Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by SebC

Some do, some don't. But a GST exemption on Christmas trees is fundamentally Christian favouritism.

I doubt there’s much correlation between putting up a Christmas tree and religious observance. I’m certainly not religious and I love a Christmas tree. They’re not even a Christian thing originally, they’re pagan.

[Fuzz]

I've got a Christmas tree, a menorah, a Buddha, and a Festivus pole that all come out in December, and I don't believe in anything.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Trust Industry has gotten us to where we are.

You can lay alot of that blame on anyone who opposed nuclear, which includes all the enviro "activists".

Originally Posted by GioforPM

And I'm far from ignorant - I work with oil companies, and the regulators all the time. Private energy is not seriously trying to be greener - it's all either lip service or doing what they are required by government to do.

Cool dude! Not saying you're ignorant but clearly you aren't privy to certain information. The bolded part is straight up false but we just might have different opinions on what the "effort" threshold is. I would also say if Energy companies are just lip service, so is the Liberal Climate Plan (most goverments climate plans actually)

If you take a look at the driving forces behind progress in the last few hundred years i would put up the private sectors record over any goverment ANY day. Does goverment have a part in it? Yes but most of the time they are in the way.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by GGG

This is just a terrible policy.

We already give out GST rebate checks to people .

We already don’t have GST on most food. This just adds prepared food to the list. (I don’t have a particular problem with this add though).

Most of this list appears targeted around Christmas presents. If there is one thing that doesn’t need incentivizing it’s alcohol and consumerism consumption at Christmas.

Then the working tax check in April is pretty bull#### to. 150k cutoff. You are not making it universal but also not cutting of the threshold at a reasonable point in time. The lack of Taxing middle class people is hurting the ability to deliver services.

At least when Harper bought votes by canceling the children’s dependent tax rebates and sending out checks directly it was revenue neutral.

Also from an inflation standpoint this is reckless. We don’t need retail stimulation. This just burns powder from whenever we hit a recession.

Yup.

Terrible, terrible policy.

Absolutely completely trying to buy votes.

[Sylvanfan]

Originally Posted by Qwerty

Since everyone on CP makes 6 digits, you realize anyone that makes over 150K is getting nothing? No free money for CP members!!

Had to of worked in 2023 and made 150K of less.

This is more beneficial to non-Alberta it seems as HST is a lot higher (at least from the 1 article I read)

I am the ultimate loser. I barely get past 5....First Danielle Smith said if your family makes less than 180 you are losers here's a 100 dollars. Now Trudeau is saying anyone making less than 150 is a welfare schmuck.

I really should just kill myself.

[ThePrince]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Truer words have never been spoken. But happy to convert one.


The gap hasn't closed because macroeconomic activity in a global world continues to take hold:

Oh great, you did my job for me and outlined Trudeau's failures in helping and supporting the industry to grow. Great job!

- Canada's population has continued to grow during Trudeau's time. Per capita, if population growth outstrips production, then yes, the gap will widen, such as what was already happening prior to Trudeau's arrival.

Why has the population grown so much during Trudeau's time? Could it possibly be the astronomically higher rates of immigration that are a function of his administration's policies? You actually don't think this one is not directly attributable to Trudeau's policies?

- Global energy market has shifted due to increased competition from U.S. shale production, pipeline capacity issues, and regulatory challenges. All have hindered Canada's ability to fully capitalize on higher prices.

Again, how are pipeline capacity issues and regulatory challenges not a function of Trudeau policies? He's killed pipelines, had a significant impact on pipelines getting delayed (Trans Mountain), and Bill C-69 is a specific example of how his administration has made it more difficult to build pipeline projects and address the pipeline capacity issues. So yup, chalk up another failing of Trudeau!

- Ever heard of the COVID-19 pandemic, which disrupted economies worldwide? The GDP per capita of many nations, including Canada, took a hit due to economic shutdowns, healthcare expenditures, and supply chain disruptions. It is disingenuous to attribute Canada's slower recovery solely to Trudeau's policies without considering this economy stunter. For everyone. Across the globe.

As you state, COVID-19 was a worldwide pandemic - I'm not sure why it gives the government a free pass for a slower recovery when everyone else experienced the same issues.

- Provincial policies and industry-specific trends play a large role in economic performance. For instance, Alberta's struggles with oil and gas production constraints stem in part from a lack of pipeline infrastructure and an inability to reach international markets. And yet, Alberta continues to produce at record levels, particularly compared to 2018.

Again, straight from the horse's mouth, pipeline infrastructure leading to an inability to reach international markets are directly in the federal government's jurisdiction. Who has been Prime Minister for 10 years again?

- There are a number of external factors playing into this, such as geopolitical tensions, trade disputes, and global economic trends, things that influence GDP growth far more than domestic policies alone.

Not sure how any of this impacts Canada's ability to produce oil. Spoiler alert: it doesn't. But happy to hear your explanation for how it does.

Fair game to critique Trudeau's economic policies, but the argument presented fails to consider the multifaceted nature of GDP per capita trends. It oversimplifies the influence of oil prices, ignores global and provincial dynamics, and assumes a level of federal control over the economy that does not align with Canada’s federalist system.

I think I can find the quote from you on how the widening GDP gap since 2015 is attributable to the oil price crash in 2014. That's what you said. So who's the one moving goalposts when you're now saying that's oversimplifying things?

Now back to you, what specific policies has Trudeau (and by that, I am sure you're adult enough to say the governing party/coalition of parties) enacted that has hampered GDP growth and parity with the US? Especially relative to other G20 countries who are also a considerable gap behind them? What do you have to say about private economic performance beyond government regulations? What has changed for Canada's economic engine in the last 50 years to lose ground?

I have given you multiple examples in my previous posts and what you note above: carbon tax, over-regulation, Bill C-69, overdoing immigration. These are all things that have damaged the economy. Are you now willing to admit these have contributed to the widening the GDP gap?

[ThePrince]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

There's been no proposal better than carbon taxes to do this. "Trust industry" is not a viable climate plan. And climate is a huge and ignored issue.

Could not disagree more. All carbon taxes do is hurt Canada's industry and Canadians.

Reducing emissions is a global game. Just because as a country, we reduce emissions, that doesn't mean we're a global leader, and the fact that it happens at the expense of Canadians is even worse.

Canada has an extreme abundance of natural gas resources that we could be exporting to countries like China in the form of LNG, helping to reduce their dependence on coal, which they are still building an abundance of. If you open the scope of reduction emissions worldwide, it could be a win win for Canada where we get to develop our resources, which helps Canadians prosper, and also help reduce global emissions. If I was in the federal government, I would be doing everything I could to reduce the red tape required for LNG projects.

The problem is that the current administration has blinders on where all that matters is reducing Canadian emissions, which an incredibly stupid thing to do when your economy depends on resource extraction.

[MelBridgeman]

The people who think we are gonna go from A -> Z are delusional and are actually hampering the worlds ability to transition.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

Since when are government benefits or incentives universal? Do you support any benefit that is not universal? I don't appreciate not getting government dental care or getting an EV rebate or a GST rebate on a new home.

Universal benefits and progressive taxation, please.

GST rebate on new homes has many of the same issues. Only helps those who can afford homes, and helps those who can buy more expensive homes more.

I think dental (and pharmacare) should be universal, like hospital care and education are. Get the wealthy invested in the system.

EV rebate is different, that's a payment for a positive externality (or at at least it could be - if the carbon tax is adequate then an EV rebate may not be necessary).

Originally Posted by Jason14h

They arent wasting money on a tree on the first place, so what "benefit" do you expect them to get.

People without kids / need to buy kids presents arent getting the benefit of that cut either

That's how a tax cut works - If you werent paying it before you don't get a break

Thank you, you just articulated exactly my point as to why this sort of tax cut is a bad way to help people.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by ThePrince

carbon tax, over-regulation, Bill C-69, overdoing immigration.

It sure took you a whole lot to say this, but you made it! Bravo, my little stinker!

BTW, this 50,000 foot, anecdotal complaining about generalities is just delicious for proving that what you are rallying against (and let's be honest, from a voraciously pro-Alberta, pro-O/G position) is just more of the same tired conservative pablum that when challenged on correlation, can't actually prove causation.

Give me some hard numbers to show each of these issues have severely stunted the Canadian economy. Then we're cookin'!

[ThePrince]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

It sure took you a whole lot to say this, but you made it! Bravo, my little stinker!

BTW, this 50,000 foot, anecdotal complaining about generalities is just delicious for proving that what you are rallying against (and let's be honest, from a voraciously pro-Alberta, pro-O/G position) is just more of the same tired conservative pablum that when challenged on correlation, can't actually prove causation.

Give me some hard numbers to show each of these issues have severely stunted the Canadian economy. Then we're cookin'!

The funniest part about this is that only one of us has data to back up what we’re saying, and the other has to rely on whataboutisms and tap dancing to avoid addressing the issue. Guess which one your are??

[Ozy_Flame]

You had data? Like actual, scientific, peer-tested data? I must have missed it. Care to share?

[ThePrince]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

You had data? Like actual, scientific, peer-tested data? I must have missed it. Care to share?

Sure, do you accept the Government’s study that shows the lower GDP as a function of the carbon tax? Or is that not good enough for you because it’s not peer-reviewed? It’s ok, I wouldn’t trust anything out of the current government either, they’ve been known to lie, cheat, and steal. But since you’re determined to carry their water, I thought you’d be ok with it.

On the economic side, the data suggest the GDP was about $7 billion lower in 2023 than it would have been without carbon pricing, and that by 2030, the impact will be $25 billion.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/feds...ages-1.6925167

And I know this isn’t a scientific study, so it’s really difficult to understand, but do you want me to go into the math of how an originally estimated $5.4B pipeline turning into a $35B pipeline is a negative value?? (Not to mention the revenues lost as a function of the numerous delays caused by an incompetent government)

https://globalnews.ca/news/9839473/t...-cost-overrun/

I can keep going! Do you have any data you want to share?

By the way, the correct term is peer reviewed, not peer tested, but you know so much about scientific studies, you knew that

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

You can lay alot of that blame on anyone who opposed nuclear, which includes all the enviro "activists".



Cool dude! Not saying you're ignorant but clearly you aren't privy to certain information. The bolded part is straight up false but we just might have different opinions on what the "effort" threshold is. I would also say if Energy companies are just lip service, so is the Liberal Climate Plan (most goverments climate plans actually)

If you take a look at the driving forces behind progress in the last few hundred years i would put up the private sectors record over any goverment ANY day. Does goverment have a part in it? Yes but most of the time they are in the way.

Not even close, the primary driving force for technical development the last 200 years has been war, which is the ultimate act of a government

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Not even close, the primary driving force for technical development the last 200 years has been war, which is the ultimate act of a government

You aren't wrong, so I suppose goverment can do something well.

still there are many things that may have come out war that the private sector took to the next level.

and there are still many thing in the last 60 years especially in the tech sphere that weren't goverment.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by ThePrince

I can keep going! Do you have any data you want to share?

So . . . . you gave me two news articles (secondary sources) and threatened me with a Government report that you didn't link to?

Classic.

But just to play along, I'd say 12% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions is worth $25B, especially when our economy is forecast to be about $2.8 trillion by 2030, and with stabilizing growth at 1.8%. And that 12% reduction could be accelerate investments in clean energy technologies, retrofitting infrastructure, adopting more low-carbon technologies. This is all while the Canadian economy is expected to accelerate in 2025 and 2026 (Statistica, TD Long-Term Forecast).

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by SebC

Universal benefits and progressive taxation, please.

GST rebate on new homes has many of the same issues. Only helps those who can afford homes, and helps those who can buy more expensive homes more.

I think dental (and pharmacare) should be universal, like hospital care and education are. Get the wealthy invested in the system.

EV rebate is different, that's a payment for a positive externality (or at at least it could be - if the carbon tax is adequate then an EV rebate may not be necessary).

Thank you, you just articulated exactly my point as to why this sort of tax cut is a bad way to help people.

I'm not a big fan of the policy, but it should have broader effects on overall supply, which benefits everyone.

There would be some much better ways to implement a similar policy to drive desirable outcomes (ie. missing middle). Or only the first $500k should be exempt. But I also question if GST on housing makes sense to start with...pretty well every material and service involved in construction already charges GST, and labour is also taxed. At most it should be maybe 10-20% of the total price that gets charged GST

[SebC]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

But I also question if GST on housing makes sense to start with...pretty well every material and service involved in construction already charges GST, and labour is also taxed. At most it should be maybe 10-20% of the total price that gets charged GST

GST is a value added tax. You're not paying GST on the house and the wood, the builder gets the GST on the wood refunded, and labour is also deducted from business income.

[CaptainCrunch]

Statement of the Privy Council and Trudeau's NSA concerning India.




https://www.canada.ca/en/privy-counc...-g-drouin.html

“On October 14th, because of a significant and ongoing threat to public safety, the RCMP and officials took the extraordinary step of making public accusations of serious criminal activity in Canada perpetrated by agents of the Government of India.
The Government of Canada has not stated, nor is it aware of evidence, linking Prime Minister Modi, Minister Jaishankar, or NSA Doval to the serious criminal activity within Canada.
Any suggestion to the contrary is both speculative and inaccurate.”

Except our Prime Minister did state that he had "credible allegations" of India's hand in the Nijjar's killing. And Trudeau Indian Agents of being involved in the Killing.

[ThePrince]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

So . . . . you gave me two news articles (secondary sources) and threatened me with a Government report that you didn't link to?

Classic.

But just to play along, I'd say 12% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions is worth $25B, especially when our economy is forecast to be about $2.8 trillion by 2030, and with stabilizing growth at 1.8%. And that 12% reduction could be accelerate investments in clean energy technologies, retrofitting infrastructure, adopting more low-carbon technologies. This is all while the Canadian economy is expected to accelerate in 2025 and 2026 (Statistica, TD Long-Term Forecast).

Ozy: gets pissy about sources. Also Ozy: proceeds to post something with no links to the sources. Classic. Maybe practice what you preach big guy.

Regardless, I believe your sources, they make a lot of sense. 1.8% growth rate, that’s amazing! One catch, if the Bank of Canada’s long term inflation target is 2%, I don’t have to be an economist to know that that means real GDP is contracting. According to your own sources. That’s bad, right? And that’s not any indictment on the current government?

https://www.bankofcanada.ca/core-fun...%202%20percent.

Do you accept the Bank of Canada as a primary source?

Now let’s address your short-sighted view on emissions. Congrats, Canada - you dropping emissions by 12% reduced global emissions by…..0.2% - way to go! If the government got its head out of its ass for a few minutes, it would realize that the only way to meet climate goals is if the US, China, and India all got on board. And if you’d read my previous post on climate goals, you’d see that there’s a great way Canada could help China and Asia reduce emission, by using some of that abundant natural gas resource and having a way to export cheap LNG over to Asia to displace coal use.

That would make a hell of a lot more difference to global emissions than Canada’s chincy 12% reduction at the expense of Canadians. So tell me if that’s still worth it?