With the old guard tossed out and a new one taking over I thought I would start a thread for civil discussion here as was suggested by Noeller.

So have at it:

- with Trudeau and the Liberals in a majority, will we see most of all the "hopey, changy" materialize?

-what happens to the Conservatives? Will they become like the PC of old or lean more towards their Reformer roots?

-will Candians be better off?

-what happens to the NDP? Will they wilt back to stay in 3rd party status until the next Layton?

-will we see more of "Angry Tom" or more of "Smeying Thomas" (I so hope for the former, the latter scared the gravy outta me)

So once again have at it and try keeping away from the personal attacks, that includes making dumb assed comments which elicit (sometimes justifies) the personal attacks.

Deadline for the Syrian refugees has been pushed back by 2 months.

 

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/Deadline-for-25000-refugees-pushed-back-two-months-353211181.html

edit. Wrong thread

@TheWestBlock: Canada's finite military resources mean making a choice between bombing and training, says Trudeau https://t.co/gCZx8xkSor#cdnpoli

@jkenney: This is blatantly, obviously untrue. Our Forces have been engaged in both training & air strikes vs ISIL for a year. https://t.co/SalPNH2sfA

Consider the source as Rebel likes to spin things far right but this seems odd. Anyone see anything else about this?

When news started spreading about soldiers receiving letters notifying them that they would be asked to vacate their residences to make room for refugees, the Liberals denied it. They’ve now confirmed that single unmarried soldiers awaiting deployment, will indeed need to move.

Soldiers are used to being asked to make sacrifices and we’ll have to wait and see how long they can expect this dislocation to last.

On thing we do know however is that many of those displaced soldiers will be deployed to assist the refugees but out of concern that they might find the sight of uniformed soldiers disturbing, they won’t be wearing uniforms or carrying sidearms.

This hearkens back to the 1990’s when the Liberals forbade soldiers from wearing uniforms in public.

I think this has less to do with the refugees and everything to do with how the Liberals view the military.

Consider the source as Rebel likes to spin things far right but this seems odd. Anyone see anything else about this?

When news started spreading about soldiers receiving letters notifying them that they would be asked to vacate their residences to make room for refugees, the Liberals denied it. They’ve now confirmed that single unmarried soldiers awaiting deployment, will indeed need to move.

Soldiers are used to being asked to make sacrifices and we’ll have to wait and see how long they can expect this dislocation to last.

On thing we do know however is that many of those displaced soldiers will be deployed to assist the refugees but out of concern that they might find the sight of uniformed soldiers disturbing, they won’t be wearing uniforms or carrying sidearms.

This hearkens back to the 1990’s when the Liberals forbade soldiers from wearing uniforms in public.

I think this has less to do with the refugees and everything to do with how the Liberals view the military.

 

Good god... I can't stand that website... I'm sorry, I really did try to give it a shot- but man I just want to gouge out my own cussing eyes.

 

Went to the page where the story is...

 

read the story (which you have pasted in entirety), 

clicked on the "Liberals view" link

 

got taken to a cussy piece about a donate button that is a header on the Liberal Party of Canada website and is not independent to any specific pages... it's a cussing template... same thing that happened when Conservatives were accused of using terror to raise funds http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/donate-button-deleted-on-harper-and-trudeau-anti-terrorism-message-1.2895753 which was stupid to accuse them of that... because it was a template for the site... yet I don't recall his raging indignation about that... I suspect he came to the Cons defence instead. 

 

Then I click on the "Impeach Obama" link and for cuss sakes... Impeach Obama because he is not bombing specific infrastructure? what an IDIOT! Ezra Know full well! FULL WELL, that it is because they are interested in keeping the infrastructure intact (the quote even says that!) that they are not bombing it... sure sure- it is asinine for the administration to lead with environmental considerations and then infrastructure of interest... but to Impeach him, cuss that... SOOOOO much impotent rage and indignation on that site... The site is cussing insulting to anyone with an iota of intelligence. 

 

/rant

 

 

Anyway... back to original topic:

I haven't seen anything like that anywhere else, but I will keep my eyes open. It would be interesting to see a more even-handed take on the reasons, if this is true. 

trans pacific trade agreement

 

"Canada also is allowing foreign access to domestic government procurement contracts for construction projects over $5 million to all signatory actors to the deal. In summary, Canada's large infrastructure projects of the future could be built by foreign construction companies using large swaths of non-Canadian workforces (under the labour provisions outlined above).

 

 

 

anyone like that?

 

our money, used to pay non canadian corps, using imported labour, to build Canadian Government projects.

 

just brilliant.

 

Let's compete with Asian companies using Asian labour, not just for stuff they manufacture over there, but for construction jobs HERE.

 

Boy, that is a smart deal!

Interesting take on the middle class tax cut versus the rich tax

http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com//news/canada/canadian-politics/andrew-coyne-whacking-the-top-one-per-cent-with-a-tax-hike-not-the-bonanza-liberals-hype

trans pacific trade agreement

 

"Canada also is allowing foreign access to domestic government procurement contracts for construction projects over $5 million to all signatory actors to the deal. In summary, Canada's large infrastructure projects of the future could be built by foreign construction companies using large swaths of non-Canadian workforces (under the labour provisions outlined above).

 

 

 

anyone like that?

 

our money, used to pay non canadian corps, using imported labour, to build Canadian Government projects.

 

just brilliant.

 

Let's compete with Asian companies using Asian labour, not just for stuff they manufacture over there, but for construction jobs HERE.

 

Boy, that is a smart deal!

 

Yep, anyone that didn't see this coming wasn't paying attention to the details of past free trade agreements.

more trade panel stupidity

 

In the last 25 years, dolphin-safe labeling of tuna managed to reduce unnecessary annual deaths of the mammals from over 100,000 to only 3,000—an astounding 97% reduction—but the World Trade Organization just effectively nullified this critical program.

In order to placate Mexico as a member nation of the upcoming (and seemingly inevitable) Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the WTO deemed dolphin-safe labeling a “technical barrier to trade”—even though that environmentally-conscious label is voluntary and applies equally to domestic and foreign companies

 

 

Anonymous individuals, appointed to a panel, overrule American law.

That sucks.

more trade panel stupidity

 

In the last 25 years, dolphin-safe labeling of tuna managed to reduce unnecessary annual deaths of the mammals from over 100,000 to only 3,000—an astounding 97% reduction—but the World Trade Organization just effectively nullified this critical program.

In order to placate Mexico as a member nation of the upcoming (and seemingly inevitable) Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the WTO deemed dolphin-safe labeling a “technical barrier to trade”—even though that environmentally-conscious label is voluntary and applies equally to domestic and foreign companies

 

 

Anonymous individuals, appointed to a panel, overrule American law.

 

That's more or less the bottom line, if a corporation thinks that a government policy or action interferes with their access to a market or diminishes their profits they can have the government regulations overturned or even sue for compensation.  The people and their representative politicians have no say over management of resources from within their own country and cede control over them to multi-national corporations.  Environmental and labour laws are directly in the cross-hairs of these actions.

edit

Well after today Canada will not have any Conservative governments. The PC's in NF are expected to lose big time.

Well after today Canada will not have any Conservative governments. The PC's in NF are expected to lose big time.

 

Wow... That is kind of awesome.

Well after today Canada will not have any Conservative governments. The PC's in NF are expected to lose big time.

Wow... That is kind of awesome.

Well if we could wipe out the NDP things would be a lot more promising

Well after today Canada will not have any Conservative governments. The PC's in NF are expected to lose big time.

 

The Liberals in BC and the Sask Party in Saskatchewan are defacto Conservative governments.  I expect the Conservatives and Wild Rose to merge under the Wild Rose banner in Alberta to wipe out the New Dumbs in the next election, if Notley and her gang of tax and spend loons even make it to the next election before there is a recall. 

 

Well after today Canada will not have any Conservative governments. The PC's in NF are expected to lose big time.

 

Wow... That is kind of awesome.

 

 

Not really.  No NDP governments anywhere would be more than kind of awesome, it would be fantastic.

Perhaps our Alberta friends can tell is if it's as bad as some reports or 100,000 out of work, EI claims up 100% etc

@nationalpost: Alberta’s carbon plan ‘one more reason why the Western Canadian oilfield is going to die’ https://t.co/j036KvilOShttps://t.co/gFZbWm2Xkt

@CBCNews: Rachel Notley says Alberta emissions plan will lead to 'drama free' debate on energy proje… https://t.co/8rmJV5r4aIhttps://t.co/EJjBsrTW4c

@CBCAlerts: .@RachelNotley says Alberta's new plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions could end up benefiting oilsands industry: https://t.co/1xabhoMxZQ

On it's face this doesn't sound appropriate.

@CTVNews: PM's spokesperson defends Trudeau family's use of two taxpayer-funded nannies https://t.co/Pzz2ot4V2J#cdnpoli https://t.co/hGj60Ekuoh

On it's face this doesn't sound appropriate.

@CTVNews: PM's spokesperson defends Trudeau family's use of two taxpayer-funded nannies https://t.co/Pzz2ot4V2J#cdnpoli https://t.co/hGj60Ekuoh

Unless they armed.

 

On it's face this doesn't sound appropriate.

@CTVNews: PM's spokesperson defends Trudeau family's use of two taxpayer-funded nannies https://t.co/Pzz2ot4V2J#cdnpoli https://t.co/hGj60Ekuoh

Unless they armed.

 

Apparently this is turning into a "thing" with some media and observers calling it "NannyGate".  Trudeau criticized the child care rebate by saying his family qualified for $3000 it didnt need.  And now he uses taxes to cover child care.

 

I get that the two individuals serve other purposes in the residence (though I havent seen it detailed what they do) but any formal child care provided should be reimbursed by the family.

 

Easy to pile on the guy but Ill just say this reflects on the idea he's a spoiled 1%'er.  Why on earth would he think this was okay.

 

Unless Im missing something here.....

I assumed this is something that's been in place all along and really don't see anything wrong with it. Being PM comes with some perks...

I assumed this is something that's been in place all along and really don't see anything wrong with it. Being PM comes with some perks...

If so, I dont like it.  What happens to these two "assistant" positions when the PM has no minor children?

 

Id like to know if Harper did the same thing.

 

Its definitely not unheard of for a political leader to have to cover costs of his families day to day living.  It also plays all wrong for a guy who campaigned on the wealthy being able to foot their own child care costs.

I honestly don't begrudge Trudeau this cost, but on the other hand, did anyone expect him to back up his words with personal action?  That's like asking David Suzuki to sell off one of his four houses.

I honestly don't begrudge Trudeau this cost, but on the other hand, did anyone expect him to back up his words with personal action? That's like asking David Suzuki to sell off one of his four houses.

Agreed. Ofcourse. But it still rubs me the wrong way. Seems stereotypically elitist. Id feel that way of it was Harper.

What does his wife do? Isn't she home from a recent birth? I wonder how the regular public manages to raise their children without two nannies.