Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[belsarius]

Yup, not real.

Nothing to see here. Well there will be nothing to see here once DOGE gets done with it.

https://www.climate.gov/news-feature...al-temperature

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

... and tax benefits / credits, and more excuses for leaving the office early / working from home, and the unearned sense of moral superiority by starting sentences with "as a parent" when speaking to those of us without them.

Seriously, a two-parent family with a damned good income and a 5 year old and a 2 year old qualified for approximately $6,500 in tax credits over a year when both the quarterly carbon rebate and the monthly Canada child benefit are counted.

And they’ll spend the rest of their lives paying for your retirement

[Azure]

Originally Posted by belsarius

Or, buzz words for the world is going into the ####ter and we need to adapt or die. This means reducing our carbon footprint. So we can either plug our ears and pretend everything is business as normal and get left behind when the world finally does transition - or we can lead that transition and ensure our economy is leading the curve instead of trailing it.

Even for people think we don't matter.. maybe we should at least start punching our weight. Last in the G7 for emissions per capita, and worst than that, last for GDP per emissions. So not only do we produce a metric ####load of carbon based on our population, but we are also terrible at turning those emissions into productivity. We can and need to do better instead of being petulent children with our fingers up our ass.

The quickest way for the world to reduce emissions is to convert from coal to natural gas.

Canada has a duty to help given our vast reserves and capabilities to export the lowest emissions LNG to the world.

Anything short of them is pandering to the loonies and buzz words to dupe people like you.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Cappy

"huge economic opportunity" should be the main point in this post.

Mark Carney, like many, are looking at the future. Oil and Gas isn't leaving out supply chain any time soon, but we are being steam rolled by China on future energy tech.

The US is too, don't get me wrong, and I thought the Green New Deal was a great step in building demand for strong renewable industries.

Alberta has a crap ton of capital, engineers, project management, and construction skills that would go a long way in building a new energy future. And some companies have largely taken that challenge on (windmill views notwithstanding).

I don't think someone like Carney saying "Hey, there is a transition coming, and we need to get ahead of it" is wrong or bad.

Transitioning to a low carbon future requires natural resources like lithium & many other critical minerals. Canada has vast deposits and no real way to bring them to the world wide market.

The same argument that applies to exporting oil & gas applies to exporting those resources as well.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by Azure

The quickest way for the world to reduce emissions is to convert from coal to natural gas.

Canada has a duty to help given our vast reserves and capabilities to export the lowest emissions LNG to the world.

Anything short of them is pandering to the loonies and buzz words to dupe people like you.

And the fossil fuel companies are pandering to the uneducated and using buzz words to dupe people like you.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

And they’ll spend the rest of their lives paying for your retirement

Not unless they turn him into soylent green first.

Then again, don't we all have at least $4 million in investments kicking around?

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by chemgear

Not unless they turn him into soylent green first.

Then again, don't we all have at least $4 million in investments kicking around?

I thought that was one of the requirements for signing up to this forum, no?

[PaperBagger'14]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

... and tax benefits / credits, and more excuses for leaving the office early / working from home, and the unearned sense of moral superiority by starting sentences with "as a parent" when speaking to those of us without them.

Seriously, a two-parent family with a damned good income and a 5 year old and a 2 year old qualified for approximately $6,500 in tax credits over a year when both the quarterly carbon rebate and the monthly Canada child benefit are counted.

The child benefit didn’t even cover formula for the first year, let alone the thousands of dollar spent on other accessories. As a parent let me tell you the benefits aren’t all they are cracked up to be. The daycare subsidy however is amazing for our family (much less so for low income households, I’d wish their rates didn’t go up however).

And I was gonna leave the office early every Monday in the summer anyways, golf balls aren’t gonna spank themselves.

[opendoor]

More polls showing the Conservatives' lead slipping a bit:

Ontario Federal poll (Mainstreet):

LPC: 42%
CPC: 37%
NDP: 12%
GPC: 5%
PPC: 2%
Others: 2%

Quebec Federal poll with Mark Carney as leader (Léger):

LPC: 38%
BQ: 24%
CPC: 22%
NDP: 10%
GPC: 3%
PPC 3%

And there's a Pallas Federal poll showing the Conservatives with a still healthy 6 point lead nationally, but that's down from a 17 point lead a month ago.

Still can't read too much into polls (see 1993 Federal polls after Mulroney resigned), but I think there has definitely been some notable movement over the last month or so.

[Johnny Makarov]

Originally Posted by opendoor

More polls showing the Conservatives' lead slipping a bit:

Ontario Federal poll (Mainstreet):

LPC: 42%
CPC: 37%
NDP: 12%
GPC: 5%
PPC: 2%
Others: 2%

Quebec Federal poll with Mark Carney as leader (Léger):

LPC: 38%
BQ: 24%
CPC: 22%
NDP: 10%
GPC: 3%
PPC 3%

And there's a Pallas Federal poll showing the Conservatives with a still healthy 6 point lead nationally, but that's down from a 17 point lead a month ago.

Still can't read too much into polls (see 1993 Federal polls after Mulroney resigned), but I think there has definitely been some notable movement over the last month or so.

Freeland and the rest should just save their $125k and drop out today. Polls still mean squat though. Like when is the last time you guys answered an unknown caller?

[Fuzz]

338 said they'd have a big federal update on Sunday, so that should be interesting. I'm sure it's just going to say PP is going to win all 338 seats, but we will have to wait and see.

[shotinthebacklund]

https://www.ctvnews.ca/vancouver/art...oid-diversion/
released the other day.



We just discussed this here recently. If anyone wants more info on it.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by opendoor

And there's a Pallas Federal poll showing the Conservatives with a still healthy 6 point lead nationally, but that's down from a 17 point lead a month ago.

Still can't read too much into polls (see 1993 Federal polls after Mulroney resigned), but I think there has definitely been some notable movement over the last month or so.

A honeymoon leadership race with positive outlook for change, Trudeau's best speech ever, along with Trump literally threatening our sovereignty along with declaring economic warfare on us, tends to drown out the CPC message about carbon tax and cost of living. While Poilievre is still chanting Carbon Tax Carney and Just Like Trudeau, Canadians changed priorities. I never agreed with the CPC moving social right and Poilievre encouraging the freedom convoy. It didn't hurt them in the past because the Liberals (and NDP) were that unpopular with Canadians, but right now is a new world and it's coming back to haunt them. Just as they benefited from the Liberal's total disregard for Canadian woes, right now they are hurting by their ties to Republicans and the social far right.

Polls are the moment are going to be extremely volatile. It does appear the CPC strategy has shifted as well, but is it enough to stop the momentum shift? This is absolutely a black swan event for them (and Smith going around acting like a rogue vassal state switching allegiance sure as heck is not helping).

What is interesting to me is just how the NDP has completely disappeared everywhere including in the polls. Singh has cost his party so much.

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by indes

Back on topic, we already lost the energy race. We lost when we let the world decide we didn't need to compete in the global market. Canada had to be the ones to worry about the environment and take the global warming backlash while OPEC+ and the US ran drills and pipelines non-stop. I hope someone made some money off the "social credit" we were earning because it sure as #### wasn't Canadians.

Is this true though? Canada produces more oil then ever and more importantly a larger share of the worlds oil consumption then ever. How much more development would satiate you?

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by Firebot

A honeymoon leadership race with positive outlook for change, Trudeau's best speech ever, along with Trump literally threatening our sovereignty along with declaring economic warfare on us, tends to drown out the CPC message about carbon tax and cost of living. While Poilievre is still chanting Carbon Tax Carney and Just Like Trudeau, Canadians changed priorities. I never agreed with the CPC moving social right and Poilievre encouraging the freedom convoy. It didn't hurt them in the past because the Liberals (and NDP) were that unpopular with Canadians, but right now is a new world and it's coming back to haunt them. Just as they benefited from the Liberal's total disregard for Canadian woes, right now they are hurting by their ties to Republicans and the social far right.

Polls are the moment are going to be extremely volatile. It does appear the CPC strategy has shifted as well, but is it enough to stop the momentum shift? This is absolutely a black swan event for them (and Smith going around acting like a rogue vassal state switching allegiance sure as heck is not helping).

What is interesting to me is just how the NDP has completely disappeared everywhere including in the polls. Singh has cost his party so much.

He made a deal with the devil. People won’t forget that. It may have gotten him some leverage at the time. But it branded him with trudeau. He’s the one who kept propping him up. It’ll be hard for him to shed that.

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by chemgear

We need to tax the ever living #### out of all these people who insist making the singular choice that causes the most environmental carbon damage by far. That single choice along more than offsets all good environmental efforts of dozens of other Canadians combined. It's ridiculous.



https://globalnews.ca/news/3595511/c...20CO2%20levels.


Nevermind the planet rapists that insist on committing this crime more than once!

So are you suggesting we should start sterilizing the population.

Who are you Pol Pot?

[indes]

Originally Posted by Dan02

Is this true though? Canada produces more oil then ever and more importantly a larger share of the worlds oil consumption then ever. How much more development would satiate you?

Since 2011 the US has gone from 5mm bpd to 13mm bpd of production. In that same time frame Canada went from 2 to 4.

It's pretty widely known that a lot of the anti oil activism was sponsored by US oil companies to hamper our ability to get our oil offshore. We let others dictate our policy for their own gain, and now we sell our oil to them at a discount. So sure we're more than ever before, but you would think supplying more of "the world's most ethical oil" would be a notch in the environmental belt.

Even the Saudis are ahead by going all in on oil and using the capital gains to invest in diversification. We put the cart ahead of the horse and caved to international pressure to give up on energy export (LNG / Oil) with no real diversification strategy.

It's not about me being satiated, it's about using what we have to offer to get ahead. If I was a carpenter who wanted to open a restaurant, I would probably raise that capital working as a carpenter and open a restaurant - not by becoming a food blogger and writing about how much healthier my restaurant would be if I ever opened it and just enjoying the free food.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by indes

Since 2011 the US has gone from 5mm bpd to 13mm bpd of production. In that same time frame Canada went from 2 to 4.

It's pretty widely known that a lot of the anti oil activism was sponsored by US oil companies to hamper our ability to get our oil offshore. We let others dictate our policy for their own gain, and now we sell our oil to them at a discount. So sure we're more than ever before, but you would think supplying more of "the world's most ethical oil" would be a notch in the environmental belt.

Even the Saudis are ahead by going all in on oil and using the capital gains to invest in diversification. We put the cart ahead of the horse and caved to international pressure to give up on energy export (LNG / Oil) with no real diversification strategy.

It's not about me being satiated, it's about using what we have to offer to get ahead. If I was a carpenter who wanted to open a restaurant, I would probably raise that capital working as a carpenter and open a restaurant - not by becoming a food blogger and writing about how much healthier my restaurant would be if I ever opened it and just enjoying the free food.

Originally Posted by indes

So sure we're more than ever before, but you would think supplying more of "the world's most ethical oil" would be a notch in the environmental belt.

Ethical, but not environmentally friendly. (Oil that is, it gas)

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by indes

There are more countries in the world panicking about low birth rates than there is the opposite. https://populationmatters.org/news/2...jections-2024/

Most researchers have the population peaking in around 50 years and then declining. A bunch have also said that's optimistic with birth rates that are trending down already. Either way we're only a couple of generations away from rapid population decline.

Sure, in the context of wanting an increasing population for their economy to keep increasing or warm bodies to throw into a literal meat grinder while you're invading a neighboring country.

That UN chart has the likely median projection of world population continuing to increase year after year until mid-2080. and then maybe gradually flattening from there. In the meantime, the previous study indicates that emissions had to be cut fully in half by . . . 2030. Nevermind the growing cohort that is moving from poverty/low incomes to the middle class along with a likely massive increase in energy demand along with it. It's gonna be tough unfortunately.

Originally Posted by Goriders

So are you suggesting we should start sterilizing the population.

Who are you Pol Pot?

Oh, nice Godwin's Law adjacency. Hey, it's not my scientific study. Are we against science now?

I'm not suggesting anything of the sort. I specifically said that we should be taxing bad behaviours just like the Liberal carbon tax is supposed to incentive other behaviours. Nobody is seriously trying to start World Wars or starting death panels to shrink the population with the goal of reducing world emissions. Or was Thanos right?

Now, I am honestly half-joking but why would you give financial incentives to the worst behaviours if you're advocating things like the carbon tax in the greater goal of needing to massively cut emissions.

[calgarygeologist]

The Liberals are stealing all the conservative talking points now that an election is around the corner. They want to axe the tax, develop resources, spend on defense and reduce government spending, waste and size. Does anyone actually believe this sudden 180?

“The continued significant spending in a bunch of areas has to be ratcheted down. My own view is things as simple as the growth of government need to be looked at,” Dominic LeBlanc said in an interview with Amanda Lang on BNN Bloomberg Television.

https://financialpost.com/news/lebla...overnment-size