Derek 2.0

I never said you complained over either cases....after all, your opinion is irrelevant.....But in Opposition, the Liberals sure did. Who cares if they include transfer taxes.......is the average price of a home in Ottawa $3-4 million dollars? Duffy and friends were all found to be within the rules........like the Liberals in this case.....but with far less money involved.

And there lays the difference......Oda spent $1000s on limos and orange juice and got shit canned by Harper resigned......Trudeau appears to approve of the abuses with taxpayers money by his Government. Did anyone get convicted in the Duffy saga? As to the rules, again, it all goes back to the approval received from atop the mountain in each office and ministry........one would think a government concerned with tax dollars would be more prudent with money that wasn't theirs, namely after the flap over Andrew Leslie's 70K two block move...

Up to $5200 (for commission to the realtor)......... Not too many people went "meh" over the orange juice.......or Duffy's expenses upwards of $90k.

My previous employer was required to ship several large pieces of equipment from Calgary to Cambridge Bay in the Western Arctic, and to do so were required to charter an entire C-130 Hercules through First Air.......and paid just under $35000, including two overnights for the aircrew in Yellowknife..... Moot point, because all of said expenses are approved higher up the food chain, regardless of department through the new formula, in several of these examples, by the various Ministers Bev Oda resigned for far less.....

This is up there with Andrew Leslie billing taxpayers a fortune to move several blocks in Ottawa: Furthermore: This is insane........are Trudeau's staffers coming to Ottawa from the Moon? As to the rules: These rules are reasonable, and include all government workers required to move for their jobs with the Government....I have no qualms with that.....A family friend, in the Forces, recently moved for their last posting from Halifax to Victoria BC, their cost, moving a four bedroom house worth of stuff and one of their cars (they paid for their truck and boat out of pocket) was just under $10000, in addition, another ~$4000-5000 for him and his wife to fly out and stay house hunting.........I never heard of real estate fees being covered.. Remember Bev Oda's $16 orange juice.........or better yet Mike Duffy????

No, you're five by five......I don't doubt though that intelligence failures (caused by Clinton administration spending cuts) and over compartmentalization of the ABC agencies was a major contributor........even the peace dividend at the end of the Cold War, which resulted in only a handful of (unarmed) fighters available to NORAD on 9/11.... and only them because they were in the midst of a major exercise.

Play it out though.......one would have to assume that the Bush Administration was able to cover-up this elaborate plot on 9/11.........but then was unable to "plant" several shipping containers worth of chemical/biological/nuclear weapons/materials in the far flung Iraqi desert for a "Ta-Da" moment after the Iraqi invasion........

Again you're making up a position not grounded in reality.....a whole bunch of bad (or good) things can happen within the next three years to this Government, just within this next year Trudeau is going to be forced to enact policies that are going to piss people off, likewise the other two parties will have or be near to selecting their next leaders and begin to craft their own policies......and Canadians will have paid a years worth of taxes under Trudeau tax policies and will be looking towards a "price on carbon" for their next years taxes...... This far out there is simply a 50/50 chance that Trudeau will be reelected.........he either will or he won't, a whole host of variables will decide, most of which haven't even took place yet.......... Do you like Trudeau's prospects with a President Trump, a possible President, Trudeau has decried, that has promised a whole host of protectionist policies, including tearing up NAFTA......have you considered what Trudeau's prospects will look like if our economy takes a nose dive thanks to the guy down South?

Judging by you attempting to get personal, a "fantasy" that you can't refute......Trudeau's pissing off of First Nations groups and cutting health transfers is not something I made up, nor Harper did to Trudeau, but choices made by the Trudeau Government, choices that won't please certain segments of the voting population that Trudeau promised the Earth & the Moon to, with a heavy dose of Sunny Ways....... Yet another example: And So add public service unions to the list of special interest groups that helped elect Trudeau and the Trudeau Government is now stiffing......Do you really think First Nations groups, public service unions, veterans groups, the environmental groups etc are going to still feel all warm and fuzzy with the Trudeau Liberals in 2019? Harper, in his dealings with said groups, benefited with low expectations and such groups hated him and likely wouldn't have supported him anyways......Trudeau promised them the moon and is now treating them like the previous Harper government did.......you expect them to still support Trudeau in 2019 and not filter to the fringes in the NDP or the Greens? Talk about living in a fantasy

So? What maters is the promises made (and broken) and to whom......for example, the Liberals granting permits for both the Site C dam and an LNG terminal in Squamish.....in both cases the Liberals have approved projects that the Conservatives once supported, the very projects that cost the Federal Tories heavily in British Columbia, in part Metro Vancouver......with several ridings the Liberals won that typically go Conservative or NDP.....if they approve the Kinder Morgan pipeline, as expected, they might has well not bother campaigning in their Lower Mainland ridings in 2019...... Or their budget earlier this year that reduced Federal health transfers to 2.8% from the 3% promised by the evil Harper regime....over the next decade with the Liberals spending plans, the percentage of healthcare funding nationwide will go from the 22% promised by Harper down to around ~18%....and yet the Liberals always suggested Harper's hidden agenda was to destroy public healthcare in Canada.....What do you think the result will be in Quebec or the Atlantic provinces, areas already facing big funding pressures? Do you think these provinces will approve of the Trudeau Liberals slashing their healthcare systems? And the list goes on..........a death by a thousands cuts, and if the other parties select a reasonable leaders and platforms and/or the economy is still the shits the Trudeau Liberals will bleed out in 2019.

And most of those PMs enacted, or promised to enact, policies of substance.......Our current Prime Minister's father only barely won reelection in '72 in part to a divided right and a lackluster PC leader in Robert Stanfield.....the same in '74, combined with Trudeau's bold face lie over wage and price control measures to curb inflation (created by his own policies)......the 80' election was a direct result of the inept and divided right (yet again). As I said, with this Trudeau, I've no doubt if the Tories (and NDP) go with a modern day version of Stanfield, Trudeau will be reelected....if they don't, like governing parties in the past, a death of a thousand cuts will be their undoing.......in Trudeau's situation, coming is as the third party in 2015, he promised too much to too many people, promises his government has no hope in hell of fulfilling.........(most) voters don't reward "sunny ways" shone up their collective asses.

And there is a 103 1/4% chance that your ~95% chance is a made up number without a foundation in reality or basis in fact.

I know, and that is a benefit for the Tories up against a personality cult like Trudeau........with that, his policies will always be marketable to the segment of voters that decide elections. "Terrible" is subjective.........if, as I expect, Trudeau's policies make the economy worse ~3 years from now, they very much so will factor into 2019. Trudeau's sunshine will only go so far, once he is forced into actually making policies that alienate segments of voters his lack of substance will be more pronounced.......already he his pissing away the goodwill he received from First Nations and Vets, and these are but narrow segments of the population...........Trudeau's sunshine won't help jobless or underemployed middle class voters pay their bills. Of course, the selection of leaders and policies by both the Tories and NDP will be a big factor in 2019, if they both crap the bed on this, we'll get another Trudeau government (see Ontario). Simple as that.

Forget viable, just hope for a candidate Likewise the Tories, as it stands, of the declared field seeking the leadership of my party, there is little to get excited about.

It very well could be, it would depend on the state of the economy and how many people have been alienated by Trudeau's broken promises and lack of substance....eventually, those voters that gave Trudeau his majority will get tired of his pretty mouth noises and selfies.

It would appear, per this poll, that Trump has made inroads among blacks at Clinton's expense:

Interesting article........without a doubt once they can manage to resolve range and price they will take right off....then the next challenge will be transport trucks and trains ...

I'll go with:

Cheaply for who? The Province that isn't paying for the installation and maintenance of the transmission lines or the actual dam........There is zero evidence (or BC Hydro would have demonstrated it ) that supplying power to Alberta is a net benefit for BC or that Alberta wouldn't just build their own (cheaper) power generation plants......North Eastern BC and across the border into Alberta would actually be one of the more viable (and cheaper) wind farms......but it still doesn't square the circle as to why BC taxpayers should subsidize Alberta's power needs. It makes perfect sense in the context of all forms of power generation......building mega projects in the hinterland is the thinking of the 1950s.....versus the construction of smaller, tailored, power generation systems as close as possible to the end user, negating the technical losses through extensive transmission lines caused by electrical resistance. This is but one method of conservation and greater efficiency found within a modern power grid. Who knows what his carbon tax will be, but I'm speaking to the economic climate and the money BC Hydro will have to borrow to build Site C. Site C Hydro isn't a contributor to the economy if British Columbia can't afford it and doesn't need it......if exporting energy was to be such a boon to the Province of British Columbia, the gas plant in Port Moody, which can generate nearly an equal amount of power as Site C, but at a cheaper cost, wouldn't be sitting idle.

Hydro Quebec's massive James Bay Hero Project and Montreal/Quebec/New York State aren't bisected by the the Rockies or the Coastal mountain ranges..........none the less, you're correct James Bay-Montreal is only several hundred Kilometers less a distance then Site C-Vancouver.....or Vancouver and several other major dams built by BC Hydro in the same region............the difference is then and now......a 1950 Ford sedan is less efficient then a 1970s Ford Sedan, just as that 70s car is a stark difference with a Ford sedan today..... BC Hydro wants to build the 1978 Ford Crown Victoria of Hydro Dams today... .....in the middle of nowhere, to service an industry that is no longer coming to North Eastern BC.......when there is no need and it makes zero sense financially......BC Hydro slapping ~$10 billion dollars on the credit card is a gamble that could destroy the Crown Corp with as much as a 1% interest hike......resulting of course in a government bailout or an increase in hydro rates, either way British Columbians are going to pay for this massive mistake. You'd have to look towards Soviet Russia and the "Hero Projects" started by Stalin, that wasted huge amounts of resources constructing dams, other forms of power plants, railways, airfields and roads etc out into the ass end of Siberia......the problem of course such investments went nowhere......literally. Outside the Soviets, I can't think of any major dam project proposed, in such a remote region, to service an industry that isn't going to happen, for a population that doesn't require the amount of power it is suppose to generate........ In Soviet Russia....Dam builds you.

But I thought Trudeau wanted First Nations treated with dignity and respect? I thought Trudeau endorsed the UN declaration that stated Aboriginal people must give full consent on development on their land? Odd, I don't remember the local nations giving Trudeau consent to build a Hero Project on their burial grounds...I thought Trudeau clearly stated "While governments grant permits for resource development, only communities can grant permission"

Your distraction aside, the Trudeau government could have rescinded the permits issued by the previous Government and then not issue the next phase of permits that will allow irreversible construction to take place......at the very least Trudeau could have hit the pause button until after the local First Nations court challenge was completed.

It doesn't mater if they're not dispatchable, as BC won't need the power produced by Site C for decades......with that, hydro power itself isn't fully dispatchable as its reliant on water levels, ergo dry summers reduce the amount of water to produce power. With regards to Solar/Wind etc that too doesn't have to be dispatchable when BC already has a large natural gas plant in Port Moody, a plant that isn't currently on the grid and can produce nearly the same amount of power as Site C is suppose to......and of course BC taxpayers already own the Port Moody thermal plant. Smaller plants are better when built closer to the end user and don't suffer as much technical losses through transmission over longer distances........in the case of Site C, the assumption that this Hero Project is going to supply the major growth centers in the Lower Mainland and Vancouver Island (or Americans) is laughable, as the distances involved would result in upwards of nearly 25% of the power generated by Site C being lost through electrical resistance. British Columbia has a finite amount of arable land, but plenty of land on which we could build (green) power generation projects....projects built closer to the end users, well not wiping out acres of farm land and old growth forest. What industrial development? LNG is dead........I stand to be corrected, but new transmission lines to Alberta aren't included in the estimated cost of Site C. Hydro might very well be a "good source of power" for export if it wasn't in the middle of nowhere and then required expensive transmission lines combined with the realization that we would loose nearly 25% of the power generated over such distances to electrical resistance. Its not irrelevant, BC Hydro is owned by British Columbians.......Hydro hasn't sold Site C to the people that will pay for it, as a means to subsidize the electrical needs of Alberta and Washington State......I suspect if it did it would be even more unpopular. Site C is a electoral millstone around the necks of Premier Clark and Prime Minister Trudeau......they now own it.

A Trump-Trudeau trade summit would be interesting to say the least...........

Outside of the actual construction, no, they don't produce Co2, they produce "high levels of methane as the water levels lower and rise behind them"....with methane being far worse than Co2. And how is it going to be exported to Alberta? Who is building and paying for the new transmission lines? Site C won't benefit the economy, as its not needed in British Columbia, it's intended purpose (LNG) is all but dead and the power it does produce is expensive, so much so British Columbia would be better off with a combination of smaller green projects and further conservation efforts........the farmland that will be displaced by Site C is also a resource that generates profit and adds to the economy........ The BC Government isn't leaving LNG idle, the world market is.....ergo there is no need for Site C to generate the power needed by an LNG industry, and as noted, BC itself doesn't need the power it will generate...exporting the energy produced is a self-licking ice cream cone economically....BC taxpayers will either be subsidizing American/Alberta energy needs or attempting to sell it at a price per kilowatt far more then if said markets built their own gas plants.......Site C is akin to a Soviet Hero Project and makes zero economic sense. Site C Dam is bad public policy, at both the Provincial and Federal levels, and a huge waste of taxpayer's dollars........my question, leaving aside how the majority of the third party review board are former employees of the company building the dam, is what reason do the Trudeau Liberals have to support the Site C Dam Hero Project??????