Yeah , harper was not able to change the regulations even tho he tried prior to the 2008 GFC .

https://theteteatete.org/2015/05/04/...nomic-manager/

“ Facts: Canada weathered the global recession better than other G7 countries, yes, but did so in spite of Harper as much or more than because of him. Experts mostly agree that Canada has fared well for two reasons: (i) our banks had regulations preventing them from engaging in many of the risky lending practices that brought down the big U.S. banks (Harper himself has said this); (ii) we, like most other developed countries, used fiscal stimulus to cushion the fall in the immediate aftermath of the banking crisis, and we bailed out some of our big manufacturers (e.g. General Motors and Chrysler).

Canada’s banking regulations pre-dated Harper by decades. In fact, prior to the financial crisis, Harper was a proponent of deregulation. In 2006 for example, he paved the way for the introduction of the risky 40-year, zero-down mortgages that helped bring down the U.S. banking system – insured by Canadian taxpayers. Some have argued that Canada would have suffered much worse in the financial crisis had it happened a few years later. In fact, we may not even be out of the woods yet. Canada’s housing market is considered to be dangerously (~35%) over-valued, and the drop in oil prices is threatening to burst the bubble. In opposition and at the National Citizens Coalition, Harper was similarly a proponent of U.S.-style banking deregulation, and was a critic of Chrétien’s decision to block large bank mergers in the late ’90s – a decision which the IMF recently argued was partly responsible for how well Canada was able to weather the crash.”

Oh I am not crediting Harper. I think also having great heads of The Bank of Canada made a huge difference as well

Chretien was a great prime minister

Justin says he is for women Though he stands behind a candidate Raj Sain with multiple accusations of sexual misconduct

https://xnewsnet.com/justin-trudeau-...of-misconduct/

I have a serious question for conservatives voters ITT: What, exactly, are you excited about with O'Toole's platform? I think we have heard a lot about why you guys don't like Trudeau. Ok. But is there any redeeming qualities to O'Toole and his policy ideas that isn't just anti-Trudeau?

Take this: O'Toole just said he can balance the federal budget "without cuts". This is laughably stupid. I know you guys spent ages mocking and mocking Trudeau when he said that the "budget will balance itself" and they both meant the identical point: spent billions on the economy, the economy will grow, and that will balance the budget without the need for cuts. As I said at this time, Trudeau was wrong to say this moronic conservative talking point that is false, false, false. But now that O'Toole has said more or less the exact same thing, are you guys.....excited?

I'm honestly very surprised by O'Toole's platform. He is trying to out-Liberal the Liberals. He copies the Liberal approach of massive pandemic recovery spending, but goes even further! He copies the Liberals climate plan, but makes it worse. He copies the Liberals childcare plan, but makes it worse. Like wtf are you guys remotely excited about?

This is the sense I have, and correct me if I am wrong. Broadly speaking, the major policy differences are pretty ****ing minor. Maybe you like the exact technocratic details of the insane deficit spending plans on covid recovery or blah blah blah, but broadly speaking they are very similar. What I think it comes down to is pretty simple, ultimately. I prefer Trudeua because his climate plan and implementation is just better. Unequivocally better. And on your side, the sense I have is that mostly it isn't policy concerns at all. It is personality. Am I really so wrong?

The Chretien/Martin team I think is at the top of my list as Canada's best.

That said Chretien does have one massive unforgiveable sin that made Canada far less democratic that is in place today.

Out of his disdain for the Liberal party Rat Pack who could be called the Canadian version of populist Progressive in the US landscape and his inability to have candidates beat them (primary them) to silence their often irritating voice from his left, he changed the way candidates can get into politics in the most disgusting of ways.

Prior if you had the grass roots support (aligned with the Party heads or not) you could become a member by winning your district and then the election. Chretien made it such that each district held the ultimate veto power and regardless of the vote they could appoint the party rep who would run in the election.


This all but gutted any true grass roots movements that might try to shift the Liberal party as you could spend tremendous money pushing that candidate, win and then just get veto'd by party brass who then insert a party line candidate.

In western democracy I have not seen a more egregious stamping out of the democratic process. It would be like giving Dem brass the ability to simply appoint any candidate that lost to a progressive after a tough race. Well you won't have many Progressive running then.

And that mechanism, of having irritating grass roots movements within a party is very foundational to democracy. It how a party evolves to move with its base eventually instead of losing them. The old guard may hate the evolutions as they are retiring anyway but the parties ultimate success requires it have that input from the irritant grass roots.

I actually think that move has had a long term impact on the Liberal party and their ability to obtain solid majorities just as if the Dems just veto'd out all the Progressives it would impact that parties ability to win or get majorities.

Good to see you have jumped on the PPC bandwagon.

Ok it was a honest question and Ill give you an honest answer as I will be voting conservative in a tightly contested riding in Edmonton-Strathcona

I vote Conservative most of my life. That ended when Stephen Harper said he would not change the legislation on Income Trusts than 3 weeks later changed the legislation on Income Trusts. I became an Independent and voted on who I thought was the best candidate in my riding. Heck I voted once Green

I am also the one that thought when Justin Trudeau first run. Man this guy is something different and is promising transparency, election reform, Legalize pot and Refugees and I Like what I heard.

Well he legalized pot ( I do not use it) and brought in the Syrian refugees and was good with him. Than it all went downhill. I gave him the benefit of doubt on the sexual assault but than when his excuse for Jody Lynn was the same as his assault .....
I could list all the broken promises, corruption, lack of transparency and what I perceive as a weak climate change strategy.

So you are correct Erin O'Toole platform is not a traditional conservative platform and varies very little from the liberals I have respect for his 12 years in the military and him as a person . I was on the fence between the NDP and Conservatives. Erin O'Tooles promise on animal welfare was the decider for me. I foster and rescue dogs and this is an important issue for me as are Climate, China, Veterans and Indigenous Affairs

Its not Justin's Personality that I question its his character . I think after 6 years that is the issue with folks that voted for him once or twice and not again

So that was sort of what I expected. You mostly don't have anything about the conservative policy platform that motivates you, except this:

I have no idea whether the NDP or the Conservatives are better on animal welfare. Wouldn't this be exactly the type of thing the NDP are more likely to care about?

For the others, surely the NDP are better on climate and indigenous affairs. Conservatives do pay a lot of lip service to veterans, as do all parties, but I think I would give it to the NDP there as more likely to actually put money in the pockets of veterans. That leaves China, an extremely complex and thorny issue with no clear answers.

I'm sorry, putting that together and I don't really follow your arguments for Conservative over NDP.

Ah sorry I was behind. I see the "ban puppy mills" was a brand new conservative announcement on, uh, Aug 30th. You declared you would vote conservative well over a month ago. Is this REALLY the singular policy initiative of the conservative platform you like?

A bit of googling here also makes it sound like this is probably mostly an empty vote-getting crowd-pleasing gesture. It is provinces - not the federal government - that jurisdictionally have the responsibility for regulating pets and animals and each province has various rules about exactly that. And I mean it worked, you immediately jumped on that bandwagon.

Though did you not contradict yourself by saying the NDP is the strongest on climate yet you are voting liberal

Yes you are correct that a month ago I was voting Conservative but I really like what Jagmit had to say. I am in a riding that has been NDP for a while and is a tight race. Month ago I thought the conservatives had no chance. Now I am not sure


As for the Puppy Mill thing being a provincial matter so is the hiring of nurses and doctors. Yet JY promises 7500 more

To be clear, I'm not voting Liberal. I do hope that it is either a Liberal government or a Liberal/NDP coalition government, but in my local riding I'm probably voting green (it is a riding that will be NDP and I wouldn't be too sad to vote NDP either).

Secondly, I don't pretend to be able to convince you to vote Liberal. You abhor Trudeau. But I think you are making the wrong call voting Conservative vs NDP so let's just focus on those choices. Personally I think the Liberals are slightly superior on climate change to the NDP but it is very close. Both however are far far far far better than the conservatives. You listed climate as an important issue for you, but you are choosing the worst major party? That seems wrong.



I believe Trudeau's plan is about providing health transfer funding, which is the appropriate federal government role. I don't like puppy mills as much as you, but this is hardly a top 100 federal government issue and jurisdictionally seems like a provincial matter anyways. This is really typical with issue, that parties come out with election season little vote pleasing policies that sound great for a niche of the electorate who have that issue as a high priority. It is about getting earned media attention specifically in that niche and hooking people in, that is part of the election game, and its fine, but it really seems like a poor reason to choose the party that is so much worse on climate.

His analysis is correct here. I disagree with his values.

It is part of the contradiction that is Bernier. I think he is a better fiscal conservative than the conservative party whose platform is all about trying to out-spend Trudeau. If you are a fiscal conservative, and that was ALL that Bernier represented, I think you should vote for him. However, Bernier ALSO has this insane climate denialism and a range of other culture war issues that probably make all but the most alt-right fringe of the conservative platform want to vote for him, despite his superiority on being a fiscal conservative.

As for Climate I think none of them have a real policy other than Jagmit but he is weak as well . Will not mention coal exports or raw sewage as those are areas he can win
Bottom line on the Climate I think its a serious issue a world issue and unless as a planet we tackle it nothing will change. That does not mean we should have the attitude screw it

If a party had a platform of

• No new oil exploration unless its to meet our consumption needs
• Sell the Trans Mountain Project but complete it
• No foreign oil
• No coal that is produced outside of Canada to be shipped through Canada's ports
• in 5 years no province can dump raw sewage into the Ocean and contribute 50% of the cost to build Waste treatment facilities
• 25% import tax on all products coming in from a country that does not meet Paris Climate #'s
• All carbon tax rebates only to those making less than $75,000 and must apply for them
• All carbon tax revenue to be only used for green projects only and audited

That would be a climate strategy I could vote for


Uke Do you understand why people do not believe any of Trudeau's campaign promises?

Wouldn't it then make more sense for you to vote NDP than Conservative? You say climate is a priority for you. The NDP plan is much better than the conservative plan. Why would you then vote for the conservatives?

Ok. You seem to want a very strong climate plan. Wouldn't it thus make way way way more sense for you to vote for the NDP which has a much stronger plan than the conservatives?


That's fine. I support Trudeau because of his climate actions that he already put into place and I hope the conservatives won't take away. But let's not talk about Trudeau any more. You abhor him. Let's focus on NDP vs Conservative. Which is better for the climate of those two?

Wow, great response...so are we take that to mean you don't support the Conservative agenda?

Because the NDP target Alberta and Saskatchewan in their climate strategy over other areas that need immediate action
Let me explain how I feel about Climate change

So you have 15 people in a sinking boat . Hole in the boat it is going to sink One of those people represents Canada
The Green Party is scooping out water with a cup
The NDP is scooping water out with a shot glass
The Liberals and Conservatives are dipping their glass in the Ocean and adding to the boat.

Here is a great article on the Dirty Secrets Of Coal Exports through BC harbor
All under the approval of Justin Trudeau and the BC NDP party

https://niagaraindependent.ca/the-di...-of-vancouver/

Lozen you will be so pleased. The liberal party's platform is to ban thermal coal exports*! And of course all production/transportation/etc of coal in Canada is subject to the liberal carbon tax, just like with oil. And of course your conservative buddies wouldn't do this!

Your position is honestly baffling. You were the one that listed climate change FIRST on your rather short list of policies priorities. Yet you are supporting the worst - by far - party on climate change. I know the liberals, despite having done an incredible job advancing the carbon tax and making a legitimate first step against climate change, are off the table because you abhor Trudeau. Ok. So that leaves the NDP, which you think is better than the liberals, or the Conservatives plan which is a laughable joke.

How can you possibly square that in your mind? How can you choose the worst of the parties, the one that ignored climate change for a ****ing decade in power, and whose current plan in its rosiest and best-case-scenario polishing is still worse than what we have already, let alone what we could have with the NDP? How can you claim to care about climate change and think this way?

The characterization of the NDP as being particularly against Alberta and Saskatchewan doesn't really hold water. Read their plan. Most of the details are pretty broad based, they are now on team carbon tax as well and want to apply that to everything. The NDP is against federal subsidization of the oil industry, and like me isn't a fan of building yet more new pipelines, but in any serious climate change plan we can't be pumping out way more oil anyways. YOU want "No new oil exploration unless its to meet our consumption needs". That is just as anti-Alberta as anything the NDP have said. So again, according to what YOU claim you want, you should absolutely not be voting conservative!











*Minor note: The banning of thermal coal was an extremely thorny issue in the Donald Trump NAFTA/USMCA and circa 4 years ago when the liberal government was looking into it; you might be mad they haven't done it already, but this one really felt like a "time is not right" issue where now the time is right.

Can you show me were it lists that on its platform and Climate was important to me but not my number one issue

https://liberal.ca/our-
platform/

Sadly you do not get the fact that many folks do not believe any campaign promise Justin makes because he just does not seem to fulfill any

Right here on the very website you listed: https://liberal.ca/our-platform/elim...-coal-exports/

You listed climate change as an important priority to you, and itemized a wish list of policy items that is actually very aggressive. Yet in a shocking contradiction, you are voting for the party with by far the worst policy record and policy plan on climate change. It is fine that you abhor Trudeau and don't trust him even when he does the exact policy you want (and needless to say the conservatives would not do). But you can still vote NDP and be consistent with your claimed priorities.

What I'm trying to get you to do is talk about the actual policies you care about. But whenever you go into any detail, it seems like the NDP is far better for you.

2030 Oh please . You have had the power to do it in 6 years and did nothing. Now you will say you will do it by 2030

Ok Climate Change is really important to me and I plan on voting strictly on climate change in the 2030 election

Its like he says one of their achievements is Protecting our coasts with an Ocean's Protection Plan yet your allowing more tankers in for Oil and coal and dumping millions of gallons of raw sewage into the Ocean

Ok. Do you think we should ban all oil exports today as well? I’m a pretty strict environmentalist here, but even I acknowledge that it is important to have a timeline and phase out period, and 2030 is the big major timeline for a wide swath of the extremely ambitious Liberal climate change goals.

But this is a classic problem that is pervading your entire stance. Whenever we get to an issue, you want the MORE extreme option. Cut harder, cut sooner. You can probably get me on board with risking the economic upheaval and eliminating an entire Canadian industry should be done in five not ten years. But immediately?

Ok, that makes you sound like you are serious about climate change. Yet you are voting for the worst party on climate change? One whose plan is a joke, and they don’t even plan to do the policies you claim you want in 2030 let alone immediately.

I just don’t see any way you can rectify this fundamental tension in your worldview here. And it doesn’t seem like you are even trying.

I am not calling for an immediate halt to exporting resources from Canada. I want North America to be self sufficient. The oil industry has a goal in Alberta of being net zero by 2050 just like JT

Im calling to a immediate halt to refining or exporting another countries fossil fuels. Especially coal that is the dirtiest one of the bunch and a 5 year goal to stop dumping raw sewage into the ocean

I made my analogy on climate change with the sinking boat.

Do you know WHY it is that Vancouver has become the default western seaboard port for thermal coal exports from the US to China? It is because of the ****ing conservatives. It was the 2012 weakening of the environmental regulation process that allowed the Westshore terminal build up to occur, and put Canada into the business of being a middleman in comparison to the western seaboard states. And the conservatives will do NOTHING to stop that in the future.

You can be mad at the liberals that now that the thing is built didn't immediately cut it again, and instead rolled it into their 2030 plan with everything else including oil. You can be mad the liberals aren't fast enough. I'm mad. But maybe vote for the NDP which is perhaps more likely to cut this out faster and sooner.

But no. You are voting conservative. The people that made this possible, and who will do nothing to stop it.

Ultimately, I struggle to really believe that you genuinely care about this regulation arbitrage shipping issue, except as a means to deflect criticism of the dominance of Albertan that unlike the thermal coal situation (which is just about marginal difference in transportation hubs for american produced coal) is actually adding new supply. If you DID care about this type of thing, and all the other things on your list of climate policies, you should be voting NDP! You are voting for the worst player in this game.

Not super excited about it. Still undecided on who I will be voting for. The energy policies in their platform are decent, atleast not hostile towards the industry that feeds my family. It's still bizarre to me that people would consider the PPC's climate/energy policies "extreme" compared to the other parties, particularly the left-wing ones.

Fair enough. I can't imagine why anyone would vote PPC for anything other than a "protest" vote. Some of the candidates they've fielded...ugh. And since they're unlikely to ever become relevant, it seems to me that they're doing nothing but siphoning off some Conservative votes.