logo Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register.
2019-12-14 01:25:36 CoV Wiki
Learn more about the Church of Virus
Home Help Search Login Register
News: Donations now taken through PayPal

 1   General / Society & Culture / Re:The Red Pill  on: 2019-11-23 20:54:57 
Started by David Lucifer | Last post by David Lucifer
 Reply Reply with quote Notify of replies

 2   General / Society & Culture / Re:The Red Pill  on: 2019-11-23 20:53:25 
Started by David Lucifer | Last post by David Lucifer
 Reply Reply with quote Notify of replies

 3   General / Society & Culture / Re:The Red Pill  on: 2019-11-23 20:52:22 
Started by David Lucifer | Last post by David Lucifer
 Reply Reply with quote Notify of replies

 4   General / Society & Culture / Re:The Red Pill  on: 2019-11-23 20:51:02 
Started by David Lucifer | Last post by David Lucifer
 Reply Reply with quote Notify of replies

 5   General / Serious Business / Re:Canada Shoots itself in the Head : A Nation Going Down in Flames  on: 2019-10-27 18:11:12 
Started by Fritz | Last post by Fritz

Bill 21 and why Quebec says not so much in our backyard in the Federal 2019 election.

Cheers Fritz

What does the new Bloc wave really represent?

Source: Macleans
Author:  Stephen Maher
Date:  2019.10.22

Blanchet speaks to supporters on election night in Montreal (Graham Hughes/CP)

Serge Savard, who played for the Montreal Canadiens for 17 seasons, winning eight Stanley Cups as a player and two more as a general manager, had a friendly chat with Quebec Premier Francois Legault this month, in which both of them agreed that there should be more francophones on the Canadiens bench.

Savard joked at one point that his father used to vote for the Union Nationale.

“Now that’s called CAQ,” joked Legault, and the two men laughed.

He was joking, but it’s true.

Coalition Avenir Québec takes up the same space that used to be occupied by Union Nationale, a conservative, nationalist party, a dominant political force in Quebec from 1935 until 1973, when René Lévesque’s sovereignist Parti Quebecois displaced it with the promise of an independent Quebec.

Bloc leader Yves-François Blanchet referenced Lévesque in his post-election speech in Montreal Monday night in front of a small, passionate and not very diverse crowd of sovereignists who interrupted him to chant “we want a country.” But it would be a mistake to think that the Bloc wave of yesterday is the result of a yearning for Quebec, un pays.

The hard core sovereignists—les pur et dur—are tenacious and passionate about their dream but the voters who sent 32 MPs to Ottawa do not appear to have been animated by Levesque’s dream. In the two French-language debates where Blanchet won the support of francophone Quebecers, he spoke not of Levesque but of Legault, and not of separatism but of Bill 21, the law that Legault passed to stop Sikhs, Muslims and Jews from working as teachers, police or lawyers unless they leave their religious headgear at home.

    READ MORE: The 338Canada post-election report: We called it

Blanchet is an impressive character, and neither he nor Legault have behaved like demagogues, but the public debate over Bill 21 is undeniably populist. In my opinion, there is no persuasive argument for overriding the religious liberty of individuals in the way Bill 21 does, which is why Legault found it necessary to invoke the notwithstanding clause of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

What there is, though, is a political argument for it: Quebecers want this. In the manner of populist nationalism anyplace, this argument gains strength when it is opposed because it allows populists to say: Look! There are those who want to stand in the way of the will of the People! See how they disdain your legitimate desires!

In Tuesday’s Journal de Montreal, columnist Richard Martineau, likely the most important nationalist commentator in Quebec, gave credit for the Bloc victory to “the English-Canadian political-media elite who spent the last few months treating Quebecers as racist, xenophobic and intolerant.”

Martineau and the Bloc made much of a question from Huffington Post’s Althia Raj during the second French language debate, when she referred to Bill 21 as discriminatory. This, Martineau writes, “was the straw that broke the camel’s back.”

All I can say is that the camel must have had a weak back when it arrived. This is the eternal emotional logic of the populist nationalist, and it should be treated with care because trying to extinguish it is like trying to put out a fire by blowing on it. Better to deny it fuel.

Some Toronto-based commentators have chided Justin Trudeau for not speaking out more stridently against Bill 21, but I think he has handled this wisely, failing to rise to the bait of the Bloc in a way that might have helped him with voters in Montreal and Toronto while giving the Bloc more fuel. Trudeau quietly refused to rule out eventually challenging the bill in court, unlike Andrew Scheer, whose did rule it out, and Jagmeet Singh, who first ruled it out and then seemed not to.

I would not judge Scheer harshly, though, because the Quebec voters he was courting, mostly unsuccessfully, thanks in large part to his weak French, were the same white francophones outside Montreal that the more eloquent Blanchet was wooing.

These voters are the baby boomers who sang and wept with Levesque and fumed with Jacques Parizeau. They dreamed for decades of a Quebec libre and now that they are receiving their pension cheques, they have had to put those dreams to rest and have embraced the pre-Levesque nationalism of Legault.

But it is important for Quebec, a distinct society, to do distinct things, to demonstrate to itself and others that it is capable of making decisions and acting on them. Bill 21 has a symbolic value, totally disconnected from any street-level necessity, which is obvious when you consider that the strongest support comes from the areas with the fewest immigrants, not the neighbourhoods of Montreal where francophones live side-by-side with immigrants from Haiti, the Middle East and North Africa.

Martineau has a point, though, when he complains about English Canadians carelessly accusing Quebecers of racism.

Consider the vast northern riding of Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, which last night elected Bloc MP Sylvie Bérubé. From 2011 until last night, the riding was represented by Cree leader Romeo Saganash, who, sadly, did not reoffer this time. The same voters who elected Bérubé used to vote for Saganash. They don’t want to vote for someone who wears a turban.

Parsing this—the distinction between racism and intolerance of religious differences—is work for sociologists, not political journalists, but virtue-signalling English Canadian critics of Quebec nationalism would be wise to keep in mind that it is more complicated that it seems from Queen Street West.

Legault may be walking in the footsteps of Union Nationale leader Maurice Duplessis, but Quebec was vastly transformed by the quiet revolution, and no bill will turn back the clock.

In 1946, Duplessis locked up hundreds of Jehovahs Witnesses, telling the Montreal Gazette, “the communists, Nazis as well as those who are the propagandists for the Witnesses of Jehovah, have been treated and will continue to be treated by the Union Nationale government as they deserve for trying to infiltrate themselves and their seditious ideas in the Province of Quebec.”

There is a vast difference between what Duplessis did and what Legault is doing—denying jobs to hijabis—but in the end, I suspect the result will be the same, and the Supreme Court of Canada will eventually rule that the state cannot roll over the rights of law-abiding individuals because there is the political will to do so.

In the meantime, the Bloc is back, with a clear mandate to stand up for Bill 21.

Martineau sees this as a challenge for Trudeau. “If he contests Bill 21, he will put flame to the powder in Quebec. If he doesn’t contest it, he will never be forgiven by English Canadians. Get the popcorn ready. The fun is about to begin.”

I am afraid Martineau will be disappointed. Trudeau, who needs to worry about Alberta at least as much as Quebec, can say very little about Bill 21 and wait for judges to do his talking for him.
 Reply Reply with quote Notify of replies

 6   General / Serious Business / Re:Canada Shoots itself in the Head : A Nation Going Down in Flames  on: 2019-10-27 17:59:03 
Started by Fritz | Last post by Fritz
The words of our pretend woke damaged leader.

Cheers Fritz

Justin Trudeau’s post-election speech: Full transcript

Source: Macleans
Author: Macleans
Date:  2019.10.22

Daddy would be proud

From coast to coast, tonight, Canadians rejected division and negativity. They rejected cuts and austerity, and they voted in favour of a progressive agenda and strong action on climate change. I have heard you, my friends. You are sending our Liberal team back to work; back to Ottawa with a clear mandate. We will make life more affordable. We will continue to fight climate change. We will get guns off our streets and we will keep investing in Canadians.

Canadians have entrusted us with the responsibility of continuing to govern. But none of that would have been possible without the efforts and sacrifices of many, many people. I have so many people to thank. And I know I’m going to be spending a lot of time on the phone in the coming days. But tonight, there are a few people in particular that I have to thank.

First of all, my Sophie. We began this political adventure together ten years ago because we believed in a better future, because we knew that it was worthwhile fighting for a better, more prosperous Canada. Sophie, I love you.

And to my children, Xavier, Ella-Grace, and Hadrien, every single day you inspire me to do more and do better. And everything I do, I do for you and for your generation. You remind me every single day that I have to take some time to appreciate the life we have and how lucky we are. Of the roles that I have, the one I have is the one I like most.

And to the very best campaign team ever assembled in Canada are incredible candidates, staff and volunteers. None of this would have been possible without you. Thank you for the early mornings and the late nights. You’ve sacrificed a lot. Taking time away from your families and friends to move Canada forward. And I cannot thank you enough. So instead, I’ll simply say this: You did it, my friends, congratulations. To the leaders of the other parties and their families, thank you for being a part of this essential exercise in democracy. You have chosen to serve. Thank you for stepping up in this campaign and in this political life.

And of course I have to thank the people of Papineau. For more than 10 years you have entrusted me with your confidence, and it’s a great privilege for me to continue to represent you and to continue to be a strong voice for you. Thank you, thank you so much.

And of course, to my fellow Canadians. It has been the greatest honour of my life to serve you for these past four years. And tonight, you’re sending us back to work for you. We take this responsibility seriously and we will work hard for you, for your families and for your future.

To those who voted for our party, thank you for putting your trust in our team. Thank you for having faith in us to move this country in the right direction.

And to those and to those who did not vote for us, knowing that we will work every single day for you. We will govern for everyone. Regardless of how you cast your ballot, ours is a team that will fight for all Canadians.

Dear Quebeckers, I heard your message tonight. You want to continue to go forward with us, but you also want to ensure that the voice of Quebec can be heard even more in Ottawa. And I can tell you that my team and I will be there for you.

And to Canadians in Alberta and Saskatchewan, know that you are an essential part of our great country. I’ve heard your frustration and I want to be there to support you. Let us all work hard to bring our country together.

For four years, we have done everything we could to improve people’s lives. And that is what we will continue to do in the coming years. Friends, you are sending us to Ottawa with a clear mandate. Continue to go forward and to move this country forward. You asked us to invest in Canadians, to make reconciliation with the Indigenous peoples a priority. To show even greater vision and ambition as we tackle the greatest challenge of our times—climate change. And that is exactly what we will do. We know that there is a lot of work still to be done. But I swear to you that we will continue what we have begun. Because Liberals know, like all Canadians know, that it is always possible to do better.

One of my favourite prime ministers, Wilfrid Laurier, often talked about patriotism and the unifying power of common goals and aspirations. And I’ve thought about that a lot since getting into politics. In my conversations with Canadians right across the country, I’ve seen firsthand that there is so much more that unites us than divides us. Canadians expect us all to focus on our shared vision of a stronger Canada, and I intend to work hard to make that a reality. We all want safer communities, a cleaner planet, and a good quality of life. We want this for ourselves, for our neighbours and for our kids and grandkids. We seek hardship for none and prosperity for all. That is the world we’re working toward. And if we unite around these common goals, I know we can achieve them.

In the years ahead, our team will work hard to build on the progress made by the Canadians who came before us. We will champion Canada in all its diversity. We will give voice to the voiceless. And in every decision we make as your government, we will always put this country and its people first. We will help the widow who has lost her partner after 48 years of common life. We will help those students who are marching for climate change action. And we will help the mother with three children that needs a little bit more help at the end of the month.

We will fight for all people, including people like Dean. These last few days, I’ve done rallies across the country and at a few of them, I’ve told Dean’s story. Dean had voted Conservative his entire life. But this time around he decided to vote Liberal on behalf of his daughter. You see, he understood that this election was about so much more than just the next four years. This election is about the next 40 years. It’s about the kind of Canada that his daughter and her kids will grow up in. But tonight, I want to say this to Dean. I need to earn your vote. Not just your daughter’s. And over the coming years, I plan on doing exactly that. My friends, this election was about you, about the world your kids will inherit. And tonight, we chose to move Canada forward. Tonight, Canadians have charted a path for the future, and I know we will walk it together. Nous allons avancer ensemble, we will go forward together to a better future. Thank you very much, everyone. Thank you, Montreal.
 Reply Reply with quote Notify of replies

 7   General / Serious Business / Re:Canada Shoots itself in the Head : A Nation Going Down in Flames  on: 2019-10-27 17:51:51 
Started by Fritz | Last post by Fritz
Well read'em and weep, Canadians chose a corrupt, dysfunctional government, if only just. I am unable to fathom this.

On the upside, the Conservative gain came from the Liberals and NDP, and the popular vote was Conservative; so it is trending in the right direction.

Cheers Fritz

2019 Federal Election Results

Source: Macleans
Author:  Macleans
Date:  2019.10.21

 Reply Reply with quote Notify of replies

 8   General / Test Area / Re:Just some attachments used elsewhere  on: 2019-10-27 17:41:41 
Started by rhinoceros | Last post by Fritz
for election 2019 post
 Reply Reply with quote Notify of replies

 9   General / Serious Business / Canada Shoots itself in the Head : Election Oct 21st 2019  on: 2019-10-19 17:18:08 
Started by Fritz | Last post by Fritz
Well as Monday 21st approaches: polls suggest

Liberals: 136.6 +/- 55.2 popular vote 31.2%
Conservative" 122.6 +/- 46.6 popular vote 31.9%

I am just gob smacked:
-Convicted of Corruption
-Slagging an Aboriginal women, are Justice minister, for doing her job well and removing her from her position.
-Publicly embarrassing Canada with cultural appropriation not befitting a Prime Ministry there by compromising the office.
-Putting legislation into effect that reduces freedom of speech
-Raising our deficit to new highs with a recession looming
-Saying Canada has no culture identity
-Denying we are a resource based economy while pandering to the 'Woke Climate' propaganda.

People wake up!

Cheers Fritz

 Reply Reply with quote Notify of replies

 10   General / Serious Business / Re:Canada Shoots itself in the Head : A Nation Going Down in Flames  on: 2019-10-02 13:52:47 
Started by Fritz | Last post by Fritz
Some financial information in light of the misinformation efforts of the election games.

Cheers Fritz

"Money for nothin' and chicks for free"

Source: Fraser Institute
Author: Fraser Forums
Date: on going


A really quick history of Canada’s federal debt
— March 9, 2016

With the federal government poised to table a budget in two weeks and embark on a new era of deficit financing and debt accumulation, it’s useful to take a quick long-term look at the finances of the federal government from a more historical perspective. Using data from the Canada Yearbook for the period 1867 to 1965 and the Federal Fiscal Reference Tables for 1966 to 2014 and the 2015 federal budget for 2015, Figure 1 (below) plots the total federal net debt in billions of dollars from 1867 to 2015.

In 1867, the net debt of the Government of Canada was $75.7 million. During the nation-building phase of the Canadian economy from 1867 to 1913, which entailed the subsidized construction of transcontinental railways and the settlement of the West, the net debt grew from $75.7 million to $314.3 million. As a result of the First World War and the Great Depression, the net debt grew to reach $3.1 billion by 1938. The Second World War saw the net debt climb further to reach $11.3 billion by 1945. Growth of the public debt continued and the 25 years between 1945 and 1970 saw the debt reach $20.3 billion.

The period since 1970 witnessed enormous growth in the federal net debt as successive deficits combined with high interest rates saw the net debt rise from $20.3 billion to reach a peak of $609 billion in 1996—the era of the federal fiscal crisis. The period of federal restraint that followed combined by relatively robust economic growth saw balanced budgets and a reduction in the federal net debt to $516.3 billion by 2007. With the financial crisis and recession of 2008-09, federal net debt began to rise again and by 2015 had reached a new all-time high of $692 billion.

The current net public debt of Canada represents the accumulation of all the deficits plus interest over the 149 years since Confederation. Put another way, $672 billion—or 97 per cent of the current debt—has been acquired in the 46 years since 1970. Between 1867 and 2014, the average annual rate of growth of the federal net public debt comes in at 6.8 per cent. Compare that to population, with an annual average growth rate of 1.6 per cent, and inflation at 2.4 per cent as measured by the annual average growth rate of the GDP deflator. Real per capita federal net debt (in 2015 dollars) grew from $577 in 1870 and reached $19,302 in 2015.

As Figure 2 shows, our real per capita federal net debt peaked not during the eras of war or depression but in 1996 at $30,394. Even after recovering from the federal fiscal crisis of the 1990s, our real per capita debt remains higher than it was during the Second World War.

While as a share of GDP, the federal net public debt was highest during the era of the Second World War, on a real per capita basis we currently owe more than what we accumulated to help fight a global war with the Allies to save the world from totalitarianism.

Not sure what we have to show for our current level of per capita federal debt.

Author: Livio Di Matteo


State of federal finances worse than previously thought
— May 7, 2018

The latest federal budget showed that public finances are in poor shape and Ottawa is ill-prepared for a possible economic recession. But a recent Parliamentary Budget Office report suggests the situation may be worse than the government claims. According to the PBO, the government’s operating deficits are likely to be higher than the government expects.

For this year (2018/19), the PBO projects a deficit of $22.1 billion—$4 billion more than the $18.1 billion deficit projected by the government. Next year (2019/20), which is notable because it’s the year Prime Minister Justin Trudeau promised to balance the budget during the 2015 election, the PBO projects a $21.4 billion deficit for 2019/20 compared to a $17.5 billion deficit projected by the government.

Overall, the PBO projects a cumulative deficit of $85.6 billion over the next five years (2018/19-2022/23)—$7 billion more than the cumulative deficit projected by the government ($78.6 billion).

Critically, however, the PBO’s revised deficit estimates assume the Canadian economy continues to grow. This may not happen. There’s a very real possibility of an economic recession in the coming years given the last one was nearly a decade ago. A recession would result in even larger deficits by causing revenues to fall and certain types of spending (such as employment insurance) to automatically increase.

This could spur a vicious cycle characterized by persistent and growing deficits, increasing government debt, and rising interest payments—something Canada experienced in the 1970s, 1980s and early 1990s. In other words, prolonged deficits during periods of economic growth expose federal finances to significant risk, if an economic recession occurs.

The PBO also identifies a self-inflected drag on Canada’s economy created by federally-imposed carbon-pricing. The PBO estimates the economy will lose out on $10 billion of growth by 2022 due to carbon-pricing—that’s 0.5 per cent of GDP. The potential reduction in economic growth would be even larger over a longer period.

The federal budget tabled in February made it clear the government is not prepared for a recession; the PBO’s recent projections make matters even worse.

Authors:Charles LammamHugh MacIntyre


Some questions for Prime Minister Trudeau

— January 19, 2017

Prime Minister Trudeau has launched a cross-country listening tour to reconnect with Canadians. Given the tumultuous times, the prime minister’s time might be best spent in Ottawa leading the government, but since he’s listening, here are a few questions.

First, the Liberal Party ran on, and is now governing with, an over-arching goal of improving economic growth, particularly for the middle class. The plan for improving growth is to increase government spending substantially and finance almost all of the new spending through borrowing (i.e. deficits).

The 2016 Budget called for federal spending to increase by nearly $70 billion between 2014-15 and 2020-21, a 27.3 per cent increase in government spending.

To finance this spending, the government will rely on borrowing, increasing the national debt (specifically net debt), by $132.1 billion from $687.0 billion in 2014-15 to a projected $819.1 billion in 2020-21.

The key question for the prime minister is: where is the improvement in economic growth given all the spending?

The Liberal plan provided detailed estimates of the additional economic growth and job-creation that would flow from the increased spending. The reality, however, has been a reduction, not an increase in expected economic growth. In other words, economic growth has declined while federal spending has increased.

Back in November 2015, just weeks after being elected, the Liberals released the 2015 Fall Update of Economic and Fiscal Projections, which forecasted average economic growth (in real terms) of 2.1 per cent over the next five years. In March, the Liberals delivered their first budget, which cut average growth to 1.9 per cent. The 2016 Economic Statement cut average growth again to 1.7 per cent over the next five years.

As we noted previously, the decline in growth rates will lead to a material reduction in expected national income (GDP) in each of the next five years. Over the past year, for example, expected GDP for 2016 has dropped by $58 billion or $1,590 per Canadian. Add up the reduced GDP expected over the next five years and the result is a staggering $403 billion or nearly $11,100 per Canadian.

Another important question for the prime minister—when will his government balance the budget? Contrary to the Liberal campaign commitment, there’s no balanced budget in the foreseeable future. Indeed, the Department of Finance now expects deficits every year through to at least 2055 and the national debt will reach $1.5 trillion by 2045 (or so).

Ironically, one of the main reasons for the deterioration in the long-term projections is that prospects for economic growth have declined. The department estimates that the economy will grow by an average of 1.8 per cent until 2021, and then decline to 1.6 per cent through to 2030. This compares with average economic growth of 2.8 per cent between 1970 and 2015.

A logical question is whether the prime minister will reconsider his government’s approach to deficits and debt given the lack of improved economic growth. If not, the increased spending seems more like the financing of Liberal pet projects than it does sound economic and financial policy.

Next, it’s clear that the federal government is replicating some of Ontario’s policy playbook (including massive, deficit-financed spending). Indeed, key members of the Ontario Liberal government are now central figures in the Prime Minister’s Office. Another question, then is why the prime minister favours policies implemented in Ontario that have failed so badly?

The heavy-handed economic interventions by the Ontario government over the last decade, particularly in energy markets, have been disastrous for the province—skyrocketing electricity prices coupled with a dearth of private-sector investment. Simply put, Ontario has become an inhospitable place to do business and the Prime Minister Trudeau seems intent to follow Ontario’s lead on key policy issues.

As the prime minister tours the country, there’s a real opportunity for him to reconnect with the reality of his government’s policies and how they are making things worse rather than better. If that creates the foundation for a change in policy, then the listening tour will be well worth the costs. One suspects, however, that the tour is more about changing the policy conversation, from the reality of the federal government’s approach to the charisma and personal charm of the prime minister.

Jason ClemensNiels Veldhuis
 Reply Reply with quote Notify of replies

Return to the board index.

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Church of Virus BBS | Powered by YaBB SE
© 2001-2002, YaBB SE Dev Team. All Rights Reserved.

Please support the CoV.
Valid HTML 4.01! Valid CSS! RSS feed