Conservative Platform

[Drip_Torch]

I can't agree the Liberals' platform is fiscally conservative. It seems to me you intended to be disgusted by the Conservative platform, and therefore you were. I approached it from a perspective of cautious optimism and found some pleasant surprises. Nothing horrifying or disgusting.

That said, I haven't had a chance to go through it again, and intend to do so. You have quite a few questions about the financial statement, as do I. I'll try to answer them as best I can when time permits. Like you, I doubt the platforms will sway any of the decided voters. It's often the undecided voters who actually decide the outcome of an election.

Here are some questions for you: Do you want the party you voted for to support the measures on pages 53 and 54 of the platform document? How about the measures re fiscal responsibility on page 89? Or the supports for rural Canadians? Would you want the party you voted for to support, or object to, the $1M for the Minister of Rural Affairs?

My first thought as I read your post is it's all relative. Nuff said. I certainly didn't intend to be disgusted, but I did anticipate being disappointed and this platform did managed to do that. The cuts disturbing, the platitudes disappointing and the double talk - well, I've come to expect that. Nothing horrifying, I'll agree - I don't see a million bucks being put aside for a new Minister of Right Thinking, or anything like that. Disgusting, hmm, yes I found that on page 64, but I've never known the conservatives to take a nuanced approach to anything, so perhaps I shouldn't be surprised by a paragraph of in your face disgusting.

I'd sure appreciate looking at your response, if only in a general way, to the questions I posed. No rush, doesn't appear many have been in a rush to review the conservative platform, so I'll just chill and go with the flow too.

Pages 53 and 54, nicely played. You're asking me questions on a topic I generally avoid. I'll save you some time... 3687 posts and two are from me making fun of Gary Peters getting bitten by a snake. Do I think there were some ethical lapses, sure I happened to be looking at a couple before the Libyan uprising started. Do I think the current discussion is anything more than political opportunism - nope. There were far bigger elements at play and I find it somewhat distasteful the way the conservatives have taken the "burn it to ground" approach on the file. All the while knowing that certain hands are tied and there are other considerations that won't be discussed openly. Like I said, the SNC stock chart is a documentary of the current "take no prisoners" approach to winning elections. It's not a discussion I want to participate in and I hope you'll allow me to leave it at that.

Generally speaking, no more cover-ups, section 39 Canada evidence act, increased oversight, lobbying restrictions, conflict... etc., all sound good, but in my opinion, are empty motions that carry no substance. Virtue signaling at best, political folly at worst. Gov't has many moving parts and I just happen to remember some of those moving part, back in day and saw how they moved. Every law has an intent and when the political intent is to circumvent it... well, hmm, Doug Ford. (Friday's decision to be precise.)

Page 89. Another sounds good, proves empty page of virtue signaling. Balanced Budget legislation, hmm, pretty sure I've enjoyed that amusement ride before and it didn't end well. Paygo - LoL, are you serious? You're not really asking me if I'm that naïve - are you? If you are, the answer is no. How's that all work in your mind? Say, suddenly we're looking at a salmon fisheries collapse on the west coast. Okay, perhaps it won't be so suddenly. We need to offset the additional spending...(looks around frantically) Oceans protection plan (flush) - there that was easy.

It's like the funding for 250 extra RCMP officers. $155,000 per set of boots and 1 civilian support worker for every 4 sets of boots at an additional $70,000. We need these extra 250 RCMP officers for [reasons] according to the Conservatives, but we actually have folks in the RCMP crystal and carpet castle that determine how many officers we need and take a budget to the gov't every year. Politics trumping process - another signal to the base.

A Minister of Rural Affairs? Okay, it's only a million bucks, but what are Rural Affairs? If there are no fish in the streams is that a rural affair, or a fisheries affair? If there is a pending disaster happening in a rural area, is that a rural affair, or a public safety and emergency preparedness issue. If the rural infrastructure is broken and needs repairs, is that a … oh wait, bad example, given the 18 billion dollar cut over 5 years. You get my point, I hope. What is a Rural Affair and how does it differ from all the other jurisdictional considerations within the federal divisions of power? To me, it just looks like a million dollars that adds another layer of bureaucracy to any issues in rural areas.

[Merry]

I’m confused; I thought the Liberal Carbon Tax was supposed to be “revenue neutral” yet here is Drip Torch making the point that if the Conservatives repeal the tax, they’ll be giving up a lot of revenue.

Repeal the Carbon Tax, 2020-21, a 222 million dollar loss. 2021-22 a 168 million dollar loss. Get that, obviously tossing the baby out with the bath water isn't going to be cheap, but I get lost on the years from 2022 on...

The Liberals can’t claim it’s “revenue neutral” and then say that repealing it will result in an unacceptably high loss of Government revenue. So which is it? The former, or the latter?

[1791]

Conservatives sound a lot like liberals. Climate bs. Ppc or bust

[Merry]

I don’t believe that the world will come to an end in 12 years if we don’t adopt a carbon tax, but I do believe that we need to clean up our act regarding environmental pollution.

However, for me, simply applying a kind of “sin tax” to carbon producing goods and services, which many will simply pay and then carry on as normal, is an inadequate approach.

Andrew Scheer is correct when he says we need to think globally when it comes to saving the planet, but so are those who say we must start by setting our own example alongside our attempts to effect global change.

Pollution of all kind needs to be addressed, not just pollution resulting from the burning of fossil fuels. And the public needs to be better educated about the source of many of the products we all take for granted. Far too many people opposed to the oil industry, own multiple luxury items that are derived from the very industry they claim to be so opposed to.

If we truly want to save our planet, we need to rethink the extreme consumerism many national economies are based on. And we need Governments who are prepared to face the wrath of their citizens, and legislate changes that really will make a big difference.

Will that happen? Not as long as we allow Governments to get away with simply pretending they’re doing so (by implementing a useless virtue signalling tax) instead of enacting legislation that will make a real difference.

[rustled]

I’m confused; I thought the Liberal Carbon Tax was supposed to be “revenue neutral” yet here is Drip Torch making the point that if the Conservatives repeal the tax, they’ll be giving up a lot of revenue.

Repeal the Carbon Tax, 2020-21, a 222 million dollar loss. 2021-22 a 168 million dollar loss. Get that, obviously tossing the baby out with the bath water isn't going to be cheap, but I get lost on the years from 2022 on...

The Liberals can’t claim it’s “revenue neutral” and then say that repealing it will result in an unacceptably high loss of Government revenue. So which is it? The former, or the latter?

Driptorch will correct me if I'm wrong, but I understood this comment to be questioning that line in the Conservative platform, not agreeing with it. The platform makes several references to their reliance on the PBO, e.g.

The Conservative Party of Canada has relied on projections from the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) as the basis for our budget plan. The PBO has reasonable, conservative estimates for the fiscal outlook over the next decade.

Cynic that I am, I'm looking again to reassure myself they haven't relied the PBO where convenient and "suggested" they relied on it throughout.

[rustled]

My first thought as I read your post is it's all relative. Nuff said. I certainly didn't intend to be disgusted, but I did anticipate being disappointed and this platform did managed to do that. The cuts disturbing, the platitudes disappointing and the double talk - well, I've come to expect that. Nothing horrifying, I'll agree - I don't see a million bucks being put aside for a new Minister of Right Thinking, or anything like that. Disgusting, hmm, yes I found that on page 64, but I've never known the conservatives to take a nuanced approach to anything, so perhaps I shouldn't be surprised by a paragraph of in your face disgusting.

I'd sure appreciate looking at your response, if only in a general way, to the questions I posed. No rush, doesn't appear many have been in a rush to review the conservative platform, so I'll just chill and go with the flow too.

Pages 53 and 54, nicely played. You're asking me questions on a topic I generally avoid. I'll save you some time... 3687 posts and two are from me making fun of Gary Peters getting bitten by a snake. Do I think there were some ethical lapses, sure I happened to be looking at a couple before the Libyan uprising started. Do I think the current discussion is anything more than political opportunism - nope. There were far bigger elements at play and I find it somewhat distasteful the way the conservatives have taken the "burn it to ground" approach on the file. All the while knowing that certain hands are tied and there are other considerations that won't be discussed openly. Like I said, the SNC stock chart is a documentary of the current "take no prisoners" approach to winning elections. It's not a discussion I want to participate in and I hope you'll allow me to leave it at that.

Generally speaking, no more cover-ups, section 39 Canada evidence act, increased oversight, lobbying restrictions, conflict... etc., all sound good, but in my opinion, are empty motions that carry no substance. Virtue signaling at best, political folly at worst. Gov't has many moving parts and I just happen to remember some of those moving part, back in day and saw how they moved. Every law has an intent and when the political intent is to circumvent it... well, hmm, Doug Ford. (Friday's decision to be precise.)

Page 89. Another sounds good, proves empty page of virtue signaling. Balanced Budget legislation, hmm, pretty sure I've enjoyed that amusement ride before and it didn't end well. Paygo - LoL, are you serious? You're not really asking me if I'm that naïve - are you? If you are, the answer is no. How's that all work in your mind? Say, suddenly we're looking at a salmon fisheries collapse on the west coast. Okay, perhaps it won't be so suddenly. We need to offset the additional spending...(looks around frantically) Oceans protection plan (flush) - there that was easy.

It's like the funding for 250 extra RCMP officers. $155,000 per set of boots and 1 civilian support worker for every 4 sets of boots at an additional $70,000. We need these extra 250 RCMP officers for [reasons] according to the Conservatives, but we actually have folks in the RCMP crystal and carpet castle that determine how many officers we need and take a budget to the gov't every year. Politics trumping process - another signal to the base.

A Minister of Rural Affairs? Okay, it's only a million bucks, but what are Rural Affairs? If there are no fish in the streams is that a rural affair, or a fisheries affair? If there is a pending disaster happening in a rural area, is that a rural affair, or a public safety and emergency preparedness issue. If the rural infrastructure is broken and needs repairs, is that a … oh wait, bad example, given the 18 billion dollar cut over 5 years. You get my point, I hope. What is a Rural Affair and how does it differ from all the other jurisdictional considerations within the federal divisions of power? To me, it just looks like a million dollars that adds another layer of bureaucracy to any issues in rural areas.

Cynicism is reasonable, given how we've been burned by promises in the past. IMO, you may be allowing a preconceived bias to convince you the commitments in this document are as empty as the promises made by the Liberals in 2015.

This is entirely possible.

As you say, it is all relative. You have asked me questions about areas that are not of concern or interest to me, while blithely glossing past areas of significant concern. For example, your treatment of rural areas. Having lived in small resource towns that contributed significantly to Canada's regional, provincial and national economies and seen how indifferently these communities were treated, I can tell you your response on this point speaks volumes.

Personally, I would much rather our politicians were forced to consider the effects of their policies on rural areas of Canada than having them voluntarily spend our resources viewing these policies through a gender lens. I'd put a mil toward that in a heartbeat. Am I convinced it will solve the problem of ignoring rural areas? Nope. But it's a sure-footed start compared to what the other party's offering.

Your suggestion there will be no contingency fund for a West Coast salmon emergency is, IMO, a similarly blithe dismissal. The entire point of being fiscally prudent is to have money to fall back on in an emergency, so necessary emergency spending is unlikely to implode the entire budget. This concept is clearly lost on the Trudeau Liberals

Will the Conservatives' written commitments to ensuring future governments can't do what the Trudeau Liberals have done, both ethically and fiscally, prove worthwhile?

Overall, despite my natural cynicism, I am asking myself why anyone who wants our government to serve us better would reject, out-of-hand, a platform which has given us a clear written committed to ingraining this sort of accountability for all governments moving forward. Particularly when the alternative is still relying on "our party will be more transparent than the other guys" and "we will do things differently" to convince us we should risk voting for them.

[rustled]

... Do I think there were some ethical lapses, sure I happened to be looking at a couple before the Libyan uprising started. Do I think the current discussion is anything more than political opportunism - nope. There were far bigger elements at play and I find it somewhat distasteful the way the conservatives have taken the "burn it to ground" approach on the file. All the while knowing that certain hands are tied and there are other considerations that won't be discussed openly. Like I said, the SNC stock chart is a documentary of the current "take no prisoners" approach to winning elections. It's not a discussion I want to participate in and I hope you'll allow me to leave it at that.
...

This part of your post I wanted to address separately. WADR, regardless of how rife with un-discuss-able insights your perspective on this may be, it is no substitute for an unimpeded ethics inquiry. Those of us who do not want any party to get away with hiding from the ethics commissioner or a timely investigation by the RCMP want this problem dealt with.

Some examples from page 54:

This new application mechanism would set a high bar to protect the principle of Cabinet confidence and to ensure that genuine Cabinet deliberations are protected. Cabinet confidence is meant to ensure good government, not protect unethical or illegal behaviour. These measures will safeguard our democracy against the whims of unscrupulous politicians.

To ensure fairness in our justice system, we will prohibit those charged with a criminal offence from lobbying for changes to laws that they would benefit from in their own criminal proceeding.

It's a start, and it's more than the Trudeau Liberals are prepared to commit to.

Anyone who does NOT support these measures should be able to explain why.

[Drip_Torch]

I’m confused; I thought the Liberal Carbon Tax was supposed to be “revenue neutral” yet here is Drip Torch making the point that if the Conservatives repeal the tax, they’ll be giving up a lot of revenue.

The Liberals can’t claim it’s “revenue neutral” and then say that repealing it will result in an unacceptably high loss of Government revenue. So which is it? The former, or the latter?

Driptorch will correct me if I'm wrong, but I understood this comment to be questioning that line in the Conservative platform, not agreeing with it. The platform makes several references to their reliance on the PBO, e.g.

The Conservative Party of Canada has relied on projections from the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) as the basis for our budget plan. The PBO has reasonable, conservative estimates for the fiscal outlook over the next decade.

Cynic that I am, I'm looking again to reassure myself they haven't relied the PBO where convenient and "suggested" they relied on it throughout.

Hang on, my mistake and I'll readily admit it. Told you this line in Fiscal plan had me confused. 2020 thru to 2022 results in a net savings to gov't of 390 million and 2022 thru to 2025 results in a net loss of 547 million. That make more sense, at least in terms of the math.

Here's the PBO breakdown... (thanks for the reminder rustled)

With regards to the program being revenue neutral, it appears by the PBO estimates the carbon tax almost was, but once the GST was factored in, it was actually set to be a 180 (something) million dollar revenue source. Of course, how that all works and who benefits and who loses is not part of this discussion, because the conservative plan is to drop the tax.

[Drip_Torch]

... Do I think there were some ethical lapses, sure I happened to be looking at a couple before the Libyan uprising started. Do I think the current discussion is anything more than political opportunism - nope. There were far bigger elements at play and I find it somewhat distasteful the way the conservatives have taken the "burn it to ground" approach on the file. All the while knowing that certain hands are tied and there are other considerations that won't be discussed openly. Like I said, the SNC stock chart is a documentary of the current "take no prisoners" approach to winning elections. It's not a discussion I want to participate in and I hope you'll allow me to leave it at that.
...

This part of your post I wanted to address separately. WADR, regardless of how rife with un-discuss-able insights your perspective on this may be, it is no substitute for an unimpeded ethics inquiry. Those of us who do not want any party to get away with hiding from the ethics commissioner or a timely investigation by the RCMP want this problem dealt with.

Some examples from page 54:

This new application mechanism would set a high bar to protect the principle of Cabinet confidence and to ensure that genuine Cabinet deliberations are protected. Cabinet confidence is meant to ensure good government, not protect unethical or illegal behaviour. These measures will safeguard our democracy against the whims of unscrupulous politicians.

To ensure fairness in our justice system, we will prohibit those charged with a criminal offence from lobbying for changes to laws that they would benefit from in their own criminal proceeding.

It's a start, and it's more than the Trudeau Liberals are prepared to commit to.

Anyone who does NOT support these measures should be able to explain why.

With regards to the "SNC-Lavalin Corruption Scandal" and the judicial inquiry into it. (aka: dog whistle "lock him up") This has nothing to do with Corruption, or SNC Lavalin. Meanwhile, SNC Lavalin is slowly being burned to the ground for conservative political purposes. 20 million bucks to further find Mr. Trudeau inappropriately tried to influence Jody Wilson-Raybould? Really, that seems like a good use of that money to you? Seems to me we've already established that. This is an exercise in Politics over process and the reason I'm not on-board with these proposed changes is because they're nothing more than window dressing. It seems obvious to me the Privy Council will remain privy to certain aspects of governance that have to remain beyond the review of commissioners. The proposed changes open the door to political witch hunts and will never be implemented by a sitting gov't against itself. Politicians that break the law, do face consequences and there needs to be a clear separation between those politicians and the investigating body. When it comes to the ethics commissioner, the RCMP commissioner and the lobbying commissioner, there's clearly a political element to those appointments.

[Drip_Torch]

Cynicism is reasonable, given how we've been burned by promises in the past. IMO, you may be allowing a preconceived bias to convince you the commitments in this document are as empty as the promises made by the Liberals in 2015.
...
For example, your treatment of rural areas. Having lived in small resource towns that contributed significantly to Canada's regional, provincial and national economies and seen how indifferently these communities were treated, I can tell you your response on this point speaks volumes.

Personally, I would much rather our politicians were forced to consider the effects of their policies on rural areas of Canada than having them voluntarily spend our resources viewing these policies through a gender lens. I'd put a mil toward that in a heartbeat. Am I convinced it will solve the problem of ignoring rural areas? Nope. But it's a sure-footed start compared to what the other party's offering.

Your suggestion there will be no contingency fund for a West Coast salmon emergency is, IMO, a similarly blithe dismissal. The entire point of being fiscally prudent is to have money to fall back on in an emergency, so necessary emergency spending is unlikely to implode the entire budget. This concept is clearly lost on the Trudeau Liberals.

I don't follow the Minister of Rural Affairs thing at all. Any chance you could give me an example of policy, regulation or piece of legislation that a Minister of Rural Affairs could champion for rural areas?

Here's a fairly complete listing of the federal powers;

The Public Debt and Property.
The Regulation of Trade and Commerce.
Unemployment insurance.
The raising of Money by any Mode or System of Taxation.
The borrowing of Money on the Public Credit.
Postal Service.
The Census and Statistics.
Militia, Military and Naval Service, and Defence.
The fixing of and providing for the Salaries and Allowances of Civil and other Officers of the Government of Canada.
Beacons, Buoys, Lighthouses, and Sable Island.
Navigation and Shipping.
Quarantine and the Establishment and Maintenance of Marine Hospitals.
Sea Coast and Inland Fisheries.
Ferries between a Province and any British or Foreign Country or between Two Provinces.
Currency and Coinage.
Banking, Incorporation of Banks, and the Issue of Paper Money.
Savings Banks.
Weights and Measures.
Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes.
Interest.
Legal Tender.
Bankruptcy and Insolvency.
Patents of Invention and Discovery.
Copyrights.
Indians, and Lands reserved for the Indians.
Naturalization and Aliens.
Marriage and Divorce.
The Criminal Law, except the Constitution of Courts of Criminal Jurisdiction, but including the Procedure in Criminal Matters.
The Establishment, Maintenance, and Management of Penitentiaries.

If you could provide me with a narrowed down example... pick one of the federal powers... and suggest how a rural affair minister could make a difference or as you suggest "spend our resources viewing these policies through a gender lens". I don't follow at all. For example are you suggesting marriage and divorce should be regulated differently in rural areas? Coin and legal tender should be different? Perhaps things should be weighed differently in rural area?

What?

No seriously I just don't see what a Minister of Rural Affairs accomplishes, so if you could pick one example from your experience in rural areas of what a federal gov't could accomplish with a Minister of Rural Affairs - I'd certainly be most interested.

[The Green Barbarian]

[

With regards to the "SNC-Lavalin Corruption Scandal" and the judicial inquiry into it. (aka: dog whistle "lock him up")
.

Nonsensical partisan babbling.

[Drip_Torch]

[

With regards to the "SNC-Lavalin Corruption Scandal" and the judicial inquiry into it. (aka: dog whistle "lock him up")
.

Nonsensical partisan babbling.

Right on my friend. You put that very succinctly and I admire your ability to call out this stump for what it really is - scheer nonsensical partisan babbling. As if a conservative gov't is going to look into the roll the previous conservative gov't played in facilitating SNC and how it ballooned the pawns out of the country to save the players.

Never going to happen and we both know it.

[The Green Barbarian]

Right on my friend. .

Thank you for acknowledging! But the real question now is, will the Leftists here stop doing it? Acknowledging the problem is one thing. But you have to be a big enough person to also then stop doing it. Babbling about dog whistles and trying to excuse the stupidity of SNC Lavalin is beyond partisan.

[DebSS]

So I just listened to Dan Albas here on the Castanet forum...in the print it says people are worried about pensions etc. He paid a visit - door knocking to someone I know. She asked what they were going to do for pensions as people live below the poor line. He said they had nothing for seniors except to give them some tax cuts. Tax cuts are no good for those below the poverty line, and the drugs are paid for already by BC medical. In other words the seniors can take a powder, all those that worked hard for this country and now have a hard time making ends meet. But the parties all cater to middle class and higher incomes. Would love a politician to live off what a senior lives off of for 3 months and see how they manage. Remember one politician in Vancouver that lived on a monthly pension for one month. He was in the streets and at the food bank. Emory Barnes was his name. He couldn't get past the first 2 weeks.

[Drip_Torch]

removed