Canadian Politics Redux

HughFreakingDillon

PJ_Soul said:

Parksy said:

Just watching another Pierre speech...   And with the purpose in mind of giving him the benefit of the doubt here, I'm hoping some good people on here who might be knowledgeable can help me out. 

His hammer has been pounding on housing from the day he was made leader of the opposition.  Trudeau announces a plan to generate housing in London and immediately following, Pierre has his speech rebutting that announcement. 

In his speech he lays out his plan (Hey! Awesome!) to generate affordable housing. He claims that the liberal government have been ballooning bureaucracies and making it difficult to build houses with regulation (gatekeepers).  Same ole story.  So as part of his plan he says that he will penalize those municipalities who do not speed up the process of building and he will reward those municipalities that do.  

In particular with regards to the CHMC he said and I quote:

'But do you know who won't be getting bonuses? CMHC bureaucracies that delay approval for housing financing. The Trudeau government has ballooned the bureaucracy at the CMHC paying out millions of dollars in bonuses for the very bureaucrats who have doubled the cost of housing. I will be slashing their bonuses and they will be getting pay cuts unless they meet the target of approving financing for affordable housing in under 60 days." 

Now in complete fairness to Pierre, he's not wrong in my opinion about the CMHC bonuses.  That's remarkable.  All CMHC bonuses should have been frozen in the past 4 years for sure.  

The kicker to me though in all this rhetoric .. quite possibly from Trudeau as well.... but in this instance with Pierre in his fight for affordable housing.  When he says he will reward those in the CMHC who hit their targets for approving financing for affordable housing....   how exactly do they determine if housing is affordable? 

For example... I believe he's talking about developers who submit applications to CMHC for financing and approval to build housing (correct me if I'm wrong).   If that's the case, what metric is used in determining if housing is affordable or not?  This question has been on my mind for months now with regards to the housing 'crisis'.  

It also makes me ponder the dynamic between public and private sector. The 'gatekeepers' (public) set out where units can be built and I'm assuming set taxes, and safety regulations.  But at what point is 'affordability' even a consideration with this?  Is there some sort of process by which a developer must indicate before they build how much they will charge for a house or a unit?  My understanding is that it fluctuates with the market?   

Any input is appreciated. 

What I find really "interesting" is the fact that, since the Conservative passed the responsibility of housing over to the provinces in the '80s, something that the Libs did not support, Pierre acts like Trudeau is so totally responsible for the housing crisis. I also find it hilarious that anyone would believe that frozen salaries for CMHC employees would somehow put a dent in the housing market. Pierre fans seem really dumb TBH.

What Trudeau should do is restore what Canada had going on with building affordable housing before Mulroney ruined it.

my provincial Cons are blaming Trudeau for the housing crisis, yet taking credit for the $10 a day child care program. There were literally billboards EVERYWHERE around the city. it's like "let's just outright lie and hopefully it works" is the Con campaign slogan. 

PJ_Soul

^^^ Totally, and that pisses me off.

DarthMaeglin

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJ_Soul said:

Parksy said:

Just watching another Pierre speech...   And with the purpose in mind of giving him the benefit of the doubt here, I'm hoping some good people on here who might be knowledgeable can help me out. 

His hammer has been pounding on housing from the day he was made leader of the opposition.  Trudeau announces a plan to generate housing in London and immediately following, Pierre has his speech rebutting that announcement. 

In his speech he lays out his plan (Hey! Awesome!) to generate affordable housing. He claims that the liberal government have been ballooning bureaucracies and making it difficult to build houses with regulation (gatekeepers).  Same ole story.  So as part of his plan he says that he will penalize those municipalities who do not speed up the process of building and he will reward those municipalities that do.  

In particular with regards to the CHMC he said and I quote:

'But do you know who won't be getting bonuses? CMHC bureaucracies that delay approval for housing financing. The Trudeau government has ballooned the bureaucracy at the CMHC paying out millions of dollars in bonuses for the very bureaucrats who have doubled the cost of housing. I will be slashing their bonuses and they will be getting pay cuts unless they meet the target of approving financing for affordable housing in under 60 days." 

Now in complete fairness to Pierre, he's not wrong in my opinion about the CMHC bonuses.  That's remarkable.  All CMHC bonuses should have been frozen in the past 4 years for sure.  

The kicker to me though in all this rhetoric .. quite possibly from Trudeau as well.... but in this instance with Pierre in his fight for affordable housing.  When he says he will reward those in the CMHC who hit their targets for approving financing for affordable housing....   how exactly do they determine if housing is affordable? 

For example... I believe he's talking about developers who submit applications to CMHC for financing and approval to build housing (correct me if I'm wrong).   If that's the case, what metric is used in determining if housing is affordable or not?  This question has been on my mind for months now with regards to the housing 'crisis'.  

It also makes me ponder the dynamic between public and private sector. The 'gatekeepers' (public) set out where units can be built and I'm assuming set taxes, and safety regulations.  But at what point is 'affordability' even a consideration with this?  Is there some sort of process by which a developer must indicate before they build how much they will charge for a house or a unit?  My understanding is that it fluctuates with the market?   

Any input is appreciated. 

What I find really "interesting" is the fact that, since the Conservative passed the responsibility of housing over to the provinces in the '80s, something that the Libs did not support, Pierre acts like Trudeau is so totally responsible for the housing crisis. I also find it hilarious that anyone would believe that frozen salaries for CMHC employees would somehow put a dent in the housing market. Pierre fans seem really dumb TBH.

What Trudeau should do is restore what Canada had going on with building affordable housing before Mulroney ruined it.

my provincial Cons are blaming Trudeau for the housing crisis, yet taking credit for the $10 a day child care program. There were literally billboards EVERYWHERE around the city. it's like "let's just outright lie and hopefully it works" is the Con campaign slogan. 

It's worked very well for Trudeau these last 8 years. 

DarthMaeglin

PJ_Soul said:

I have no issue with how it was expressed to the public. Bluntly is the way I want it done. I also have no reason to think that Trudeau would casually make such an accusation, which is SO serious, for no reason. And if I'm going to choose a government to trust over the other, you can be sure that I'm trusting ours over India's!! And I think this kind of thing is EXACTLY they kind of thing India would do right now over the "Sikh issue", so I find the accusation extremely believable. Until I hear otherwise, I'm trusting Trudeau and our intelligence services on this one.

Please read the article I posted for more...responsible ways this could have been handled. 

Justin Trudeau has zero credibility with many, a factor that should not be ignored with so serious an accusation. If I called Trudeau a murderer I would be expected to prove my case, correct?  Or would you trust my claim? I guess slander and liable don't really apply to nation-states though,  lol.

I'm glad we do seem to be in agreement about the seriousness of the charges Trudeau is leveling,  however. 

HughFreakingDillon

DarthMaeglin said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJ_Soul said:

Parksy said:

Just watching another Pierre speech...   And with the purpose in mind of giving him the benefit of the doubt here, I'm hoping some good people on here who might be knowledgeable can help me out. 

His hammer has been pounding on housing from the day he was made leader of the opposition.  Trudeau announces a plan to generate housing in London and immediately following, Pierre has his speech rebutting that announcement. 

In his speech he lays out his plan (Hey! Awesome!) to generate affordable housing. He claims that the liberal government have been ballooning bureaucracies and making it difficult to build houses with regulation (gatekeepers).  Same ole story.  So as part of his plan he says that he will penalize those municipalities who do not speed up the process of building and he will reward those municipalities that do.  

In particular with regards to the CHMC he said and I quote:

'But do you know who won't be getting bonuses? CMHC bureaucracies that delay approval for housing financing. The Trudeau government has ballooned the bureaucracy at the CMHC paying out millions of dollars in bonuses for the very bureaucrats who have doubled the cost of housing. I will be slashing their bonuses and they will be getting pay cuts unless they meet the target of approving financing for affordable housing in under 60 days." 

Now in complete fairness to Pierre, he's not wrong in my opinion about the CMHC bonuses.  That's remarkable.  All CMHC bonuses should have been frozen in the past 4 years for sure.  

The kicker to me though in all this rhetoric .. quite possibly from Trudeau as well.... but in this instance with Pierre in his fight for affordable housing.  When he says he will reward those in the CMHC who hit their targets for approving financing for affordable housing....   how exactly do they determine if housing is affordable? 

For example... I believe he's talking about developers who submit applications to CMHC for financing and approval to build housing (correct me if I'm wrong).   If that's the case, what metric is used in determining if housing is affordable or not?  This question has been on my mind for months now with regards to the housing 'crisis'.  

It also makes me ponder the dynamic between public and private sector. The 'gatekeepers' (public) set out where units can be built and I'm assuming set taxes, and safety regulations.  But at what point is 'affordability' even a consideration with this?  Is there some sort of process by which a developer must indicate before they build how much they will charge for a house or a unit?  My understanding is that it fluctuates with the market?   

Any input is appreciated. 

What I find really "interesting" is the fact that, since the Conservative passed the responsibility of housing over to the provinces in the '80s, something that the Libs did not support, Pierre acts like Trudeau is so totally responsible for the housing crisis. I also find it hilarious that anyone would believe that frozen salaries for CMHC employees would somehow put a dent in the housing market. Pierre fans seem really dumb TBH.

What Trudeau should do is restore what Canada had going on with building affordable housing before Mulroney ruined it.

my provincial Cons are blaming Trudeau for the housing crisis, yet taking credit for the $10 a day child care program. There were literally billboards EVERYWHERE around the city. it's like "let's just outright lie and hopefully it works" is the Con campaign slogan. 

It's worked very well for Trudeau these last 8 years. 

*eye roll*

HughFreakingDillon

PJ_Soul said:

I have no issue with how it was expressed to the public. Bluntly is the way I want it done. I also have no reason to think that Trudeau would casually make such an accusation, which is SO serious, for no reason. And if I'm going to choose a government to trust over the other, you can be sure that I'm trusting ours over India's!! And I think this kind of thing is EXACTLY they kind of thing India would do right now over the "Sikh issue", so I find the accusation extremely believable. Until I hear otherwise, I'm trusting Trudeau and our intelligence services on this one.

agreed 100%

PJ_Soul

DarthMaeglin said:

PJ_Soul said:

I have no issue with how it was expressed to the public. Bluntly is the way I want it done. I also have no reason to think that Trudeau would casually make such an accusation, which is SO serious, for no reason. And if I'm going to choose a government to trust over the other, you can be sure that I'm trusting ours over India's!! And I think this kind of thing is EXACTLY they kind of thing India would do right now over the "Sikh issue", so I find the accusation extremely believable. Until I hear otherwise, I'm trusting Trudeau and our intelligence services on this one.

Please read the article I posted for more...responsible ways this could have been handled. 

Justin Trudeau has zero credibility with many, a factor that should not be ignored with so serious an accusation. If I called Trudeau a murderer I would be expected to prove my case, correct?  Or would you trust my claim? I guess slander and liable don't really apply to nation-states though,  lol.

I'm glad we do seem to be in agreement about the seriousness of the charges Trudeau is leveling,  however. 

I did, and still stand by what I said - evidence now or later doesn't bother me, and even circumstantial evidence will do it, because I'm sure India covered it up well (and if India did it, it's not like they need evidence for us to prove it to them, haha). But hey man, for sure, if it turns out that Trudeau just made it all up, or said this because he heard a rumour, or whatever you think might have happened, I'll be really fucking furious. For now, there is no reason for me to be mad about this, besides being mad at the idea that India might have assassinated a Canadian on Canadian soil.

HughFreakingDillon

DarthMaeglin said:

PJ_Soul said:

I have no issue with how it was expressed to the public. Bluntly is the way I want it done. I also have no reason to think that Trudeau would casually make such an accusation, which is SO serious, for no reason. And if I'm going to choose a government to trust over the other, you can be sure that I'm trusting ours over India's!! And I think this kind of thing is EXACTLY they kind of thing India would do right now over the "Sikh issue", so I find the accusation extremely believable. Until I hear otherwise, I'm trusting Trudeau and our intelligence services on this one.

Please read the article I posted for more...responsible ways this could have been handled. 

Justin Trudeau has zero credibility with many, a factor that should not be ignored with so serious an accusation. If I called Trudeau a murderer I would be expected to prove my case, correct?  Or would you trust my claim? I guess slander and liable don't really apply to nation-states though,  lol.

I'm glad we do seem to be in agreement about the seriousness of the charges Trudeau is leveling,  however. 

I really don't care if he "lacks credibility with some" in terms of him making an announcement. He doesn't care how it's going to come off to people that hate him.

this is a really poor line to draw. he's the leader of Canada. of COURSE his accusations are going to hold more weight than some guy on a message board. quite a different standard. I know you think he's very stupid or at least very irresponsible, but do you really honestly believe he would make this announcement to the planet without hard evidence, whether you see it or not?

if he's proven a liar or just incompetent in this instance, it would be the gaffe of the century. 

DarthMaeglin

@PJ_SOUL I do need some clarification on the people you say you talked with.  What ethnicity were they, since views on this will tend to depend on which faction they identify with,  Sikh or Hindu? 

PJ_Soul

DarthMaeglin said:

@PJ_SOUL I do need some clarification on the people you say you talked with.  What ethnicity were they, since views on this will tend to depend on which faction they identify with,  Sikh or Hindu? 

3 Sikh, 2 Hindu, but they all identified as Canadians, so there's that! Anyone who cares about their Canadian citizenship really should be falling on the same side of the argument. If they don't, then they're pretty shitty Canadians.

DarthMaeglin

HughFreakingDillon said:

DarthMaeglin said:

PJ_Soul said:

I have no issue with how it was expressed to the public. Bluntly is the way I want it done. I also have no reason to think that Trudeau would casually make such an accusation, which is SO serious, for no reason. And if I'm going to choose a government to trust over the other, you can be sure that I'm trusting ours over India's!! And I think this kind of thing is EXACTLY they kind of thing India would do right now over the "Sikh issue", so I find the accusation extremely believable. Until I hear otherwise, I'm trusting Trudeau and our intelligence services on this one.

Please read the article I posted for more...responsible ways this could have been handled. 

Justin Trudeau has zero credibility with many, a factor that should not be ignored with so serious an accusation. If I called Trudeau a murderer I would be expected to prove my case, correct?  Or would you trust my claim? I guess slander and liable don't really apply to nation-states though,  lol.

I'm glad we do seem to be in agreement about the seriousness of the charges Trudeau is leveling,  however. 

I really don't care if he "lacks credibility with some" in terms of him making an announcement. He doesn't care how it's going to come off to people that hate him.

this is a really poor line to draw. he's the leader of Canada. of COURSE his accusations are going to hold more weight than some guy on a message board. quite a different standard. I know you think he's very stupid or at least very irresponsible, but do you really honestly believe he would make this announcement to the planet without hard evidence, whether you see it or not?

if he's proven a liar or just incompetent in this instance, it would be the gaffe of the century. 

You're correct,  Justin carries far more influence than you and I,  which makes his words potentially dangerous.  Were you aware our diplomatic presence in India is being reduced both at the request of the Indian government as well as due to threats of violence?  Apparently these threats didn't exist before Monday. 

I say again that Trudeau is being incredibly irresponsible in his handling of this.

DarthMaeglin

PJ_Soul said:

DarthMaeglin said:

@PJ_SOUL I do need some clarification on the people you say you talked with.  What ethnicity were they, since views on this will tend to depend on which faction they identify with,  Sikh or Hindu? 

3 Sikh, 2 Hindu, but they all identified as Canadians, so there's that! Anyone who cares about their Canadian citizenship really should be falling on the same side of the argument. If they don't, then they're pretty shitty Canadians.

Thank you for clarifying,  I'm sorry if I'm reading you wrong but I think you just said I'm a shitty Canadian? I thought we didn't like blind patriotism which is what you seem to suggest? 

PJ_Soul

Would you like for our diplomatic presence in India to just stay the same, if their government is killing our citizens in our country???? Obviously I disagree with you - I realize you think this must be because I'm lacking information or something, but it's not.

PJ_Soul

DarthMaeglin said:

PJ_Soul said:

DarthMaeglin said:

@PJ_SOUL I do need some clarification on the people you say you talked with.  What ethnicity were they, since views on this will tend to depend on which faction they identify with,  Sikh or Hindu? 

3 Sikh, 2 Hindu, but they all identified as Canadians, so there's that! Anyone who cares about their Canadian citizenship really should be falling on the same side of the argument. If they don't, then they're pretty shitty Canadians.

Thank you for clarifying,  I'm sorry if I'm reading you wrong but I think you just said I'm a shitty Canadian? I thought we didn't like blind patriotism which is what you seem to suggest? 

LOL. You didn't even cross my mind when I said that... mainly because it didn't occur to me that you might be okay with such a murder??? I didn't mean they're shitty Canadians if they don't believe Trudeau, because for the record, they all totally believe him, and none batted an eye over the idea that the Indian government would do this. It doesn't hurt that Jagmeet Singh is standing up for Trudeau as well.

DarthMaeglin

PJ_Soul said:

Would you like for our diplomatic presence in India to just stay the same, if their government is killing our citizens in our country???? Obviously I disagree with you - I realize you think this must be because I'm lacking information or something, but it's not.

I absolutely accept that you don't see this as I do (though I suspect we might be in more agreement than it appears).

Fair enough,  you and Hugh don't question Trudeau’s integrity but that doesn't invalidate my concerns.  And the timing of the announcement (and lack of substance) does bear scrutiny for some/many.

Since there's not enough proof to make arrests,  did Justin just give the perpetrators opportunity to escape (if they didn't already)? A fair question. 

There's reports surfacing today of people who are going to lose significant money due to the cessation of visas by India. Who should compensate these (presumably) innocent people? 

I suggested earlier that this seems to be our Khashoggi moment (Turkey handled the accusation much differently, per the article), and is INCREDIBLY serious.  I would like our Prime Minister to be equally serious and diplomatic in his handling of this.  I believe today was his first media availability since he dropped the bomb,  but that's another patern of Trudeau’s. 

DarthMaeglin

That it's being suggested that I support a murder tells me that I'm being grossly misread.  The beauty of the internet,  lol.

Edit: I see that I actually misread the post myself,  and I apologize. I'm getting used to the taste of crow, lol.

DarthMaeglin

PJ_Soul said:

DarthMaeglin said:

PJ_Soul said:

DarthMaeglin said:

@PJ_SOUL I do need some clarification on the people you say you talked with.  What ethnicity were they, since views on this will tend to depend on which faction they identify with,  Sikh or Hindu? 

3 Sikh, 2 Hindu, but they all identified as Canadians, so there's that! Anyone who cares about their Canadian citizenship really should be falling on the same side of the argument. If they don't, then they're pretty shitty Canadians.

Thank you for clarifying,  I'm sorry if I'm reading you wrong but I think you just said I'm a shitty Canadian? I thought we didn't like blind patriotism which is what you seem to suggest? 

LOL. You didn't even cross my mind when I said that... mainly because it didn't occur to me that you might be okay with such a murder??? I didn't mean they're shitty Canadians if they don't believe Trudeau, because for the record, they all totally believe him, and none batted an eye over the idea that the Indian government would do this. It doesn't hurt that Jagmeet Singh is standing up for Trudeau as well.

Just to address the Jagmeet aspect,  he was making accusatory and inflammatory statements just days after the murder so he shouldn't really be considered impartial in this.  For me he hinders any chance of resolving this reasonably,  as he's only fanned the flames to this point. I'm not sure he's standing up for Trudeau as you assert but is endorsing the Khalistani cause instead. 

There's actually been suggestions that this is all being done to appease Singh and maintain the coalition-that's-not-a-coalition. I know that will be dismissed but that doesn't make it less plausible. 

DarthMaeglin

And one more clarification: I truly wish that I could trust our current PM. But he killed that trust himself. 

DarthMaeglin

So now leaks begin, except we weren’t supposed to trust the leaks when it came to China so do we trust them now? This is the game Trudeau started back in January. Don’t shoot the messenger.

Now, for clarity, I believed the leakers then and I will tend to do the same now. But the Prime Minister has zero credibility with me, again, based on his record. If others feel differently, fair enough, but in the end we all get to be right, despite my own and others’ tone.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/sikh-nijjar-india-canada-trudeau-modi-1.6974607

DarthMaeglin

So now the narrative is that the PM went public when he did so that the press didn’t break the story. Doesn’t make it any better in my eyes.

 I expect Trudeau to make strong statements tomorrow casting aspersions on today’s leaks and begin the hunt for the whistleblower just like he did in January with the allegations against the Chinese government. CBC has already done a 180, without justifying their newfound faith in whistleblowers.

Is anyone willing to consider that we’ve been letting India down on this file for decades? Are we capable or willing to engage in such introspection? Do my last two sentences mean I agree with India’s actions?