healthetank

It should exist for short term, emergency situations, IMO. Not for passing long term laws where it will need to be invoked every 5yrs forever to keep going

It's definitely in his interest to try and portray lobbyists as useless. If/when this becomes a big story for him, he can pivot and say they're not doing their company any good anyway, so it shouldn't matter.

In December, Poilievre expressed disdain for Bay Street executives, saying he "almost never" speaks to crowds in downtown Toronto or "anywhere close to Bay Street."

Fundraising records show Poilievre has headlined three fundraisers for the Conservative Party on Bay Street and at least four others in downtown Toronto since 2023.

Lol, anyone who thinks Pierre is a "for the people" man is more gullible than those who thought Trudeau was.

Edit: as the article mentions, Liberals made it mandatory to post who's attending these events ahead of time (when >200$/person). CPC fought against it on the grounds of, (an actual quote from the debate minutes)

My question for the minister is this: why legalize something that is ethically unacceptable?

And Pierre voted against the bill.

Uhhh, ISG senators show a voting record with more rejections than the partisan system we had before did - even NaPost analysis shows a better result than previous senate/government voting recods (with an enormous number of nominees, which would make it easy for Liberals to consolidate power, if that was their sole goal.)

NaPost Analysis

Conservative Senate leader Don Plett dismissed the ISG’s independence, pointing out that Trudeau appointees never threaten to defeat any government legislation.

Plett said ultimately he also doesn’t believe the Senate should be standing in the way of an elected government’s mandate.

“I don’t think that’s the Senate’s role. I think it’s a senator’s role to give it sober second thought and to try to improve legislation that is flawed when it comes to us.”

He both complains they don't threaten to strike down legislation, then goes on to say he doesn't believe their role is to strike it down, but suggest improvements. The only way they should reject a bill, as agreed by ISG members;

Simons said voting down a bill has to be a measure of last resort, although she has voted against final reading on several government bills. “If we oppose a bill, we have to have a really sound reason for doing so, that isn’t just ‘I could write a better one’.”

Now we have, in name an in voting patterns within the groups, bipartisan groups in the senate, not just "off-broadway house of commons".

Before creating his new Canadian Senators Group caucus, Tannas said taking a partisan approach all the time felt limiting and wasn’t in line with what he wanted to do as a senator.

“That’s the part I hated. I detest the game that we’ve somehow got to be some off-Broadway version of the House of Commons,” he said.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McGill_College_Avenue

Interesting article that goes far more into depth than I was anticipating.

If you're curious about the actual tax rates and burdens (ie when boomers were working age, there was 7 to ever 1 retiree, now we're around 3:1) I'd recommend reading it.

There's definitely going to be some harder times ahead regardless of how taxes are structured just because of how much older people are when they die, and all the extra healthcare burden associated with that.

All of the money collected during the program’s duration, some $472 million, “went into Ontario coffers,” and wasn’t used to compensate market participants, the company states repeatedly.

Notably, Koch Industries says the Ford government is withholding documents related to decision-making around the cancellation. The company’s latest submission notes that freedom of information requests remain outstanding nearly two years after they were filed.

If even Koch Industries can't get their ATIP fulfilled, what hope do we?

I'm not a fan of big companies, but I can't help but feel they have a leg to stand on. Ford has recklessly and repeatedly ignored contracts he doesn't like, and basically said 'damn the consequences, those will be sorted by the next guy in place'. (see, renewables contracts, Bill 124, this cap and trade, the greenbelt changes, the OEB override and legislation)

Yet another example of a government more interested in the profits of a company than in the welfare of its citizens or their future.

Yes, this decision could add costs to development of houses. Guess what - it could also drastically reduce them, if new development forgoes ANY enbridge, saving time on utility install, plus the installation of the natural gas lines into the house.

Another great journalistic article from the Narwhal.

EDIT: I wasn't going to add this, but the OEB actually examined enbridge's cost and found that the cost to developers is minimal.

This is the same government that is sending hundreds and thousands of completely censored pages to committees. This isn’t better than Harper, this is right out of the same playbook.

Really? The exact same playbook?

Dug up a few articles from some of the bigger transparency issues I remember from the Harper days. Harper set up a Supreme Court Nominee public committee, then bypassed it entirely. The process Harper used to appoint them remains, to the best of my knowledge, hidden and about as opaque as can be.

Trudeau recognized this, and created a new advisory board which provides waaaay more information. . Scroll down this link and see the info they provide on the process. They include educational history, groups and organizations they belong to, teaching activities, pro bono efforts, etc. They also define the qualifications and assessment criteria so everyone can see how they're being graded, as can the public.

Harper was pretty against reporters and media in general. Here are two more links discussing the terrible relationship with the press and reporters that Harper had.

Or the FIPA push through at the last minute despite significant protest about the terms, with his rationale or internal discussions never being released?

One big one I remember from the time was the daily itinerary of the PM, which Trudeau pledged (and followed through on) posting. The quality is sadly lacking, but its still waay better than nothing, which was what Harper provided.

Trudeau is not open and transparent, but compared to Harper? Miles more.

BONUS: Came across this Star article discussing the various scandals Harper was involved in during his tenure, in case anyone needs a refresher.

Beyond his backtracking on election reform when early results indicated it'd be a long, tough battle to actually change and re-educate people?

He ran on transparency, and while he has been faaaar more transparent than Harper, thats a low bar, and I expect better.

Hes had his share of scandals, which isn't good (SNC, ArriveCan, off the top of my head)

He supported the transpacific pipeline, which I personally am against.

The Liberal party drastically increased immigration rates beyond what the systems to help get them started (think transferring education credits, language barriers, community programs, etc) could handle. The current housing crisis is at least in part due to that.

All in all, not a terrible PM by my judge, but I tend to lean further left than him, so it's not like I'd vote for PP no matter what Trudeau did.

For those who aren't aware, Financial Post is owned by Postmark Media, a media conglomerate owned by (66% share) Chatham Asset Management LLC, an American Hedge Fund. They also own controlling stake in AMI media (now a360 media) which was responsible for killing a story about an affair Trump had with Karen McDougall (playboy) in advance of the 2016 election. Read the link for a few other stories they killed related to Trump and the 2016 election. (For what it's worth after the scandal broke, Chatham Asset MGMT took action and sold off some of the newspapers.)

Additionally, Postmark Media has a strong history of endorsing the conservatives, for what thats worth.

Can't say I'm surprised, but there's some irony in banning renewables to maintain 'pristine viewscapes' while still allowing open pit coal mines.

Yeah, it must be the spending, not the enormous cuts to large business taxes that have been continuously occuring over the last 40ish years.