I've received a very general complaint about the general tone of the comment board. Try to improve the general tone, everyone! I myself have not spotted anything that requires my intervention. A couple of general tips:
- No personal insults aimed at other subscribers.
- Remember you're not going to change anyone's vote, so after you've made your point once or twice, abandon hope and move on.
A reader writes to point out that it's not good enough for me to write, in the first two sentences of this post, that the headline is satirical and that no war between the states is known to be imminent, because I already wrote the headline. I am pleased to see such a widespread culture of concern for accuracy.
I think the most quintessentially Poilievre part of this is how he's bemoaning that by 2040, owning a home will be an unrealistic goal for many. Owning a home has *always* been an unrealistic goal for many.
The minimum down payment on the average home in Canada is around $55,000 right now. Poilievre's new ad with the guys on the golf course is really telling, where the one guy whines about how he had to pay for his daughter's down payment - the worst hardship Poilievre can imagine is "having a spare $55,000 sitting around, and then having to use it to help your family." For the majority of us, who don't have a spare $5.50 sitting around, it's a very out of touch argument.
I've found Poilievre's descriptions of the real world in which we currently live to be quite conscientiously documented. Here's a piece in which I fact-checked as many of his claims as I could and found solid documentation for almost all of it.
The fact that we see "today's guy" more often is yet more evidence of his contempt for us. He is not wrong on so many things. Unfortunately he happens to be an asshole that many people find hard to trust precisely because of this shit that he pulls.
Yes! Fully agree. The Conservative anger about unaffordable housing is spot on. Their proposals to deal with the problems are laughable. Meanwhile here in BC we have Mr Rennie proposing the next generation becoming indentured slaves to foreign owners of our real estate. (See articles on Bob Rennie seeking CMHC involvement to attract foreign buyers for long term rentals). One hopes the Mr Carney, if successful, ignores this advice.
It is basically impossible now for young people to buy into real estate in greater Vancouver without family money. This is not healthy. Where do we go from here?
I'm sorry, but Trudeau used all of Poilievre's housing policy except "Verb the Gatekeepers". Carney is planning to take the GST off new houses (and saying he said it first!!). The only new housing policy the Liberals have proposed is to lease government land (Poilievre wanted to sell it) and to have Brookfield build "little boxes made of ticky-tacky".
Tens of thousands of people my age grew up in 'little boxes made of ticky-tacky' - which are now being torn down & replaced with monster homes which would be unaffordable to those who grew up in them.
Lots of little boxes were built quickly and cheaply to handle the baby boom. That isn't happening now (except in Carney's fever dream). The price of the land, the zoning regulations, the red tape and the exorbitant building fees have made them impractical for builders.
The ultimate insult for young people who want to get some equity built up by owning a home is the rapidly rising cost of the down payment.
In this wild housing market it’s hard to imagine many incomes doing jobs on this side of the law that have earnings appreciating as quickly as the down payment requirements. When $35,000 was unattainable, jumping to $45,000 and $50,000 in mere years is downright demoralizing.
I agree with you, Darcy. When I was a kid, my parents saved for decades to save a down payment in the four figures - and it's only gotten worse. If somebody wants to make an ad about a young person who doesn't have enough money to keep a roof over their head, I'm there. But that's not what this ad is about.
Agreed. This might be a newsflash for Poileivre, but it's always been the case that people have needed help from family to buy their 1st home. My parents got that help in the 1960's. I bought my 1st home when I was 50, partially due to a small inheritance from my father.
I bought my first home at age 37 with no help from anyone. I am now 74 and many people of my generation were able to buy homes without help from their parents.
It's great that you were able to do that, but my point was that many people over generations weren't able to buy homes without help from family - this isn't a new thing, although it may be much more prevalent than in previous generations.
The part that isn't true is the notion that things used to be any better than this. It's Poilievre's idea that everybody used to be able to afford a home that I find juvenile and asinine. There are a lot of people left out of his conceptualization of "everybody", and that worries me.
This is one of the, if not the, most intriguing and telling story of the election campaign to date. Reminder- this is not an episode of the Last of Us. Apocalyptic story telling is a staple of streaming services. But the work Horizons is doing I will argue is an important exercise is developing potential future scenarios in the event current trends are not recognized and immediately addressed by government in the interest of protecting the collective good. Poilievre as Paul has pointed out so adroitly has pointed his outrage at a convenient edit of the truth. He is in fact creating a false impression of the report by suggesting it is in fact a prediction rather than a thought experiment, an extreme extrapolation to create an imagined potential scenario. This kind of thing should probably not be in the public realm because careless politicians are liable to use it to their advantage to persuade the politically ill informed of a sinister plot. It should be beneath Poilievre. It’s not because he and his team have been too long in Opposition and have forgotten that the real world is not a legislative committee where performance and staged antics are the norm. Talking down to the electorate is insulting and always a bad idea.
I’m thrilled to learn that we have such a group doing this sort of far out scenario construction. It is after all the failures of imagination that caught us and others flat-footed when events like 9/11, the 2008 US housing crash and the Covid pandemic transpired.
Who is thinking about what could happen next? A catastrophic solar storm, a Pacific mega quake, a bird flu pandemic, a nuclear whoopsie (look who’s finger is on the button in the US). I’m glad somebody is.
And I would use stronger language than “careless” for politicians that undermine this work by using it irresponsibly for political ends.
I agree with you. I just read a great paper on "weak signals" today and how monitoring and analyzing weak signals can help point to problems that are already underway but not acknowledged or understood. I think having a segment of government doing this kind of thinking is useful, even if many of their predictions never come to pass.
Wargaming out potential crises isn't a problem as long as the probabilities are evaluated and the comparative costs for preparing or not for the crisis considered.
Great article Paul. Just wanted to flag that Policy Horizons Canada actually operates out of Employment and Social Development Canada, rather than PCO. (Seems this error, and others like the incorrect publication date, originates with the Blacklocks article - never known them to aim for 100% accuracy in reporting so this makes sense)
I also came to comment that Policy Horizons is under ESDC and not PCO. An important distinction as there is more distance between this small team and PCO than was implied by Pierre Pollievre and Paul Wells in his reporting.
This eloquently captures why, despite being what should be the sweet spot of the conservative demographic, I just can’t bring myself to vote for the guy. Logan Roy’s words to his kids come to mind. “I love you but you are not serious people”
I've heard similar misrepresentation from him so consistently these past twenty years that I think he can reasonably be called a liar... a lying liar.
It's not just the heat of this moment; it's his entire schtick.
What drives a person to make dishonesty his personal brand? Does he actually believe the bullshit that comes out of his mouth, or does that even matter, if the only objective is that his essentially hand-picked audience of fellow travelers does? There is zealotry there; more than a whiff of evangelical Calvinism that justifies his otherwise wrong speech and actions when deployed on behalf of the chosen few.
These are not the tactics of democrats, but rather their antithesis.
I read the Conservative platform. Paul, I'm sorry to disagree with you from yesterday, but this one is precisely why we need parties to release costed platforms. The Conservative document is sophmoric in its content and composition. It reads like a term paper thrown together at midnight and I'm not certain Poilievre didn't write it himself.
The costing is... creative? And it seems to magically generate revenues from repealing a whole slate of environmental policies. Those "revenues" are the only thing making this plan affordable.
This line stood out to me: "New scanners and surveilance at ports. These scanners can see through walls of containers or veichles to spot..." Ok. Great. Do they mean non-invasive imaging techniques (NII)? If so, than say so. And also establish the why, please. This just puts me in mind of his speech at the Calgary stampede last year where he giggled (he'd had a few) his way through a claim that he'd give border guards hand scanners that would let them see the stolen cars in the containers. Etc. Etc.
The Conservative platform is an unserious document from a party seeking to lead a G7 nation. They've had 2 years and insane fundraising numbers. What the heck have they been doing!?
Excellent points Tara. Poilievre's costed platform is based on growth. Similar to the budget will balance itself. Are we sure, at this point in Trump's administration, that we are looking at a growth scenarios anywhere in the world? Today, the IMF reduced their world growth projection.
A journalist from the Economist stated that some of the Liberal costed platform was based on pixie dust. The Conservatives are looking for unicorns in theirs.
Sharonsommerville,...->m'am:- ....excellent, accurate, brief, observations:-not to mention your Economist- reading:- guote:- "pixie dust". Can I assume your unicorn metaphor meant Targeted ? 🤓 Peter D. in Oakville
"One thing we could hope, for instance, is that a 45-year-old man aspiring to high elected office would resist the urge to engage in the cheapest flim-flam to distract..."
I dislike either of our party leaders indulging in this sort of inaccurate, dishonest scaremongering. I was disgusted by Carney’s assertion the other day that Poilievre will use the notwithstanding clause to limit a woman’s right to an abortion. Will the Liberals *ever* give up on that utterly dead horse? The fact that Carney could say it without blushing indicates that he’s a man with no principles whatsoever.
Scaremongering? Ask that to the women living in the united states. In the nomination process for the Supreme Court, each and every conservative justice when being interviewed for the position, answered the question pertaining to abortion that that was settled law.
Check out the conservatives motions and petitions in 2024 2023 and 2021. All with regards to Abortion.
The Liberals have had decades worth of government to enact abortion legislation that would protect the right to choose.
The fact that the Liberals never seem to get around to it gravitates around the “US style” politics that they ape from the Democrats. The Liberals either need to change the law or stop talking about it.
Yes, it's scaremongering. Canada is not the U.S. & there has always been a higher percentage of opposition to abortion there than in Canada.
And agree with Darcy Hickson, Liberals have been free to enact abortion legislation for decades. That they've chosen not to indicates they prefer being able to use abortion as a wedge against the Conservatives.
Although some of us may be losing interest in the slight shifts in polling aggregate numbers, this piece reawakened my desire to read more about who’s saying what do get a few more votes. good stuff, Paul!
Paul, yes I've made my decision but how about WE focus on the big issues. I'll go 1st.
#1 is obviously Trump. Everyone is campaigning on how best to deal, challenge, fight him. That is just so much shite. How do you plan when you don't know what he is going to do next? Nothing he says can be taken at face value because his talk has a half life of hours.
#2 Carney wants to create more gov't funding orgs (we have like what, 7 now) that under Trudeau haven't had the magic multiplier effect because business wants stability, certainty to invest monies. They will take bribes ah subsidies but are more careful with their and clients monies. C69 etc will stay. So same environment as under Trudeau. Sure better managed because how could it not be. #3Who is best suited to make Canada more independent from the US? Carney is on record of employing a failed accounting to rename handouts (we are talking politicians here after all) as investments and exclude them from be added to the deficit/debt while still actually increasing both because Canada will still borrow that money. Yeah awesome, everyone wants to exclude their mortgage payments from being treated as an owed debt.
#4 This is the big one for me. $2 Trillion, $80 billion a year for 25 years aimed at net zero. What's the deficit/debt now? I've excluded the spending promises of Carney and PP but PP is about $2 Trillion light so that's a plus. By 2050 this strategy will recude global average temperatures by....GASP 0.017 degrees C. That is unless China, India etc don't further increase the rate of coal burning.
#5 Carney will leave Canada for the next better job when net zero goes to hell or Canadians revolt, unlikely in Canada but as with Trudeau they will plan to vote harshly. Carney can be trusted because he is an economist but he is also a politician guided by that vote winning/buying machine...the Liberal Party of Canada. With the same band of bobble heads that were just fine with Trudeau.....until maybe their "best job ever" was at risk. Oh I almost forgot his backroom team of Telford and Butts who created the green revolution that was going to transform Ontario's economy. We are still selling excess wind turbine and solar power to the USA and GAWD Quebec for a fraction of the cost we pay for it. So let's double down on that again. Uncle Doug talked a good game on this but it isn't a voting issue so who cares. Healthcare also who cares.
#6 The Liberals voted down having the ability to toss their leader...thanks to Katie I'll bet. So Trudeau had to decide to leave. I'm still waiting to see what that cost us. The tories kept their ability to punt leaders as we've seen with Scheer and O'Toole. Arrgh, why couldn't Rona Ambrose have stayed or even Michael Ignatiif or better Marc Garneau. One one guarantee about political parties is it is NEVER about the voters.
My wish is one day Canadians will be just a tad more skeptical of all things political much like the Swiss then maybe we can have nice things also.
So how about taking about the BIG issues that can make or break Canada
Has anybody in Canada written more about the very limited success of the feds’ debt-financing organizations than me? This goes back to the very first post I published when I launched this newsletter.
Well stated, Mr Wells, sir:- this is why I "approved" your plan to be the owner/operator/commentator for your own stats-collecting:-(very targetted, I assume); both the Nanos & Angus Reid pollster (for example);- " pundits are clearly politically biased > Pete D. in Oakville
My reply would be - who exactly are the economists who worked on Poilievre's program? If we're going to critize "at depth" on one side, let's take and "in-depth" look at the other too. The money aspect isn't the be-all and end-all of a campaign. Many other factors come into play and in my opinion the person that takes the lead from Trump - plastic straws, using the notwithstanding clause (Poilievre's version of an executive order) to prevent something that doesn't happen already, passing laws to prevent "wokeness" in universities, etc, etc, etc isn't exactly a serious choice. Just because he "says" he'll spend less, do more and balance the budget no matter WHAT doesn't mean he's credible - unless you're already inclined to what is a culture war.
The notwithstanding clause is nobody's version of an executive order. Also, the notwithstanding clause is a legitimate part of our Charter (constitution, if you prefer) - it was NOT accidentally included in that document.
...the Canadian equivalent of an American executive order is called an "Order in Council" and comes from the Privy Council.
Oh, he doesn't see it a free pass to unilaterally do as he wishes against Supreme Court rulings? Guess everyone and his brother (all Premiers & future Prime Ministers) can use it at will then for any purpose. Right?
This has been true since the Charter replaced the BNA, is this news to you?
...and yes, they can all use it basically as they please. That's why it was designed with accountability built right in - because there is NO way to use it quietly.
A politician who wants to use the NWC has to stick their neck out to do so, and face the wrath of the people if they've used it for a purpose the people don't like.
Look, the Supreme Court is supposed to interpret law, not write law.
We elect politicians write laws and thereby to lead us.
If a politician wants to run on a platform which includes using the NWC in a specific way (as Poilievre is now) there is a pretty simple way to signal your displeasure with that, you have the same amount of votes I do.
...but don't try to call it unconstitutional, because it simply isn't.
Where did I say unconstitutional? Your sense of superiority and put-downs others' opinions by adding your own words to them come across loud and clear. I guess my vote cancels yours then.
I believe your points 1 and 5 cancel each other out. Dealing with Trump is like dealing with climate change Fires, Floods, Drought, etc. You plan for eventualities with ways to respond and mitigate the damage. In point 5 you claim that you know the future regarding Carney.
In " Strength in What Remains" Tracy Kidder details the life of a medical student from Burundi, next door to Rwanda. The constant repetition of lies-- lies about Tutsis, lies about Hutus-- led to mob violence against everyone, death for hundreds of thousands by spear, bullets, machetes.
Here you have an ambitious demagogue-in-the-making lying for effect. Our good luck to have bad luck with Trump, and keep Poilievre out of office.
I've received a very general complaint about the general tone of the comment board. Try to improve the general tone, everyone! I myself have not spotted anything that requires my intervention. A couple of general tips:
- No personal insults aimed at other subscribers.
- Remember you're not going to change anyone's vote, so after you've made your point once or twice, abandon hope and move on.
Thanks all.
A reader writes to point out that it's not good enough for me to write, in the first two sentences of this post, that the headline is satirical and that no war between the states is known to be imminent, because I already wrote the headline. I am pleased to see such a widespread culture of concern for accuracy.
I think the most quintessentially Poilievre part of this is how he's bemoaning that by 2040, owning a home will be an unrealistic goal for many. Owning a home has *always* been an unrealistic goal for many.
The minimum down payment on the average home in Canada is around $55,000 right now. Poilievre's new ad with the guys on the golf course is really telling, where the one guy whines about how he had to pay for his daughter's down payment - the worst hardship Poilievre can imagine is "having a spare $55,000 sitting around, and then having to use it to help your family." For the majority of us, who don't have a spare $5.50 sitting around, it's a very out of touch argument.
I've found Poilievre's descriptions of the real world in which we currently live to be quite conscientiously documented. Here's a piece in which I fact-checked as many of his claims as I could and found solid documentation for almost all of it.
https://paulwells.substack.com/p/poilievre-and-the-workers-struggle
I just wish that guy were around all the time, and today's guy would take more frequent vacations.
The fact that we see "today's guy" more often is yet more evidence of his contempt for us. He is not wrong on so many things. Unfortunately he happens to be an asshole that many people find hard to trust precisely because of this shit that he pulls.
He's good at complaining about things that are obviously bad. Just a next-level complainer.
No, Pierre Poilievre is NOT an asshole! There you go.
Maybe not. But he sure has acted like one for the better part of two decades
in the words of Canada’s newly anointed PM, “Look inside yourself, Jim. You’re coming from a prior of conflict and ill will.”
Thanks, Penny. I will try to.. beyond better.
👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾
Yes! Fully agree. The Conservative anger about unaffordable housing is spot on. Their proposals to deal with the problems are laughable. Meanwhile here in BC we have Mr Rennie proposing the next generation becoming indentured slaves to foreign owners of our real estate. (See articles on Bob Rennie seeking CMHC involvement to attract foreign buyers for long term rentals). One hopes the Mr Carney, if successful, ignores this advice.
It is basically impossible now for young people to buy into real estate in greater Vancouver without family money. This is not healthy. Where do we go from here?
I'm sorry, but Trudeau used all of Poilievre's housing policy except "Verb the Gatekeepers". Carney is planning to take the GST off new houses (and saying he said it first!!). The only new housing policy the Liberals have proposed is to lease government land (Poilievre wanted to sell it) and to have Brookfield build "little boxes made of ticky-tacky".
Tens of thousands of people my age grew up in 'little boxes made of ticky-tacky' - which are now being torn down & replaced with monster homes which would be unaffordable to those who grew up in them.
Lots of little boxes were built quickly and cheaply to handle the baby boom. That isn't happening now (except in Carney's fever dream). The price of the land, the zoning regulations, the red tape and the exorbitant building fees have made them impractical for builders.
The ultimate insult for young people who want to get some equity built up by owning a home is the rapidly rising cost of the down payment.
In this wild housing market it’s hard to imagine many incomes doing jobs on this side of the law that have earnings appreciating as quickly as the down payment requirements. When $35,000 was unattainable, jumping to $45,000 and $50,000 in mere years is downright demoralizing.
I agree with you, Darcy. When I was a kid, my parents saved for decades to save a down payment in the four figures - and it's only gotten worse. If somebody wants to make an ad about a young person who doesn't have enough money to keep a roof over their head, I'm there. But that's not what this ad is about.
Agreed. This might be a newsflash for Poileivre, but it's always been the case that people have needed help from family to buy their 1st home. My parents got that help in the 1960's. I bought my 1st home when I was 50, partially due to a small inheritance from my father.
I bought my first home at age 37 with no help from anyone. I am now 74 and many people of my generation were able to buy homes without help from their parents.
It's great that you were able to do that, but my point was that many people over generations weren't able to buy homes without help from family - this isn't a new thing, although it may be much more prevalent than in previous generations.
"Bemoaning"? Telling the truth?
The part that isn't true is the notion that things used to be any better than this. It's Poilievre's idea that everybody used to be able to afford a home that I find juvenile and asinine. There are a lot of people left out of his conceptualization of "everybody", and that worries me.
George, George calm down your guy is going to get in. Funny thing that it seems to me the polls show young people are supporting the Conservatives.
You're totally right, I don't know why I'm in as bad of a mood as I'm in when my side seems to be winning. Poilievre just bugs me.
This is one of the, if not the, most intriguing and telling story of the election campaign to date. Reminder- this is not an episode of the Last of Us. Apocalyptic story telling is a staple of streaming services. But the work Horizons is doing I will argue is an important exercise is developing potential future scenarios in the event current trends are not recognized and immediately addressed by government in the interest of protecting the collective good. Poilievre as Paul has pointed out so adroitly has pointed his outrage at a convenient edit of the truth. He is in fact creating a false impression of the report by suggesting it is in fact a prediction rather than a thought experiment, an extreme extrapolation to create an imagined potential scenario. This kind of thing should probably not be in the public realm because careless politicians are liable to use it to their advantage to persuade the politically ill informed of a sinister plot. It should be beneath Poilievre. It’s not because he and his team have been too long in Opposition and have forgotten that the real world is not a legislative committee where performance and staged antics are the norm. Talking down to the electorate is insulting and always a bad idea.
I’m thrilled to learn that we have such a group doing this sort of far out scenario construction. It is after all the failures of imagination that caught us and others flat-footed when events like 9/11, the 2008 US housing crash and the Covid pandemic transpired.
Who is thinking about what could happen next? A catastrophic solar storm, a Pacific mega quake, a bird flu pandemic, a nuclear whoopsie (look who’s finger is on the button in the US). I’m glad somebody is.
And I would use stronger language than “careless” for politicians that undermine this work by using it irresponsibly for political ends.
I agree with you. I just read a great paper on "weak signals" today and how monitoring and analyzing weak signals can help point to problems that are already underway but not acknowledged or understood. I think having a segment of government doing this kind of thinking is useful, even if many of their predictions never come to pass.
Good writing Michelle
Wargaming out potential crises isn't a problem as long as the probabilities are evaluated and the comparative costs for preparing or not for the crisis considered.
Finally! Someone thinking about the actual reason for this department and why it's necessary rather than using it as click bait to get readers.
Poilievre deserves to get his toes roasted in the fire for that nonsense- he’s hopelessly addicted to social media soundbite theatre.
Its Sad
Great article Paul. Just wanted to flag that Policy Horizons Canada actually operates out of Employment and Social Development Canada, rather than PCO. (Seems this error, and others like the incorrect publication date, originates with the Blacklocks article - never known them to aim for 100% accuracy in reporting so this makes sense)
I also came to comment that Policy Horizons is under ESDC and not PCO. An important distinction as there is more distance between this small team and PCO than was implied by Pierre Pollievre and Paul Wells in his reporting.
Good eye- balling:-William H-M:- but an excusable// very explainable useof the PCO:-
...which is responsble for the entir Public Service of Canada ( and hence its' Departments.
Peter D Marshall, in Oakville.
This eloquently captures why, despite being what should be the sweet spot of the conservative demographic, I just can’t bring myself to vote for the guy. Logan Roy’s words to his kids come to mind. “I love you but you are not serious people”
As if Carney isn't prevaricating his face off daily.
Go ahead and vote the way you want to vote, but don't try to pretend one of these pigs doesn't have mud on it.
This, despite the increasingly thick application of lipstick on said muddy pig.
I've heard similar misrepresentation from him so consistently these past twenty years that I think he can reasonably be called a liar... a lying liar.
It's not just the heat of this moment; it's his entire schtick.
What drives a person to make dishonesty his personal brand? Does he actually believe the bullshit that comes out of his mouth, or does that even matter, if the only objective is that his essentially hand-picked audience of fellow travelers does? There is zealotry there; more than a whiff of evangelical Calvinism that justifies his otherwise wrong speech and actions when deployed on behalf of the chosen few.
These are not the tactics of democrats, but rather their antithesis.
I read the Conservative platform. Paul, I'm sorry to disagree with you from yesterday, but this one is precisely why we need parties to release costed platforms. The Conservative document is sophmoric in its content and composition. It reads like a term paper thrown together at midnight and I'm not certain Poilievre didn't write it himself.
The costing is... creative? And it seems to magically generate revenues from repealing a whole slate of environmental policies. Those "revenues" are the only thing making this plan affordable.
This line stood out to me: "New scanners and surveilance at ports. These scanners can see through walls of containers or veichles to spot..." Ok. Great. Do they mean non-invasive imaging techniques (NII)? If so, than say so. And also establish the why, please. This just puts me in mind of his speech at the Calgary stampede last year where he giggled (he'd had a few) his way through a claim that he'd give border guards hand scanners that would let them see the stolen cars in the containers. Etc. Etc.
The Conservative platform is an unserious document from a party seeking to lead a G7 nation. They've had 2 years and insane fundraising numbers. What the heck have they been doing!?
Excellent points Tara. Poilievre's costed platform is based on growth. Similar to the budget will balance itself. Are we sure, at this point in Trump's administration, that we are looking at a growth scenarios anywhere in the world? Today, the IMF reduced their world growth projection.
A journalist from the Economist stated that some of the Liberal costed platform was based on pixie dust. The Conservatives are looking for unicorns in theirs.
Sharonsommerville,...->m'am:- ....excellent, accurate, brief, observations:-not to mention your Economist- reading:- guote:- "pixie dust". Can I assume your unicorn metaphor meant Targeted ? 🤓 Peter D. in Oakville
Yes, absolutely, Peter. Targeted Unicorns.
ouch! ouch!! ouch!!!
"One thing we could hope, for instance, is that a 45-year-old man aspiring to high elected office would resist the urge to engage in the cheapest flim-flam to distract..."
I dislike either of our party leaders indulging in this sort of inaccurate, dishonest scaremongering. I was disgusted by Carney’s assertion the other day that Poilievre will use the notwithstanding clause to limit a woman’s right to an abortion. Will the Liberals *ever* give up on that utterly dead horse? The fact that Carney could say it without blushing indicates that he’s a man with no principles whatsoever.
Scaremongering? Ask that to the women living in the united states. In the nomination process for the Supreme Court, each and every conservative justice when being interviewed for the position, answered the question pertaining to abortion that that was settled law.
Check out the conservatives motions and petitions in 2024 2023 and 2021. All with regards to Abortion.
The Liberals have had decades worth of government to enact abortion legislation that would protect the right to choose.
The fact that the Liberals never seem to get around to it gravitates around the “US style” politics that they ape from the Democrats. The Liberals either need to change the law or stop talking about it.
The response was to Joanna's comment on scaremongering.
Yeah there are too many Canadian conservatives chomping on the bit to copiously deploy the NWS clause for any comfort.
Yes, it's scaremongering. Canada is not the U.S. & there has always been a higher percentage of opposition to abortion there than in Canada.
And agree with Darcy Hickson, Liberals have been free to enact abortion legislation for decades. That they've chosen not to indicates they prefer being able to use abortion as a wedge against the Conservatives.
Although some of us may be losing interest in the slight shifts in polling aggregate numbers, this piece reawakened my desire to read more about who’s saying what do get a few more votes. good stuff, Paul!
Paul, yes I've made my decision but how about WE focus on the big issues. I'll go 1st.
#1 is obviously Trump. Everyone is campaigning on how best to deal, challenge, fight him. That is just so much shite. How do you plan when you don't know what he is going to do next? Nothing he says can be taken at face value because his talk has a half life of hours.
#2 Carney wants to create more gov't funding orgs (we have like what, 7 now) that under Trudeau haven't had the magic multiplier effect because business wants stability, certainty to invest monies. They will take bribes ah subsidies but are more careful with their and clients monies. C69 etc will stay. So same environment as under Trudeau. Sure better managed because how could it not be. #3Who is best suited to make Canada more independent from the US? Carney is on record of employing a failed accounting to rename handouts (we are talking politicians here after all) as investments and exclude them from be added to the deficit/debt while still actually increasing both because Canada will still borrow that money. Yeah awesome, everyone wants to exclude their mortgage payments from being treated as an owed debt.
#4 This is the big one for me. $2 Trillion, $80 billion a year for 25 years aimed at net zero. What's the deficit/debt now? I've excluded the spending promises of Carney and PP but PP is about $2 Trillion light so that's a plus. By 2050 this strategy will recude global average temperatures by....GASP 0.017 degrees C. That is unless China, India etc don't further increase the rate of coal burning.
#5 Carney will leave Canada for the next better job when net zero goes to hell or Canadians revolt, unlikely in Canada but as with Trudeau they will plan to vote harshly. Carney can be trusted because he is an economist but he is also a politician guided by that vote winning/buying machine...the Liberal Party of Canada. With the same band of bobble heads that were just fine with Trudeau.....until maybe their "best job ever" was at risk. Oh I almost forgot his backroom team of Telford and Butts who created the green revolution that was going to transform Ontario's economy. We are still selling excess wind turbine and solar power to the USA and GAWD Quebec for a fraction of the cost we pay for it. So let's double down on that again. Uncle Doug talked a good game on this but it isn't a voting issue so who cares. Healthcare also who cares.
#6 The Liberals voted down having the ability to toss their leader...thanks to Katie I'll bet. So Trudeau had to decide to leave. I'm still waiting to see what that cost us. The tories kept their ability to punt leaders as we've seen with Scheer and O'Toole. Arrgh, why couldn't Rona Ambrose have stayed or even Michael Ignatiif or better Marc Garneau. One one guarantee about political parties is it is NEVER about the voters.
My wish is one day Canadians will be just a tad more skeptical of all things political much like the Swiss then maybe we can have nice things also.
So how about taking about the BIG issues that can make or break Canada
Has anybody in Canada written more about the very limited success of the feds’ debt-financing organizations than me? This goes back to the very first post I published when I launched this newsletter.
Well stated, Mr Wells, sir:- this is why I "approved" your plan to be the owner/operator/commentator for your own stats-collecting:-(very targetted, I assume); both the Nanos & Angus Reid pollster (for example);- " pundits are clearly politically biased > Pete D. in Oakville
My reply would be - who exactly are the economists who worked on Poilievre's program? If we're going to critize "at depth" on one side, let's take and "in-depth" look at the other too. The money aspect isn't the be-all and end-all of a campaign. Many other factors come into play and in my opinion the person that takes the lead from Trump - plastic straws, using the notwithstanding clause (Poilievre's version of an executive order) to prevent something that doesn't happen already, passing laws to prevent "wokeness" in universities, etc, etc, etc isn't exactly a serious choice. Just because he "says" he'll spend less, do more and balance the budget no matter WHAT doesn't mean he's credible - unless you're already inclined to what is a culture war.
The notwithstanding clause is nobody's version of an executive order. Also, the notwithstanding clause is a legitimate part of our Charter (constitution, if you prefer) - it was NOT accidentally included in that document.
...the Canadian equivalent of an American executive order is called an "Order in Council" and comes from the Privy Council.
Oh, he doesn't see it a free pass to unilaterally do as he wishes against Supreme Court rulings? Guess everyone and his brother (all Premiers & future Prime Ministers) can use it at will then for any purpose. Right?
This has been true since the Charter replaced the BNA, is this news to you?
...and yes, they can all use it basically as they please. That's why it was designed with accountability built right in - because there is NO way to use it quietly.
A politician who wants to use the NWC has to stick their neck out to do so, and face the wrath of the people if they've used it for a purpose the people don't like.
Look, the Supreme Court is supposed to interpret law, not write law.
We elect politicians write laws and thereby to lead us.
If a politician wants to run on a platform which includes using the NWC in a specific way (as Poilievre is now) there is a pretty simple way to signal your displeasure with that, you have the same amount of votes I do.
...but don't try to call it unconstitutional, because it simply isn't.
Where did I say unconstitutional? Your sense of superiority and put-downs others' opinions by adding your own words to them come across loud and clear. I guess my vote cancels yours then.
Correct, gs. , sir. Peter D. In Oakville
FWIW: The Liberals have enjoyed using Orders in Council to extend the ban on certain rifles and handguns. See: May 2020.
Thank you
I was going to formulate a reply, but what ian said pretty much nails it.
I believe your points 1 and 5 cancel each other out. Dealing with Trump is like dealing with climate change Fires, Floods, Drought, etc. You plan for eventualities with ways to respond and mitigate the damage. In point 5 you claim that you know the future regarding Carney.
What is point 3?
This is exactly the reason he is so distrusted by so many.
In " Strength in What Remains" Tracy Kidder details the life of a medical student from Burundi, next door to Rwanda. The constant repetition of lies-- lies about Tutsis, lies about Hutus-- led to mob violence against everyone, death for hundreds of thousands by spear, bullets, machetes.
Here you have an ambitious demagogue-in-the-making lying for effect. Our good luck to have bad luck with Trump, and keep Poilievre out of office.
Siri, spell hyperbole...