guy based on what's out there now.

Doesn’t the senior government source from the globe state there was “No Actionable Evidence”
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/amp/...g-allegations/

That is pretty different than saying no conclusion could be drawn which is not a quote from the source and instead is at best paraphrased.

Secondly you notice the Senior Government source does not say that Dong advocated for the Michael’s release whereas Dong said he did on the call in question.

https://globalnews.ca/news/9570437/l...s-sources/amp/

In an emailed statement to Global News sent Tuesday, Dong confirmed that he had a discussion with Consul General Han, but disputed that he initiated it and also denies that he advised Beijing to delay releasing Kovrig and Spavor from prison.

“I raised the status of Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig and called for their immediate release,” he wrote.

So we have 3 sources right now who have seen the transcript. 2 who confirm to global and 1 government source to the globe. All agree this call between the consulate and an MP took place without any government direction.

Unproven is a better word than Dubious. It’s interesting the push back this release around the two Michael’s is getting as opposed to the election fraud component.

If you notice the attack on Globals reporting doesn’t discuss Dongs selection as candidate. It is focusing very narrowly on one specific part of one specific conversation. I believe this is an intentional plan by the government in dealing with this crisis. Goes back to the JWR columnists that could be lined up to support the decision.

[JohnnyB]

Well, Global came out with a very specific allegation. Their claim of what Dong said that I quoted above is what they opened their story with. It's an attention-grabbing and concrete claim, so no surprise that it's the focus of things. They made it the focus of public attention.

There needs to be a proper investigation. A call with a foreign diplomat by itself is no big deal, but the specific content of the call makes all the difference and we have no clarity around that yet. We don't have anything concrete about any wrongdoing at this point.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Firebot

Wont get in the rest of the parts

I wish I could say that I’m surprised

(which I think you really need to take a real hard look at your line of thoughts for your argument, as it is getting to the level of trying to convince us the earth is flat)

If I’m a flat earther, does that mean you’re losing a debate to a flat earther?

I don’t think my arguments are out of line and again you simply saying something is the case is not a very strong argument. Especially when you’re dodging pretty straightforward questions left and right in the process while constantly trying to manipulate what I’ve said.

CPC and Erin O'Toole were very vocal at the time to have retaliatory actions against China following the detainment of the Michaels. Releasing the Michaels prior to the election would turn China into an election rallying point for the CPC in particular, while Liberals could deflect the China question until after the election, stating how the situation is delicate (which is exactly what they did and shamed the CPC claiming they are partisan). Releasing the Michaels at that time would have allowed the CPC to say their pressure on the Liberals helped free the Michaels and give wind to being tougher on China, the same way they cheered when Katie Telford to testify was championed by Poilievre. How that line of thought could not be a possibility to you, I don't know what to tell you. You can see for yourself O'Toole's stance on it.

https://erinotoolemp.com/2019/07/09/the-china-crisis/

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/cons...ains-1.4512949

That still doesn’t answer how anyone could possibly come to the conclusion that the CPC would have more to gain than the Liberals if the Liberals would have gotten the 2 Michael’s released earlier.

Again. As I stated very clearly that at this point it's an allegation, one that seems too insane to be true because of how much damage it being true would and meaning an elected Canadian MP committed treason. This is one of the allegations we do not want to be true, because it would mean our government has been compromised and irreparably damaged. You better hope that the allegations are false, as the repercussions are extremely dire if they are true.

Irreparably damaged? You’re laying it on pretty thick at this point. While these allegations being true would be no doubt a very bad outcome I’m sure our country would manage to take the necessary steps to address the matter and avoid it happening again.

But you have chosen to not only ignore the scandal, but instead focused on the CSIS side of the story, as if there is a magical barrier anytime someone from your political spectrum could be negligent or complicit, as if 'your' side could ever do a wrong. That's why I say you are an apologist.

Ignore the scandal? I’ve literally been discussing it with you for some time now. The manipulation is strong with you, although IMO you’re not very good at it.

So basically what you’re saying here is that you’re calling me an apologist based on things you’re making up. I guess I’m ok with that.

[Cheese]

Thought youd get a kick out of this..


Every Canadian Prime Minister as the lead singer of a 1980s metal band:


Stephen Harper




Jean Chretien

[zamler]

Our country would be so much better off if those were actual.

[iggy_oi]

Just when the CPC thought that his hair couldn’t get any nicer

[Locke]

But why tho?

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Locke

But why tho?

The internet people who don’t post on CP (or weirdos for lack of a better term) clearly have way too much time on their hands

[Ashasx]

nm