2025 Federal Election - 28 Apr 25

[GR66]

I'm starting to wonder if it might be a Jenni Byrne issue. Harper wasn't too pleased with her back in 2015 for not properly vetting 2 candidates.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-stephen-harper-jenni-byrne-campaign-1.3221860

Alt: https://archive.ph/abZNj

Heard a comment from one of the guests on CFRB 1010 this morning...may have been Tim Hudak?

He suggested that perhaps in some cases parties are too quick to dump candidates for some of their expressed views. He was clear that some candidates quite clearly should be dumped for the most extreme views or undeclared criminal charges, etc. but that being dumped for example having social media posts backing conspiracy theories or unpopular views perhaps should not happen.

He suggests that doing so is a sign of too much centralized control over the party and an attempt to overly control the messaging. Understandable from a campaign view, but takes away the local autonomy of the individual riding associations in picking their own preferred representatives. He suggested these candidates should be permitted to run and let the voters decide if their views are inconsistent with the representation they want to have in Parliament.

It's an interesting point...true democracy can be messy.

 

[brihard]

Heard a comment from one of the guests on CFRB 1010 this morning...may have been Tim Hudak?

He suggested that perhaps in some cases parties are too quick to dump candidates for some of their expressed views. He was clear that some candidates quite clearly should be dumped for the most extreme views or undeclared criminal charges, etc. but that being dumped for example having social media posts backing conspiracy theories or unpopular views perhaps should not happen.

He suggests that doing so is a sign of too much centralized control over the party and an attempt to overly control the messaging. Understandable from a campaign view, but takes away the local autonomy of the individual riding associations in picking their own preferred representatives. He suggested these candidates should be permitted to run and let the voters decide if their views are inconsistent with the representation they want to have in Parliament.

It's an interesting point...true democracy can be messy.

Part of the calculus might be whether or not the social media nuttery of an ‘also ran’ candidate without a realistic chance of winning a seat should be accepted as a reputational risk to the fortunes of the party more broadly, including candidates in other seats that are very much in play. I think we saw this very much in play in the BC Provincial Election where the Conservatives absorbed the Liberals and kept some, uh… less than great Conservative candidates who posed problems for the party’s image. The NDP won, but not by much, and the image of the BC Conservatives was probably hit a bit by some of the loons.

 

[MilEME09]

When discussing Canadian energy projects, one thing to keep in mind is here is a list of already approved, shovel ready projects industry hasn't broken ground on. We can claim all we want the liberal gov is anti-energy but here we have 35 approved projects to "unleash canadian energy"

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I'd much rather they find these people now, than after they take a seat in Parliament.

Our HoC is a chamber full of petty, vindictive, childish partisans. So much so, they harangued a duly elected MP out of politics over a glass of orange juice. Do not think for a minute that the opposition will not waste time and money to stall government over a 10 year old tweet. I don’t profess to know what the current crop is guilty of, but if the party decides the juice is not worth the squeeze, I'm not even going to remotely try to second guess them.

It tells me that even in the midst of an election, the party has the scruples and gonads to fire anyone that has not been fully honest or forthcoming with their bio. Or could cause damage or flux in the House through weeks of recriminations, while trying to push bills or solve pan Canada problems.

Every person let go provides more talk time for PP. If he doesn’t have to stand there defending a candidate, it gives him more time to push his message.

 

[CBH99]

FFS. People are swallowing bullshit conservative propaganda hook line and sinker. This is nothing more than the conservatives obfuscating an issue by using bullshit buzzards to trick Canadians. They are lying.

Bill C-69 is NOT anti-pipeline legislation. It does not ban pipelines. It's a bill that changed the way that environmental assessments and approvals are done. What Carney has said is that provinces won't necessarily have to adhere to the processes laid out by this federal law, if instead they provide their own provincial environmental assessment. He's basically paving the way for provinces to potentially enact token environmental assessment laws so thag the feds cna wash their hands of the responsibility while still appearing to be all for strong environmental regulation.

But the conservative slap a made up bullshit name like "anti pipeline bill" and people to lazy to look into anything themselves believe it, and therefor when Carney says he won't repeal it, it makes it look like he's keeping in place an law that bans pipelines, when no such law exists.

Do better, people.

So I read your post here Mr. Lumber, and I said to myself "Ya know what, he's right..."

I hadn't googled what Bill C-69 actually contains in it, or read anything from Parliamentary sources. I had been listening to the mainstream media for my information & people commenting on it on here, YouTube, etc

(Yes, that same mainstream media I'm always ragging on for their incredibly flexible reporting standards)


So not wanting to be a lazy chump that didn't take the time.to do some digging, I did some digging.

Here's a link to one of the Parliamentary sources I skimmed... are we all sure C-69 is what we think it is? Or am I all turned around and not reading up on the right bill??

Charter Statement - Bill C-69: An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024 (Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1)

Department of Justice Canada's Internet site

www.justice.gc.ca

Because it doesn't mention pipelines. Or anything related to industry at all. Probably the most boring document I could have found on the whole gosh darn internet actually...

...

Different Topic...

You seemed A LOT more knowledgeable about that $330M 'scandal' than anybody else I've heard talk about it...

The media's narrative on that being Liberal MP's awarded that money to their own companies and front companies, friends, private interests etc inappropriately, and that issue is what had Parliament effectively ground to a halt prior to all this happening.

Your narrative (in which you seemed to know the guts of the matter better than most, certainly me) was that money was awarded to companies that didn't qualify for it, but it was a matter of administrative error in an otherwise legitimate initiative. And that MP's hadn't lined their own pockets with it.



Regardless of the specifics or which narrative is more true, the general gist of the matter is that $330M of taxpayer money (or more) went out to entities that it shouldn't have.

Has the subject money that was dispensed to the parties/companies inappropriately ever been recovered?

Were there (are there?) any attempts to recover the money at all?

 

[lenaitch]

Because it doesn't mention pipelines. Or anything related to industry at all. Probably the most boring document I could have found on the whole gosh darn internet actually...

Because you were reading the DOJ's Charter compliance analysis, which they do on most if not all proposed legislation.

Here's the actual Bill. I'm not sure it will any more of a page-turner.

https://www.parl.ca/documentviewer/en/42-1/bill/c-69/first-reading

 

[Remius]

Latest aggregate.

Welcome to 338Canada

338canada.com

Things seem to be stabilizing and trending. If week two stays this way there will be a lot work required for the CPC to steal votes from the LPC.

But even at 38% the CPC can win. It’s seat distribution to watch and right now it doesn’t look great. However it would be good to deep dive the leaning ridings as those could easily flip.

 

[MilEME09]

Latest aggregate.

Welcome to 338Canada

338canada.com

Things seem to be stabilizing and trending. If week two stays this way there will be a lot work required for the CPC to steal votes from the LPC.

But even at 38% the CPC can win. It’s seat distribution to watch and right now it doesn’t look great. However it would be good to deep dive the leaning ridings as those could easily flip.

issue is going to be ontario where the liberals are polling at 43%, this is a must win area for the CPC. 338 has only 13 seats for the CPC as safe, that should be a concern for the party.

 

[GR66]

Part of the calculus might be whether or not the social media nuttery of an ‘also ran’ candidate without a realistic chance of winning a seat should be accepted as a reputational risk to the fortunes of the party more broadly, including candidates in other seats that are very much in play. I think we saw this very much in play in the BC Provincial Election where the Conservatives absorbed the Liberals and kept some, uh… less than great Conservative candidates who posed problems for the party’s image. The NDP won, but not by much, and the image of the BC Conservatives was probably hit a bit by some of the loons.

I'd much rather they find these people now, than after they take a seat in Parliament.

Our HoC is a chamber full of petty, vindictive, childish partisans. So much so, they harangued a duly elected MP out of politics over a glass of orange juice. Do not think for a minute that the opposition will not waste time and money to stall government over a 10 year old tweet. I don’t profess to know what the current crop is guilty of, but if the party decides the juice is not worth the squeeze, I'm not even going to remotely try to second guess them.

It tells me that even in the midst of an election, the party has the scruples and gonads to fire anyone that has not been fully honest or forthcoming with their bio. Or could cause damage or flux in the House through weeks of recriminations, while trying to push bills or solve pan Canada problems.

Every person let go provides more talk time for PP. If he doesn’t have to stand there defending a candidate, it gives him more time to push his message.

Not saying any particular candidate should or should not have been dumped by their respective party, just saying that it was an interesting point.

I strongly suspect that some people that are suggesting better vetting of candidates by their parties beforehand to avoid these missteps are the same people that decry the strong centralized control exerted by the PMO or party whips over their caucuses leaving the individual MP's as little more than trained seals blindly following the party line.

It's tough to know where to draw the line between centralized control and MP's free to act independently.

 

[Remius]

Parties don’t dump candidates because of any ethics or gonads or whatever. They dump them when they become political liabilities.

That’s it.

 

[Fabius]

When discussing Canadian energy projects, one thing to keep in mind is here is a list of already approved, shovel ready projects industry hasn't broken ground on. We can claim all we want the liberal gov is anti-energy but here we have 35 approved projects to "unleash canadian energy"

View attachment 92404

How do you think companies factor in the LPC emissions cap? Are these projects economically viable under an emissions cap?

The stated intent here is to reduce GHG emission by oil and gas by 35% from 2019 levels.

Oil and gas sector greenhouse gas pollution cap - Canada.ca

www.canada.ca

Emissions per barrel have been declining, however Canadas daily barrel production has increased.

Canadian oil continues to get cleaner on an emissions per barrel basis

Overall Canadian upstream oil emissions intensity down 13% since 2000; Oil sands emissions intensity down 29%

www.canadianenergycentre.ca

 

[MilEME09]

How do you think companies factor in the LPC emissions cap? Are these projects economically viable under an emissions cap?

The stated intent here is to reduce GHG emission by oil and gas by 35% from 2019 levels.

Oil and gas sector greenhouse gas pollution cap - Canada.ca

www.canada.ca

Emissions per barrel have been declining, however Canadas daily barrel production has increased.

Canadian oil continues to get cleaner on an emissions per barrel basis

Overall Canadian upstream oil emissions intensity down 13% since 2000; Oil sands emissions intensity down 29%

www.canadianenergycentre.ca

Here's how I see the emissions cap, while I get the argument being made by AB and others that it is a defacto production cap because you can only have max XY emissions or face penalties. On the flip side of this, for decades we have been reinvesting the carbon tax and other government funds into research and development of carbon capture tech, and other emissions reductions tech that these multibillion dollar companies aren't doing, or are barely doing because the Gov will pay them to do it. I think its time to force industry to invest in them selves to get efficient, rather than us paying for it.

Also the emissions cap is fairly new and many of these projects have been shovel ready for years.

 

[RangerRay]

Yikes, not a good look.

CTV Cancelled a Fact-Checking Segment in Response to Political Pressure From Pierre Poilievre’s Conservatives

Audio recording shows CTV cancelled an ‘election misinformation’ segment with journalist Rachel Gilmore after online backlash from conservatives

pressprogress.ca

Alt: https://archive.ph/3Z1Qt

I found her a questionable choice given how biased she is. It’s like listening to a left wing version of Tucker Carlson or Ben Shapiro. I’m not surprised the Tories cried foul.

Third CPC candidate gets the axe, what's going on?

View attachment 92401

They didn’t do a good job vetting some candidates, but at least they are belatedly practicing political hygiene after the fact instead of telling us that it’s a “teachable moment”. Not a good look but at least they’re dropping their liabilities like hot potatoes.

This particular candidate may not have been let go because of stupid posts on social media, if I’m reading between the lines correctly.

 

[The Bread Guy]

I'm starting to wonder if it might be a Jenni Byrne issue. Harper wasn't too pleased with her back in 2015 for not properly vetting 2 candidates.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-stephen-harper-jenni-byrne-campaign-1.3221860

Alt: https://archive.ph/abZNj

Well, if The Boss thinks he was getting bad advice, and she stays in, her fault or his? Central Control starts/ends at The Centre.

I have no crystal ball, but I suspect she would be more likely to dump any perceived ballast that would put the ship at risk.

Then again, on a completely speculative note, PP’s chief of staff has been briefed on the unredacted NSICOP report, so let the wilderness of mirrors continue …

 

[OldSolduer]

FFS. People are swallowing bullshit conservative propaganda hook line and sinker. This is nothing more than the conservatives obfuscating an issue by using bullshit buzzards to trick Canadians. They are lying.

Kettle this is pot, FYI I been around a few years and the biggest liars I have ever seen is the current Liberal Party of Canada - which is not for Canada no matter what they say. The "natural governing party of Canada" is not what it was in the 60s.

When our esteemed former PM said "I have a basic admiration for China" that should have alerted the masses to where HIS loyalties lay.

But that was poo poohed and ignored. -

 

[Lumber]

So I read your post here Mr. Lumber, and I said to myself "Ya know what, he's right..."

I hadn't googled what Bill C-69 actually contains in it, or read anything from Parliamentary sources. I had been listening to the mainstream media for my information & people commenting on it on here, YouTube, etc

(Yes, that same mainstream media I'm always ragging on for their incredibly flexible reporting standards)


So not wanting to be a lazy chump that didn't take the time.to do some digging, I did some digging.

Here's a link to one of the Parliamentary sources I skimmed... are we all sure C-69 is what we think it is? Or am I all turned around and not reading up on the right bill??

Charter Statement - Bill C-69: An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024 (Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1)

Department of Justice Canada's Internet site

www.justice.gc.ca

Because it doesn't mention pipelines. Or anything related to industry at all. Probably the most boring document I could have found on the whole gosh darn internet actually...

...

Different Topic...

You seemed A LOT more knowledgeable about that $330M 'scandal' than anybody else I've heard talk about it...

The media's narrative on that being Liberal MP's awarded that money to their own companies and front companies, friends, private interests etc inappropriately, and that issue is what had Parliament effectively ground to a halt prior to all this happening.

Your narrative (in which you seemed to know the guts of the matter better than most, certainly me) was that money was awarded to companies that didn't qualify for it, but it was a matter of administrative error in an otherwise legitimate initiative. And that MP's hadn't lined their own pockets with it.



Regardless of the specifics or which narrative is more true, the general gist of the matter is that $330M of taxpayer money (or more) went out to entities that it shouldn't have.

Has the subject money that was dispensed to the parties/companies inappropriately ever been recovered?

Were there (are there?) any attempts to recover the money at all?

Recall 2 things: 1. It wasn't $330M thag went out in appropriately. I made that very clear in mh previous post, it was more like $75M (can't recall the exact figure). And 2. The board of directors had the task of "voting" on whether or not to grant money to entities/companies applying for said grants. If a member of the board had a conflict of interest with those applications, they were required to announce those conflicts and NOT participate in the vote. In most cases where a conflict of interest was identified (totalling ~$225mil in grants) this process was followed appropriately, and those board members with conflicts did in fact recuse themselves and didn't participate in the votes. Therefore, in those cases, that $225mil was absolutely NOT given out in-appropriately. However, in some other cases ( tallying ~$75mil in grants), one or more board members who admitted conflicts nonetheless participated in the votes on whether to approve the grants.

So, from a technical perspective, you could say that those entities "shouldn't have" received those funds because the votes on their grant applications shouldn't have happened the way they did. I don't know what the process would be, but I imaginebwhat would be enough would be to simply "nullify" the vote, and havea new vote conducted without those board member(s) who have conflicts.

However, from a more pragmatic perspective, you can't necessarily say that the money given to those entire was "wasted" and should be paid back. First, if those who shouldn't have been voting were not a "tie breaking vote" then their vote really had no effect on whether the grant got approved. Second, even if they had a conflict of interest and were the tie breaking vote, that doesn't necessarily mean that the program itself seeking a grant wasn't a worthwhile investment in green technology exploration. You could reconvene a board made up of people who don't have conflicts of interest and have them vote on whether they would also have approved that grant. If they say no to any of those programs, then you could potentially look further into whether or not to try and recoop the funds. I bet, however, there would be very few instances where that would happen.

Also, think about it from the perspective of those companies/entities who recieved those funds "erroneously". Let's say you're from UBC, and you're applying for a $300,000 grant to study whether a special type of fish food devised marine biology department would reduce the negative effects that ocean based fish farms have on the local environment. Unbeknownst to you, a member of the board is an Alumn of UBC who donated to UBC and actually has a kid in their marine biology department. He announces his conflict, but chooses to vote anyways and your grant is approved. First, did his association with UBC actually negatively affect his objectivity in the vote? Does his conflict of interest negate the potential positive impact of this study? Further, it's now (in real terms) 4 years later. The study is done, it got good results that are being shared with industry. Do you think it's fair to go after UBC NOW and try and recoop that $400k?

 

[Jarnhamar]

Do you think it's fair to go after UBC NOW and try and recoop that $400k?

Do we have access to the list of who got what so we can decide for ourselves if it's life changing research or some kind of bullshit grant?

 

[QV]

Here's how I see the emissions cap, while I get the argument being made by AB and others that it is a defacto production cap because you can only have max XY emissions or face penalties. On the flip side of this, for decades we have been reinvesting the carbon tax and other government funds into research and development of carbon capture tech, and other emissions reductions tech that these multibillion dollar companies aren't doing, or are barely doing because the Gov will pay them to do it. I think its time to force industry to invest in them selves to get efficient, rather than us paying for it.

Also the emissions cap is fairly new and many of these projects have been shovel ready for years.

Canadian O&G already has one of the highest environmental standards on the planet in the global O&G sector. But that's not really the point, the LPC wants to kill that sector within Canada and have created a climate unfriendly to doing business here. Whether that is the "no more pipelines" law, or the West Coast tanker ban (why not East coast too?) or any other tax, cap, hurdle, block, etc.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Do we have access to the list of who got what so we can decide for ourselves if it's life changing research or some kind of bullshit grant?

No idea what’s in and what’s out, and some may be obvious horse hockey. That said, I know I may not be able to tell what’s being worked on now will lead to. After all, if someone threw out a certain mouldy Petri dish way back when, we may have missed out on penicillin.

 

[MilEME09]

Canadian O&G already has one of the highest environmental standards on the planet in the global O&G sector. But that's not really the point, the LPC wants to kill that sector within Canada and have created a climate unfriendly to doing business here. Whether that is the "no more pipelines" law, or the West Coast tanker ban (why not East coast too?) or any other tax, cap, hurdle, block, etc.

and yet approved projects still aren't being built, even during the last CPC gov, take the Mckenzie valley pipeline for example approved dec 16th 2010, was expected to take 4 years to complete, yet was never built. This isnt just the government, industry is shooting it self in the foot as well.