COMPARING APPLES and BLUEBERRIES

Kevin Milligan is an Associate Professor of Economics in the Vancouver School of Economics at the University of British Columbia.  He is also affiliated with the C.D. Howe Institute and the National Bureau of Economic Research and since 2011, he has served as Co-Editor of the Canadian Tax Journal.  https://about.me/kevinmilligan

Kevin recently posted a comparison of the impact of the proposed Basic Personal Amount increase (from @liberal_party) to the Universal Tax Cut (from @CPC_HQ).

Both proposals are comparable in cost to the taxpayer with the Liberal (LPC) platform at $5.6 Billion and the Conservative (CPC) platform $300 million higher at $5.9 Billion.

The comparison doesn't end there and that has a lot to do with the phrase "floating the boat".
For ease of understanding lets say the first $10,000 is tax free for everyone. (The actual current amount don't matter in this instance because they change regularly and depending on which of the two parties form government that will change again.)

Trudeau's BASIC PERSONAL ALLOWANCE reduces the tax burden on the lowest wage earners, removing many from even paying taxes by increasing their Basic Personal Exemption amount.

Scheer's Universal Tax Cut however does very little for the low income earners but continues paying off for high income earners as though they were comparable to low income earners.

Effectively this shifts the tax burden to low income owners over the first 5 years while giving his key supporters a break on their taxes.

The first thing you need to remember is Canada has a graduating tax structure.

We are all exempt on the first few thousand (Basic Personal Exemption). Then we all pay one rate for the next tier, and depending on the government of the day that either increases or decreases as one moves up, again for ease of reference this explanation presumes:

• The portion of your earnings between $10,001 and $30,000 is taxed at a uniform 20%
• The portion of your earnings between $30,001 and $50,000 is taxed at a uniform 25%
• The portion of your earnings between $50,001 and $70,000 is taxed at a uniform 30%
• and so on.

So for a family earning a combined $125k/yr or less the Liberal plan clearly benefits them more, while families earning more than $250k/yr see less benefit above that amount, by comparison the Conservative plan continues to reward high income earners as if they were low and medium rate earners AND since the Conservative plan does much less for low income taxpayers than rich ones the tax burden effectively remains with the poor.

The concept of "floating the boat" actually directly speaks to the "bootstraps" that Conservatives always tell the poor to pull themselves up by.  The more money a poor person retains of their earnings the less support they need.  Money is their bootstrap.

Scheer's plan keeps the poor reliant on social services while helping the rich avoid their obligations, effectively removing the "boots" from them.

And worse, as we've seen in Ontario, since Scheer doesn't want to increase the debt, in order to pay for these tax breaks his Government would have to cut essential services, as Ford's government has, often to the most vulnerable in society.  

Meaning those poor become more reliant on a system that is less supportive of them.   

The promise to balance the books on the backs of the poor is a lie, it actually increases the risk of bankruptcy and homelessness among the poor and lower middle class, and because living under the threat of losing such basic needs is more stressful, it also increases first responder costs, medical costs, criminal costs and the burden on cities.

Shifting the cost burden from the Federal to the Provincial government doesn't help the taxpayers in those cities - but it does help the taxpayers in rural areas where there are fewer poor people, places like most of Alberta and Saskatchewan!

Thus cities get stuck with the bill, as they did when Conservative Mike Harris downloaded most services to them in the 1990's.

But Trudeau's plan, in "floating the boat" and giving the poor "bootstraps" sees more low income earners removed from the tax roll, and since money is their "bootstrap" the more bootstrap we give them the less they need help from the Government, which reduces demand on government services in cities, provinces and at the Federal level, therefore reducing costs to taxpayers everywhere while improving the overall status of all Canadians.

Mind you, if all you care about is the rural vote then obviously urban poor are an easy target because they likely won't vote for you anyway.

Except, places that don't help their poor find the burden eventually affecting the lower middle class.  And places that put that burden on the lower middle class cause problems for the middle class.

The rich don't care, they're usually in the Cayman Islands, Florida or on their boats.  Boats they bought with tax credits they got because governments were elected that gave them breaks at your expense.  It's not socialism to say so, it's history.

And that sort of corruption of a system only lasts until the next Revolution comes.

THEY CALL IT FIPA, FIPA, FIPA, KING OF TREATIES...

Canadian sovereignty - Conservatives are constantly accusing Trudeau of surrendering it either to America in a trade deal that Andrew Scheer has attacked repeatedly and then in the next breath said he won't challenge; and by ratifying United Nations Declarations on Human Rights, World Peace, International Trade and *gasp* the Environment!
In fact, very recently, leader Andrew Scheer went after Trudeau for supporting the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration – a non-binding agreement of principles among United Nations member states to work together to settled displaced peoples. Mr. Scheer falsely claimed it would cede Canada’s control of immigration to “foreign entities.”
And I want to address the HYPOCRISY of that by talking about a little known trade agreement named FIPA, or more formally, the Canada–China Foreign Investment Protection Agreement.
FIPA is a Bilateral Investment Treat between Canada and China that came into force on October 1, 2014. The Prime Minister of Canada when this was negotiated, signed, sealed and delivered was Stephen Harper.
Not only did Harper negotiate and sign this treaty in 2012, "RobotBoy" did so without debate or a vote in Parliament.  Why?

Because FIPA provides important safeguards to Chinese investors in the Canadian economy, and it is one of China's first investment treaties with such comprehensive dispute settlement provisions, so under Article 22 of the agreement Harper negotiated, Chinese investors can sue Canada for damages through either the UN Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) or to the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID).
These are International Governing Bodies that Harper surrendered Canadian sovereignty to by ratifying the FIPA treaty.
Now both sides have this right, but since Chinese foreign direct investment in Canada is roughly three times the amount of Canadian investment in China the risk is far greater this clause will be used against Canada than against China.
And because Article 6 of this treaty Harper negotiated does not provide for pre-establishment national treatment (a right of entry into the Canadian or Chinese markets for investors of the other country), which also disproportionately favours Chinese investors in Canada, mostly because China places more onerous requirements on foreign investors for the registration and approval of new enterprises in China than Canada does.
Harper removed many requirements on foreign investment in Canada just to appease China in this deal.
Why is this relevant now?
1) Conservatives are constantly attacking Trudeau for ratifying UN Human Rights Declarations - they claim we're giving away our sovereignty to a foreign power.
Canada has been ratifying UN Human Rights Declarations since the UN was created.
In fact, WE pushed for their inclusion when the United Nations was being formed as a method of encouraging less developed Nations to adopt western style human rights.  Canada ratifying a UN Declaration no more affects our sovereignty than me standing in a garage makes me a car.
2) Because the Greens, NDP and of course Andy "I'm a wee Coward" Scheer attack Trudeau's environmental commitments specifically because his government purchase the Trans-Mountain Pipeline.  Elizabeth May actually tweeted "Because. You. Bought. A. Pipeline!" in response to the Liberal release of their Environmental Platform.
"Mom" May saying that sort of thing sounds pretty damning, but wait, there's more!
The number one investor in both the Pipeline and the ports, infrastructure on either end and the companies expected to delivery the increase in oil product IS CHINA!
So, if we don't build the pipeline, if we don't get that oil to port, if we don't deliver that oil to China, then China can take Canada to a secret international tribunal and sue us for damages!
WHY?  BECAUSE HARPER GAVE CHINA THAT OPTION!

MEANING:
Harper's Conservatives surrendered our sovereignty to a hostile foreign government that has three times the investment in Canada than we have there, heavily restricts investment there and NOW HAS REMEDIAL OPTIONS TO SUE US for damages if we don't deliver.
The fact Conservatives have the gall to attack Trudeau for buying the pipeline (removing a major roadblock to it's creation) after putting the Government of Canada in a position of surrendering our sovereignty to China if we fail to get that oil to port would be annoying if it wasn't pretty much the same for every criticism the Conservatives have about Trudeau (except his socks).
Standard Conservative MO is to create a problem, make it really bad, hand it over to someone else and then point, shout and attack the other person for failing to fix it.
Isn't there a word for that?  Isn't that called GASLIGHTING?
Seriously, is the Conservative Party of Canada being run by "Heathers"?
And before you think, well surely that was a one time mistake, Harper did state only he could STAND UP FOR CANADA, know this - Harper also sold water rights in Canada to Nestle so they could bottle the legacy of every Canadian for profit without compensating us one penny.  Another thing Conservatives are constantly trying to get Canadians angry at Trudeau for.  Seriously!!

By the way, the FIPA treaty is effective until 2045 so we're pretty much guaranteed that at some point in the future China will repossess at least a portion of Canada, as ordered by an International Tribunal, and we'll have no option but to surrender because...
Harper's Conservatives sold Canadian sovereignty to the Chinese on a nearly one-sided deal.  
Scheer intially told Trudeau to take any deal Trump offered and then attacked him for negotiating a better deal than Scheer would've accepted.
If Scheer forms Government he will do the same thing with anyone offering Canada any sort of deal.
Because for Conservatives, Canada is for sale.

IS JODY WILSON RAYBOULD A FOREIGN AGENT?

I'm working on a detailed comparison between the Billions Andy Scheer wants to give the rich in tax credits versus the Billions Justin wants to give the poor in tax breaks.
Meanwhile, here's an interesting article by Free Press Canada where they TRY to find the source of the Blackface photos, why it came out through a novice would be journalist in New York with zero Canadian connections, why a foreign agency had it first, why Conservative talking head Warren Kinsella was so fast to respond,- and then tried to hide that, why no one can find the reputed source of the story, and how this all seems to be another Conservative hatchet job.
And no, the headline isn't clickbait, Jody's riding borders on the school Justin taught at so she seems a bit too close to the possible source of this story as well.
We seem to have our own story of political intrigue worthy of an Oliver Stone film, only the questionable stuff isn't what's in the picture as much as it's who leaked it and why they felt a need to do it the way they did?
https://freethepresscanada.org/2019/09/23/dirty-tricks-behind-trudeau-brownface-blackface-scandal/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

CONTEXT IS NOT AN EXCUSE

This a long one.  Think of it as a double-double since it’s also my first post in a couple of days.  I haven’t posted until now because I’ve been ruminating on recent events, but also I’ve been seeking a way to express context. 

This whole Trudeau brownface thing is playing out international, and that bothers me because it brings up one very obvious point that thus far the media hasn’t touched on, yet:

Why was a Canadian high school year book that could affect the outcome of an election given to a foreign news agency during an election?

I could understand if this story had broken on CTV, CBC or even the poorest excuse for journalism in Canada, SunMedia, AND THEN it had gone International.  It’s an election and fair is fair, but it didn’t start here and then go international, it was given to TIME MAGAZINE, an internationally known foreign news entity.  So whoever provided this to TIME knew that they weren’t just scoring points against Trudeau with this, they weren’t just airing our dirty laundry on the world stage, they were deliberately seeking to damage Canada’s reputation in the world community.  Who does that?

Well, the obvious answer is Conservatives.  Conservatives have stated to me that they will do anything to keep Trudeau from getting re-elected, and their history on the world stage, where they believe they were “standing up for Canada” but marginalizing us with everyone, is very well documented. 

And based on the polls leading up to this revelation Conservatives are desperate.  

The aggregates put a Conservative government in the 20% margin, so not only were they unlikely to get a majority, Andrew Scheer was unlikely to remain leader of the party.  This would rightly have him in a panic because you have to remember, Andy has had free housing since he became Speaker of the House in 2011.  

A free Mansion, cleaners, a chef, a driver, a car… Andy’s done rather well at the taxpayer’s expense, racking up an estimated $2 Million plus in expenses while living rent free.  That’s not bad for a failed Insurance Agent from Saskatchewan and I don’t necessarily blame him for not wanting to lose that (I don’t respect him either, but I understand personal greed).

And since the school Justin taught at was private (by his own statement he left because they were a “bit too Conservative” for his liking) it also makes sense that a Conservative who feels strong negative emotions about our Prime Minister, coming across this yearbook and seeing that picture, would want to use it against him.  

I mean, if Justin’s socks enrage Conservatives, can you imaging what him smiling in a costume while posing with three pretty women does?  

But regardless of who forms government in this election Canada’s brand is damaged, publicly because of this.

So serious dirty politics are behind this and the parties responsible don’t care how it impacts the nation AND no one in the media seems to care that foreign agents have now influenced our election.

Which takes us back to Justin in brownface, not one, not twice, but let’s say a half dozen times leading up to 2001.  Here’s where the context comes in.

I grew up in Vancouver, went to school in a suburb literally 32 minutes by bus from the Downtown of Vancouver.  If you’re 32 minutes by bus from City Centre in Mississauga chances are you’re still in Mississauga, same with Toronto and I would hazard Montreal, so the idea of getting from a suburb to the absolute heart of the downtown of Canada’s third largest city by transit in about half an hour should tell you how close I was to Vancouver without actually being in it.

We had one black family in my school.  

They were in my Elementary school, then my Junior Secondary school and then my Senior Secondary school.  It’s not that it was an all white community.  There were dozens of Japanese kids, an increasing number of Indian [East Indian not First Nations] and Pakistani kids, but there were more kids from Quebec in my area (and not even many of those) than there were black kids. 

In short, racial tension was not in the daily dialogue around Vancouver when I was growing up.  

The eldest son was a scholar-athlete, the younger daughter was a scholar-athlete, and the middle son who was my age hung around with the tough kids.  He was athletic but a big of a jerk, and being a nerd I was well below him in the pecking order of any class I had with him.  He also lived in a nice house in a nice neighbourhood and was likely just trying to have fun, while I lived in a subsidized development of low-rise apartments with all the other children of recently divorced single mothers.  

That was the closest Richmond, BC had to a “hood” back then, it was where I grew up and it was almost entirely white.

And this was back when Italians weren’t considered ‘white’.  They were immigrants and they were changing the culture and not adapting and if I ever heard anything derogatory about anybody (other than the Quebecois) it was them.  I also heard they made great pizza and had fantastic pasta and could do things with a salad that you'd swoon over.

The point of this is that the culture of Vancouver was parochial.  Naïve.  

The only racial tension anywhere near us that I can remember was when kids from a school in neighbouring Surrey that were predominantly Sikh got into a major street brawl with kids from another Surrey school where some other Indian group and the papers complained that immigrants had no business bringing their ‘old world issues’ to Canada.

It stayed this way until well into the "Hong Kong Invasion" of the 1990's, but even then, that was one established culture reacting to the mass integration of a completely foreign culture.

And while I was in Vancouver I was also in drama.  Drama in Vancouver meant you likely didn’t have the person available to represent the culture you wanted to represent.  A common meme now is “I’m glad I did all my stupid before the internet”, well, I was an early adopter of audio and video back then, so I have a lot of my stupid on Super 8, cassette tape, beta, vhs and yes, even U-Matic – a format of 1 inch tape we goofed around in because the teacher let some of us come in on a PA day and use the old equipment to create our own version of SCTV.

And since the only black kid in school was likely to beat me up rather than appear in my sketch, if we had a black character in it, then we made due as best we could.  And as best we could meant we tried copying someone else’s impression, a stereotype we saw on TV or heard on the radio, because again, back then real black wasn’t on either much and even if it was it was also exaggerated because black in America got paid more if they played along.

Thankfully I’m not saying I did blackface – but I’m not proud to admit that’s only because I don’t like putting on make-up.  I’ve done black voice.  I’ve got recordings of other impressions that I cringe about now.  I cringe now but then I was just a sheltered kid in a little pocket of Pleasantville trying to make myself and my friends laugh.

But all that was before we were ‘woke’.  And that brings me to context.

Somewhere, somehow, at some time, there was a moment where suddenly even the center went, "Wait, whoa, maybe that's insensitive, maybe it's not nice instead of funny and maybe we should stop doing that!"  It took me a couple of days of research to figure when that was but I think I have.
I'm pretty sure it was 9/11.

Prior to 9/11 very few people were even remotely aware of the impact that stereotypes actually had.  And even fewer of those people were in Canada.

Sure we knew that some people’s feelings could be hurt, the people on the far left had been blathering about that since ALL IN THE FAMILY, but we laughed at them because what they were saying was so extreme, and Archie's response was so funny.  Heck, most comedy in the 1970’s and 1980’s was mostly just people saying hurtful things to each other, or mocking what was different about them.  It was the very format of funny and the wall paper of our culture.

It wasn’t until 9/11 when the misguided but good-natured and naïve among us began to realize there was some among us who didn’t get the joke, who didn't realize it was supposed to be harmless fun.  That where were some among who used the jokes as reasons to hate others and justify doing hateful things.  

It wasn’t until 9/11 that it became evident stereotypes weren't just faux pas but harmful. 

That was when people you knew as different, but also knew were sweet, gentle and harmless, were suddenly being told they should go back where they came from, or even assaulted.  That was when you, as an empathic person who wouldn’t want to be treated that way if you had moved somewhere entirely new (like Moncton, New Brunswick) realized that we hadn't moved beyond that sort of inhumanity, that jokes contributed to a culture of intolerance that some people used to justify hating and hurting those who were different.

And that was when the naïve among us became woke. 

It was also likely when Justin realized blackface wasn’t cute or playful or entertaining, but hurtful.  And on being woke, he stopped it.

Thing is, I'd bet if we used a time machine to view anyone's past, context would not be an excuse for any of us.  But maybe we'd be less likely to over-react so much.

THE GOLDFISH PARTY

I once wrote an op-ed piece calling the Reform Party of Canada the TOOTH-FAIRY PARTY because they were making crazy promises that any sane or reasonable person had to know we're just plain stupid.  (Sit back down, Alberta, I'm not talking to you).

This was back in the Stockwell Day years, who, until very recently, was the most clueless idiot ever to lead a Canadian Political party.

Then feckless frat-boy Andy Scheer showed up. 

(this is his interview face on Powers & Politics - seriously?)

I say these things about him mostly because he's prone to ridiculous stunts that only a private school jock would think make him look cool, like when he ambushed Trudeau at the Acadian celebration in Nova Scotia, yelling incoherently while grinning like a drunk freshman who'd just Punk'd the Dean during homecoming.

(actual screen shot of Andy Scheer after he "ambushed" Trudeau during an Acadian celebration)

And I say "cool" knowing full well "cool" isn't a word anyone would use to describe Skippy Scheer unless they saw him on an ice flow without a coat.

The funny thing is, I don't seem to be the only picking up on this. The more visible Andy's been this election the lower his party's polling numbers have been.

Had he stayed out of the limelight, had he not left home, I really do believe Andrew Scheer would've been our next Prime Minister.

And I feel bad for the candidates running for his party who, despite the fact I disagee with them on damn near everything, are mostly eager and earnest people trying to do something they believe in.  They don't deserve to be following the juvenile arse-mongle that is Andrew Scheer (well, most of them don't deserve to be following him, some of them are just as juvenile and racist).

Now maybe its because that doughy smirk appears to be permanently plastered in his feckless gob makes him look like not much is going on inside; or maybe it's because his infantile and often conflicting statements are often full blown hypocrisy even his own party can recognize; but more and more it appears Andy's presence is their biggest liability.

Conservatives have spent more than a decade arguing Leadership matters and Andy's is apparently driving people away from their Party.   

I won't pretend this doesn't please me, but in the back of my head I'm very worried that the next feckless leader of the Conservatives will somehow be more of an idiot but restrained enough to stay out of the limelight during an election, and then, because we don't know what we're getting, that idiot could become Prime Minister of Canada.  At least with Andy we know what intolerant cow we're getting our racist milk from.

Or worse! The next leader could be another Stephen Harper, a thing that frankly seemed more like Darth Vader and Dick Cheney's illegitimate love child than a human being.

In the meantime though, we have a Conservative Party leader who forgives recent racist statements made in his own party one day (google Michael Cooper, New Zealand)...

And condemns Trudeau for an insensitive costume & make-up choice Justin apologized for wearing at a Halloween party the year Bianca Andrescuu was born (a full 12 years before he entered public service) the next.

Yeah, it's politics.  Yeah, they've got a double standard to maintain, but unless they've got the memory of goldfish, it's pretty ballsy to think this wouldn't be easily turned back on them. 

Which it was, of course. 

 
Because the person they're trying to replace evolved, putting the things of childhood (and college frat kids) behind him decades ago BUT Andrew Scheer is with The Goldfish Party.

THE NEW CONSERVATIVE

As you can see from this blog's bio, I'm a Conservative. A real Conservative. The type that sought the compromises that built this nation.  Together, we are better. All of us are smarter than one of us. Shared sacrifice for shared reward.
These are the founding principles Canada was built on, Conservative principles.  Somewhere in the last 40 years that movement was replaced by corporate interests.
We no longer have a capitalist economy, because the very foundation of capitalism is investment.
What we have now is a greed based society where those who can, scam the system as quickly as possible for their short-term rewards and screw how much it hurts others or damages the country.

Just because you stand in a garage does not make you a car so the people who call themselves Conservative now are CINO, Conservative In Name Only.

How did the rich hijack a movement of progress? It was rather simple really. They looked for the group no one else was courting, figured out what they wanted to hear and then began repeating that to them while pointing out how the other parties were against all that.
It's not that CINO are pro-life, because they've never voted against it despite Harper running the country for 9 year; but that doesn't stop them from pretending to be by aligning themselves with anti-choice movements.

And it's not that CINO are against debt since the two biggest spenders since World War II we're Conservatives Mulroney and Harper.

And it's not that CINO is big on law and order, or against Marijuana, since the laws passed by Harper against all those things were so severe that even Grade 8 socials student knew they were going to get thrown out but the courts being deemed as "unconstitutionally excessive punishment".

And despite everything Andrew Scheer has said in the House of Commons, CINO are not against Gay Marriage, since every attempt by Harper and the Conservatives to limit the definition of marriage - something the courts weren't even interested in ruling on - forced the Courts to rule against the Government because their laws attempted to limit human rights.

In fact, abortion is legal in Canada BECAUSE the Conservatives tried to pass a law that everyone told them was too extreme to stand, meaning they had to know the law, being struck down, would leave no law.  And the fact they didn't pass a lesser, more court palatable law, means they were fine with unenforceable pot laws, gay marriage restrictions and abortion.

They looked at their base, pointed fingers at "activist judges" and then threw their hands up in defeat.  It's a perfect Libertarian approach to things where they could have their cake of support and eat it too.

In fact, Canada went 10 years without any enforceable restrictions on Marijuana until Justin Trudeau legalized pot and put in regulations!

And CINO's repeat lies to their base, over and over, because it makes them seem like they're on the same side as people who want to believe someone is doing something about pot, gay marriage, criminals and abortion.  It's easy to push the button of those people with arguments like "Canada's debt is too big" or "We need tougher crime laws to keep criminals off streets" or "Liberals hate babies!"

Meanwhile, when you look at what they do when they get power, it's boutique tax credits that benefit the rich, cuts to the poor, and more money in the pocket of those who donate to their cause.  Basically, if it gets them what they need to stay in power - they'll say it, do it and enjoy it.  Simply opportunism, or as they call it, "populist politics".

IF POLLS TOLD ANDY SCHEER THAT CANADIANS HATED OLD PEOPLE YOU'D SEE HIM CUT HIS FOLKS LOOSE ON AN ICE FLOW BEFORE THE END OF THE CURRENT NEWS CYCLE!

The problem is simple tribalism means us versus them, and in nation where more than half of the people just want to be left alone it also means that simple tribalism has ruined Canada.

HOW DO I KNOW MORE THAN HALF OF THE PEOPLE IN CANADA AREN'T TRIBAL?
That's the number of people who are registered to vote - but don't.

And they've even tried to subvert that fact.

(Rick Mercer's original rant ended with at the word "Vote" - a Conservative Candidate in BC added the word "Conservative" and posted it.  Mercer made this statement about Harper while Stephen was Prime Minister)

And CINO ugliness and desperation to gain and retain power has forced the other parties to attack back. It forces everyone involved to the fringes just to highlight how they're different, and it alienates the center.

Conservatives now attack investments as socialism and because historically socialism is perceived as anti-religion that works with their base.

They could've done the same with any group they courted, provided that group felt marginalized, because it's the 21st century and everyone is too busy to check facts and think for themselves anymore.  Those are the two biggest factors a scam artist needs to rip you off and sell you a lie.

And we call those people Con-Artists, or Cons.
So maybe that's the New Conservative. It sure fits their message.

SCHEERMONGERING

Laid out before you, in English so plain even a Harper supporter could understand it, here now is:

THE CYCLE OF A CONSERVATIVE LIE:

1. Conservative distorts & lies about a Liberal discussion as if it were policy.
2. The Lie is repeated by CPC pundits/lobbyist/Internet Trolls and Bots.
3. CPC communications team repeat the lie as much as possible because repetition equals truth - right, Donald Trump? 4. Conservative candidates promote lie as though it were real. 5. Postmedia reports the lie as fact. People fail to grasp that Postmedia is a major donor to the Conservative Party of Canada so they believe it.

Can you give me an example, Gary?

The latest one, and indeed too many of them, come from Conservative internet troll (or Bot, frankly it's hard to tell them apart these days) Michael Diamond (Twitter: @mtmdiamond)

The truth is that an attendee at a townhall meeting where Adam Vaughan was at, suggested the above for the first year after a house in Vancouver sold, to discourage flipping.

The suggestion by the attendee was that the amount would decrease to the current amount a bit each year and that way the market would cool because there'd be less speculation. This was not a Liberal creation but has been discussed in overheated markets like Vancouver for years.
Adam Vaughan submitted his report on what was discussed at the townhall meeting he attended and it included that someone had made that suggestion because Adam wanted to remain accurate.

The idea never made it further. It was never seriously discussed by the Liberal Party or the Government. It went no where beyond someone attending the townhall and the paper on it.

But because Adam is a Liberal, and because he wrote it down and filed it, the Conservatives are trying to make you believe that it's not only a Liberal idea but is or will be policy if the Liberals are re-elected. The actual plan that came from these town meetings is here:
https://2019.liberal.ca/wp-content/uploads/sites/292/2019/09/2019-backgrounder-homebuyers-EN.pdf
AND Conservatives (whose numbers are starting to wane by the way) are desperately spreading these lies about the Carbon Tax (it'll go up 200% if Justin is re-elected!), and a dozen other things because it's their only hope of forming Government.

It makes as much sense as the claim the Trudeau Liberals are bringing in Sharia Law or that Obama came for people's guns. It didn't happen, it won't happen, it's not true. It's just another Neo-Con scare tactic, or as some have come to call them now - more Scheermongering.

THE SAME OLD TAX SCAM

Andrew Scheer's platform is finally out.  It's riddled with benefits for the average Canadian.  There are transit tax credits, there are maternity tax credits, there are home improvement tax credits, there are green tax credits, the list goes on and on.
Scheer wants you to spend and when you do he wants you to get tax credits for it.
Put thousands of dollars of your money up front and then get around 17% of the credit amount back in your taxes, or at least cut down the taxes you pay the Federal Government.
There are THREE major problems with this approach:
1. You have to have the money to spend on these things in order to qualify for the credit.
2. You have to have a lot of it and spend a lot of it before you'll see even a dime back.
3. Even though very few people are ever actually in a position to utilize these credits (because they don't spend the minimum since they can't afford it anyway) there's never any explanation HOW the Government expects to make up the budget shortfall.

As we've seen in Ontario when a party says, "elect us, we'll give you your money back without harming anything" and then everything that party does harms the very things they said they wouldn't, well, it's hard to trust the Federal version.  Particularly since the Federal party is hammering the government for not balancing the books and tossing around the vaguely frightening "live within it's means" line. 
No government can live within it's means without either cuts or tax increases - yet Scheer is completely silent on both because either would cost him the election he's going to lose anyway.

And if that isn't bad enough, the Conservatives at both the Federal level AND in many Provinces have been attacking Trudeau's CARBON REBATE PROGRAM. 
Unlike a Tax Credit, this rebate was paid to Canadians before the program came into effect so EVERYONE began with a credit, that way the tax charged was a fraction for the average person of what the rebate had already given then (thereby eliminating the strain) while major polluters are paying the bulk of the tax that will fund the program.

Trudeau's Child Care Benefit provides low income Canadians with an increasing amount each month.  The money is paid to them because of qualifiers and they get it monthly.  This way the most money went to those who most need it when they needed it.
The Conservative's child tax credit required parents to spend money on sports programs, child care, and then get a portion of that back as a credit. This way the most money went to those who could afford to spend the most of it.

Do you see the logic?  It's the difference between Liberals and Conservatives.
Liberals leverage the taxpayer to help those who need it.
Conservatives leverage the taxpayer to reward those who don't, so the upper middle class with support them at the cost of those who need help the most. 
The Conservative approach doesn't help the economy because...
It's impossible to pull yourself up by your bootstraps if you can't afford boots!
The whole point of taxes in Canada goes back to our founders, who were REAL CONSERVATIVES - shared reward, shared sacrifice.  Our country is stronger if the poor kids are healthy, get education and have opportunities at least comparable to what the not poor kids have.  I know, because I was a welfare kid.  And while I couldn't afford University due to austerity cuts in my province at that time, I was able to at least graduate High School and did manage to continue my education through hard work only possible because my education allowed me to compete with those who never had to worry about paying their own way.  I'll put my writing skills, word power and knowledge against any Academic any time because I have honed my intellect through continual education.
Under what calls itself Conservative now (CINO - Conservative in name only) I would likely have stayed at the low income end, probably turning to self-directed black market entrepreneurial efforts just to pay my bills.  I would likely have been in jail at least three times by now, and had the Conservatives been in on that third time, remained so under their draconian 'three strikes' rule.
Instead I'm blathering on the internet.
Admittedly you can judge for yourself which route was better, but then in a free society that's exactly what you should do.  Cut through the clatter, look at the facts, investigate the claims and judge for yourself.
Otherwise it's just the same old tax scam.

ABORTION - THE NEW THIRD RAIL

Andrew Scheer has repeatedly said he won't re-open the Abortion Debate.
But he has avoided saying whether he'll allow members of his party to introduce Abortion Bills.
So let's presume he knows this is the NEW THIRD RAIL of Canadian politics and he goes near it at his peril.

Why then did his first full day of campaigning begin in York Center, supporting Conservative candidate and anti-abortion activist, Rachel Willson?

Rachel was involved with 4 My Canada, an radical anti-abortion group who ran a snitch line called "No Not This One". This sounds a lot like Scheer WILL re-open the debate.
This sounds like Scheer actively wants to ban abortions in Canada.
This certainly isn't a good way to start off a campaign if you're trying to become Prime Minister of a country where more than 75% favour a woman's right to choose.

Because abortion is the new third rail in Canada - and you touch those at your own peril!

Click here to view the video of Andy and Scheerly Conflicted Messaging

*********************************************************************

SCHEER RACISM

DAY TWO OF THE CAMPAIGN and already the Conservatives have had to kick someone out for "suddenly" discovering they've been posting racist, anti-islamic, anti-muslim stuff...
FOR YEARS.

https://pressprogress.ca/proud-to-be-white-conservative-candidate-resigns-after-secret-anti-immigrant-facebook-account-discovered/

I'll give them 10 out of 10 for actually doing that though - kicking Winnipeg Centre Candidate CAMERON OGLIVIE out that is. 
But I'm taking off several million for the fact they didn't catch this during their so-called vetting process.  I mean this dude wasn't exactly posting under a fake name:

In a statement provided to PressProgress, the Conservatives said “Mr. Ogilvie withheld these posts from the party during the candidate vetting process earlier this year by deactivating his social media accounts.”  and “He was asked to immediately step down as soon as we became aware of the posts.”
What they mean is, he was asked to step down as soon as someone bothered to actually vet him and found these things.  I mean, come on, he wasn't even posting under an alias!!

So you'd think they'd want to take some sort of classy, quiet way around this, right?  Nope.  Never ones to let a chance for a cheap shot go by unused they've put this 404 message on CAMERON OGILVIE's official Candidates page...

https://www.conservative.ca/team-member/cameron-ogilvie/

Thing is, I found this cheap hack job while trying to find proof the story was fake - in the hopes the Conservatives weren't lazy, clumsy, hacks.
Minus another million points for that too.
And while we're at it, racist Michael Cooper is still in their caucus.  This is the douchebag MP who read into parliamentary record the banned NZ Shooter's Manifesto, after berating a Sikh with anti-Muslim statements.
Yeah, another thing you won't find on the Conservative website is class.
Oddly, I'm disappointed.  They are, after all, her Majesty's Official Opposition. 

THE NEVER ENDING NON-STORY

Let me be clear - right up front.  The so-called SNC Lavelin "Scandal" is a non-story.  It's a big fat nothing burger.  It is arguably the biggest piece of artificial indignation ever perpetrated on the Canadian public by our media.  And yes, it's entirely a media creation.
It's easy to sell papers (or click bait) if you can get people to focus on a narrative you control - just ask Trump.  One way to do it is the let a bunch of opinion writers take something they barely understand and then, because you don't like "The System" behind it, let them make a big fuss about it.  And this is what SNC is.  A bunch of people who don't like the system.
Yes, SNC bribed foreign governments for foreign contracts.  They were caught.  There is no arguing that.  Under Canadian law this sort of behaviour could result in them being banned from Canadian and Provincial Government tenders.
For a company like SNC that is likely something they could never recover from.  Their shareholders would be hurt, their employees would be hurt, the areas they operated in would be hurt and in many instances a "Canadian made" solution to various engineering things wouldn't be available.
In short, SNC going under from this malfeasance - which cost the Canadian Taxpayer NOTHING - would result in more Canadian tax dollars going to non-Canadian companies - and sadly, many of those are major stakeholders in... you guessed it, Canadian Media.
So claims by Canadian Media that SNC was corrupt and any attempt to hit them with the maximum penalties is tainted by their own corporate conflict of interests.
Does this mean that SNC wasn't going to be punished?  No.  The Prime Minister was arguing the best course was a Deferred Prosecution Agreement.  A DPA would've included an admission of guilt, fines, restrictions, additional hurdles and probation.  It would hurt SNC in fighting charges of bribery in those foreign lands, but it would not eliminate SNC from competing against foreign corporations that hold partial or controlling stake in the very media groups trying to destroy them.
By not wanting the harshest of penalties the Government of Canada is being accused of trying to circumvent the law.  This is ridiculous.  No government would want a major employer, a Canadian engineer powerhouse and in many cases the ONLY CANADIAN OPTION for tendering of Government contracts paid for by Canadian taxpayers destroyed.
Stephen Harper's Government came to the rescue of mining and oil companies who ran afoul of environmental clean up requirements - Harper even wrote off $4.5 BILLION in World Trade Organization rulings in favour of Canada and the Lumber industry, not because he believed American claims were right, but because American stockholders were heavily donating to the Conservative party war chest through their Canadian subsidiaries.
Is that wrong?  Yes.
Was Harper found in Contempt of Parliament for doing wrong? Yes.
Did he resign over it?  No.
Was it a crime?  Of course not.
Harper didn't even prorogue Parliament or call a snap election over these things and that was his favourite "watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat instead" trick.
Whether you or the media groups like it, DPA's are a tool in the government's belt for dealing with companies who have done wrong.  It's no different from probation.  It saves jobs.  It's legal.
And a Prime Minister telling another member of Cabinet that he'd rather this be done isn't doing anything illegal. Some people may see it as troubling, a few may erroneously consider it unethical (you won't find a former Minister of Justice or currently serving Lawyer in Canada who agrees with the the Ethics Commissioner's interpretation of the Act) but it isn't a crime.
Why did I bring this up now?  Well, the latest Conservative claim is that the Prime Minister is blocking the RCMP from further investigating the SNC affair.  He isn't.  The Clerk of the Privy Council is and the Canada Evidence Acts says if: “the Clerk of the Privy Council objects to the disclosure of information...by certifying in writing that the info constitutes a confidence of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada, disclosure of that info shall be refused."
So this is not the Prime Minister's call, any more than whether SNC got a DPA was his call - they didn't, by the way.  Despite all the claims of interference, Jody's replacement as Attorney General also didn't give them a DPA - it's the call of the Clerk of the Privy Council.  And it's not only legal to say "no" during an election, it's the correct call.  
Because any investigation during an election, particularly on an issue that could not possibly be resolved before the election on October 21st, would interfere with the election, distract the electorate from the real issues and platforms and policy statements of the people who want to run this country for the next four years, and possibly delivery a result similar to what American ended up with in 2016 - namely a moron at the helm.  All with the Canadian equivalent of "Hillary's emails".  That must not be allowed.
Period.

Proportional Representation - but for whom?

I'm against Proportional Representation for many reasons, most best illustrated in John Pepall's excellent book AGAINST REFORM.
He provides many well researched arguments but the two most compelling ones he gives are:
1. Canada is more than 150 years old and is among the most stable and corruption free democracies in the world. In fact, we've had so few actual (as in real, not media created) controversies that any suggestion to change anything should be met with very serious skepticism
2. The skepticism comes out how reforms have occurred in other countries - not one example is available where a reform to the election system didn't benefit the party putting in the reform at the expense of the opposition. It makes sense - what sort of idiot is going to reform something to hurt them?
But there's a third reason I'm against it, and that's the Law of Unintended Consequences. The best example I can give of this is the 2014 redrawing of Electoral Districts in Canada.
The Harper Government and their Conservative Controlled Parliamentary Committee proceeded to argue for and then add an additional 30 seats to the House of Commons. Now most Canadians would argue that the last thing Canada needed was more paid politicians running up expenses with their travelling around and constituency offices and what have you, and despite the fact Conservatives say Canada is spending too much, they never to seem to have an issue with increasing expenses when its to their benefit.
Wait, what, you say? How was this to their benefit? Well, half of those 30 new seats were put in Western Canada, where Conservatives traditionally have more strength. The rest were added to areas of Ontario, Quebec and Atlantic Canada, but not where populations have increased the most - as would be logical, but to break up Liberal strongholds.
For example, the 2 seats added to Mississauga required the Electoral Districts there to be redrawn.
Throughout history the lines of Districts have been very simple, following major roads and natural barriers; but the Conservatives have been gathering hard demographic data across Canada. They know how much support each street gives each party, and even which side of the street favours them.
Following the lead of their Republican brethren in America they began to re-district those areas where Liberals were strong, cutting Liberal leaning neighbourhoods in half, splitting the vote through a method known as GERRYMANDERING.

It resulted in Mississauga Centre going from a near rectangle...

...to something even the residents of Mississauga can't describe.

Now, typically Canadian voters tire of a Prime Minister after 9 years so the 2015 loss to the Liberals wasn't unexpected, but it wasn't about 2015, it was about 2019 and beyond. It's going to be easier for the Conservatives to approach the numbers needed to beat the Liberals this election. It's going to be easier for Conservatives to get a majority and it's going to be harder for the Liberals to get a majority.
And since the party in power is the one that will get to redraw the districts again after the 2021 Census, it doesn't matter whose in charge until then, that period is the critical one.
And that's why I'm always suspicious of anyone suggesting a reform.

SCHMALL WONDER

The Federal Conservatives hold a narrowing lead in the popular vote (34% to the Liberal's 32%) but as 50% of that is concentrated in Alberta, Saskatchewan and rural BC they have an even more rapidly fading chance of forming the next government.
So you'd think now would the time they wouldn't want to make any mis-steps.  Now would be the time to shift from appealing to their narrow base and go big with a push to draw the average Canadian.  Now would be the time to show they appeal to the SUV/Starbucks crowd of the 905.
I guess that's what they thought they were doing with this latest ad campaign.  I suppose they thought they were making Andy look relate-able. 
But in what is just another of the many, many misteps taken by this completely out of touch crew they blew it.   Big time.
And the proof is right here in this undoctored single frame screen capture of their latest video touting the Conservative leader (and the self-proclaimed Next Prime Minister of Canada) Andrew "Dad Bod" Scheer as being "Here for you"

Seriously, this looks like a hostage video shot for an episode of Homeland.
This isn't someone you'd vote for, this is a guy having a crisis who can't figure out how he ended up in this mess.
If this is their "pulling out the stops" push then the entire Conservative Communication team needs to be fired.
Andy's own children could do a better job of making their Dad look Prime Ministerial.
It's Scheer incompetence, Scheer Amateur Hour, Scheer Embarrassment.
It's not Prime Ministerial.
One can hope the Scheer family are looking for a home to move into come October because if this is the best they can do he'll be asked to resign as Leader immediately following the election and then his decade of subsidized taxpayer accommodations and government supplied staff and driver will be a faint memory - and if that happens this shot will look precognitive.
And small wonder based on what they're presenting - this dude simply isn't ready for the job.