Queenmandy85

Yes. Interest rates have been very low since the 2008 down turn. Economists have been warning that rates would have to climb back to normal eventually. People were paying way too much to buy houses that they might not be able to afford when the rates return to normal. The problem is people have been spending too much and not saving and investing. That drives up prices which hurts seniors and people who are at the bottom end of the financial scale.

We have been warned for over ten years that interest rates were going to rise and to prepare for it. Many people chose not to heed the warnings. For those who have investments, the rise in interest rates is a welcome relief.

My reference to the "Moscow Taxi Driver" was referring to President Putin, whom some critics claim that after he left (was fired) from the KGB, became a cab driver in Moscow. Take in the same manner some refer to Prime Minister Trudeau as "Pixie Dust." ?

Given a choice between believing Deluge or the late Professor Hawking, I'll choose Hawking. That being said, the transition off fossil fuels to nuclear power is a tremendous business opportunity. We would be fools not to go all in on it.

You've never heard of nuclear power? MY BAD. APOLOGIES TO NATIONALIST. You claim the greenhouse effect hasn't been proven. You can prove it in any undergraduate physics lab. If you lower the proportion of a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere such as carbon dioxide or methane, and apply radiant energy, the re-radiation of energy increases, causing the atmosphere to cool. If you increase the proportion of CO2 or methane, the re-radiation of energy is reduced, causing the atmosphere to warm. The results are measureable and predictable. That is the definition of proof. Physics, math, and chemistry have nothing to do with politics. You should consult your lawyer because you likely have a case against your physics prof. for negligence. A degree in the hard sciences should be a prerequisite for holding public office.

Given, we haven't had a Conservative Party federally, for years, that ship has sailed. I live in hope it returns.

I don't know what you are getting at, but if Canadians, according to you, won't stand for it, it isn't needed. In fact, if you want investor confidence, the cult of transparency will drive investors away.

Any shortage, in this case, capital, is not a problem It is a business opportunity. If anyone wants to make real money, forget being a lawyer, social worker or You Tube influencer. Go to a trade school and learn a trade. Then join a union. That is where the real shortage is. Or, start investing in the growth industies to come...Rail, nuclear power , banking.

And yet, for the first time in years, we have full employment...for now.

Both Secretary Clinton and President Trump are presumed to be innocent unless proven guilty in Court. Evidence is not proof of anything until it is tested in a court. Speculation of any possible verdict of a potential trial is inappropriate.

You gauge leaders by a left vs. right measure. I gauge them by their administrative ability. I've lived under BC. Socreds and New Democrats, Saskatchewan Progressive Conservatives and New Democrats and now the Sask Party. After all these decades, I have come to the conclusion the Party name and ideology has no bearing on administrative ability or honesty. The worst governments I've lived under were led by W.A.C. Bennett and Glen Clark. The best were Roy Romanow (probably because he was one of the few people who called me "Sir.") All of the Federal Governments in my lifetime were competent, but the governments of King, and Pearson were scandalous. I think Mike Pearson's government holds the record for the sheer volume of corruption. Visiting the leader of one of the world's great religions doesn't seem to be on that level. If a Prime Minister visited the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Pope, and stayed in their residence, would that be on the same level as a Prime Minister's Parliamentary Secretary offering the lawyer representing the US government $50,000 to not oppose bail for a mafia hitman? The Prime Minister's trip resulted in a finding of a violation of ethics. The complaints of Prime Minister Trudeau's breeches of ethics seem to come from a hatred of the person, not the performance of governance. His contraventions demonstrate poor judgement, but are decidedly penny-anti next to a Customs Minister who is part of a smuggling ring. "He was protectionist by day and a free trader by night." Gotta go. Y&R is coming on. Cheers

Sorry, but how is the customs scandal not worse? It triggered the events that brought down the government. How is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister offering a bribe to the lawyer representing the US to not oppose bail for Lucien Rivard not far worse? How is the Furniture Scandal where three Cabinet Ministers took bribes from other mafia not a worse scandal? You will have to elaborate on that. My apologies. To whom were those comments directed and when? I assumed that was the group those comments were directed at. I am not a supporter of the Prime Minister and his response to the SNC Lavilin affair certainly tarnished him in my eyes. But it is important to keep things in perspective. He has performed well on the files I mentioned earlier. With the possible exception of Mr. O'Toole, whom I did support, the CPC seems intent on electing leaders who are not a good fit for the position of Prime Minister. They certainly wanted to overturn the Public Health orders put in place by the Provincial and Federal governments, and it was on the heels of the Jan.6 catastrophe in the US. As it was, they were allowed to harrass and disrupt the capital for several weeks. Their point was made by the time they were removed. As a Conservative, I have no party in Parliament. My choices for party are Grit, Socred, NDP or Green. That is not an appetizing prospect. I do have a very good person as an MP. My problem is he belongs to a party that I am struggling to accept, given their leader's performance. I appreciate your calling out my mistakes.

Clearly, her career wasn't in trouble. She remained in cabinet. Worse than the Customs scandal, the Spencer affair, the Rivard scandal, the furniture scandals? You have an odd perspective on what constitutes a scandal. They were a tiny minority of thugs threatening a coup if they didn't get their way. They included separatists and anti-vaxxers at a time when thousands of people were dying.

A deferred prosecution is legal. It may be granted at the discretion of the Crown Prosecutor. As to the push by the PMO to facilitate a deferred prosecution, the ethics commissioner dealt with that, as did the voters. If the CPC had their act together, if they had a credible leader, the punishment delivered by the voters would have been decisive. The actions by the PM showed poor judgement, but did not meet the threshold of criminality. The primary political role of any Canadian government is to create and preserve jobs. The "buddies" the government were trying to help were those 6000 emplyees who were at risk through no fault of their own. That being said, the "scandals" by the government pale to insignificance compared to actual scandals of the past. On balance, the government has performed fairly well, particularly on the NAFTA and Pandemic files. The climate response has been weak, but with an electorate woefully ignorant of what is coming, the government is doing what it can. The education of Canadians has been a disaster over the last 45 years with regard to the greenhouse effect. I am confident Mr. Poilievre will win a minority in the next election, but unless he does an about face, his term in office will be brief and unproductive.

It's been a long time since I looked at the criminal code. You probably are right. Do you have a section I could look at? With the former AG's recordings, I wouldn't think there was anything left to investigate. That people in the PMO and others asked a number of times isn't in dispute. If threatening to have her fired is illegal, I would be surprised. I received those kinds of threats on occasion, including from a mountie and a couple of people in management. If you would rather cling to your job over doing your duty, you don't deserve the job. However, like me, the threats made against the AG were empty.

(Canada includes Quebec and Alberta) Every member of Parliament, from the House of Commons and the Other Place, serve this country, in spite of abuse and threats from the people whom they serve.

I don't have to. The RCMP already did, hence this thread. It was inappropriate but compared to the scandals in Mike Pearson's government, this is nothing. Lucien Revard, the Spencer affair, and the furniture bribes to three separate cabinet ministers. Trudeau made a stupid mistake and he lost his majority as a result. If the CPC had a competent leader in that election, she would had crushed Trudeau.

Addendum: It is imprtant to state that Mr. Poilievre is deserving of respect for his service to the country, as do Prime Minister Trudeau, Mr. Singh, M. Blanchet and all of the other people who put themselves forward for the nation.

In the political sense. As a human being, I am sure he is a fine man with integrity and intelligence. But, he has gone way out on a limb promising things he can't deliver and expectations from his base that he can't or shouldn't deliver. When he makes a mistake, rather than admitting it like Premier Ford would, Mr. Poilievre doubles down on it. He's a lot like the Prime Minister in his flaws. Nice hair though. He is very good at the glib one-liner. Kudos to his speech writer. His true calling is in stand-up comedy. The sad thing is, we could have had Raitt or, even better, Ambrose. Ambrose is the best Prime Minister we never had.

That stupidity is not illegal. ?

I'm not sure what is illegal about that. It is inappropriate, but his pressure had no impact. Stupid does not equate to criminal. Mr. Poilievre should be happy about that. " A guy went into the bank, asked to take some money out, and left without any money because the teller said no." Cabinet ministers pressure each other all the time. King vs Ralston 1942-1945. Diefenbaker vs. Hees, Harkness, Fulton et al. 1963. Chretien vs. Martin.

There isn't much to investigate. The events are public knowledge. The company asked for a deferred prosecution. The PM passed on the request to Attorney-General Wilson-Raybould. He was worried about the loss of 6000 jobs. Passing the request on to the AG was inappropriate and she told him so. The request by the company for a deferred prosecution is perfectly legal, but should have been addressed to the Crown Prosecutor, not the Ministry. Attorney-General Wilson-Raybould told the PM the request was denied. That decision was further ratified by her successor, Minister Lametti. Minister Wilson-Raybould was not fired or even demoted. Some time after these events, Minister Brison resigned, leading to a cabinet shuffle. Her tenure as Minister of Justice and AG were quite productive. The Department of Veterans Affairs has been a troubled (dysfunctional in my view) department for years and Minister Wilson-Raybould's demonstrated abilities were seen as a move to repair it. It was a vote of confidence in her abilities. When the SNC Lavilin request became public, Minister Wilson-Raybould resigned from Cabinet. She was not fired. The Prime Minister mishandled the government's response, leaving the impression he is arrogant and has difficulty with women, but he did not do anything criminal. Like many of us, he is reticent to admit his mistakes. It cost him his majority. I am looking forward to see how Prime Minister Poilievre will explain why he is going to run away from his promises to fire the Governor of the Bank of Canada, gut the nation's public broadcaster, and replace real money with counterfit digital stuff. His first year behind the big boy's desk should be very interesting. My fear is that he will abandon all his bizzare promises and be a competent Prime Minister. That would be boring. ?

The great thing about Canadian politics is any attempts to predict who will win the next election are futile before the last week before the election. That is what makes it so exciting. Remember 2015? The predictions focused on whether Harper could stop Mulcair and would the liberals be able to hold on to their third party position? Then, in a previous election, there was the orange wave that came out of no where to make Jack Layton opposition leader. That being said, I continue to predict Mr. Poilievre will win the next election.

Interesting question. An interesting hypothetical scenario would be if one NATO member were invaded by another NATO member. Theoretically, Article V would come into play, but reality has its own rules. In the last 60 years, super powers have had disappointing success when it comes to trying to invade a TPLC. (Tin Pot Little Country). China was trounced by Viet Nam. The US was defeated by Viet Nam and Afganistan, Russia was kicked out of Afganistan. The purpose of NATO is deterrence. If someone attacks a NATO member, the invader will be at war with all NATO members.

Welcome Snowflake. Having followed your posts in that "other forum," it was a pleasent surprise to find you here.?