• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Jagmeet Singh, probably the biggest political loser?

You really are throwing your anger at the wrong people.

I’ll say it again. You don’t have a monopoly on hardship. I’ll leave it at that.
I see. You have no valid points but rehashing Liberal/NDP talking points and "I am too angry"? OK.

Your right, I don't have a monopoly on hardship. My half native cousin, Lisa Flynn, OD'd in the streets of Vancouver had it much harder than me. Yeah, I really do have several relatives who are half native, and live a really tough life. I also have several white relatives who suffer from alcoholism and drug addiction. Their lives are way worse than mine.

Keep telling me how Canada is ok. And everything is just fine.
 
Nope. I have it through my military pension, a plan WHICH I PAY FOR!
You pay for part of is. PSHCP also receives significant contributions from the federal government, which is typical of extended health coverage offered as a benefit during or following employment. Make no mistake, taxpayers are on the hook for a lot of your health coverage. You aren't paying it all yourself, not by a long shot.

What? Ohhh if it was that easy, then fuck it, lets have 220 Main Battle Tanks, 120 F35s, full pharmacare for everyone here and in India.
Come on, better thought out answer than. D-
You're being silly.

There isn't a magic money tree.
Correct. All policy that involves spending needs to be carefully thought out. Some spending is merited, some is not. A lot of what we spend on various public benefits programs is, of course, dependent on the ideological views of the electroate. Some of us have social democratic view towards some public benefits than others. It still needs to be paid for, and in the case of a country that runs systemic deficits, that mans being careful about our nation's borrowing capacity. Generally speaking, and this is informed by comparison to other OECD countries, Canada is.

PM Trudeau has racked up more debt than all previous governments COMBINED and every economist will tell you the BoC has to literally create new money to cover more funding, which means their is money owed back to it WITH INTEREST.
See above.

Its very little dental coverage, for very few people. The "pharmacare" ? Please paying for some birth control for young people and some diabetes medication is hardly realistic.
Someone else made a very good post farther upthread, which among other things, noted the very early stage of the dental care program that a lot of the media coverage and criticism covered. It's a new, developing, and growing program, and appears to be improving. There are now over 20,000 dental care providers participating, and over 640k Canadians who have received care as of early this month. I'm not sure that's 'little' coverage. Source: Application statistics - Canadian Dental Care Plan - Canada.ca

How about ALL the money wasted on killing and harming people in the "safe supply" and "harm reduction" programs?
You're trying to change the subject again. I've already called you on that. If you really want to know what I, as a police officer, and as a family member of someone who died of a Fentanyl overdose, think of our approaches to addictions, by all means introduce the subject in an appropriate thread. If you can be civil and stick to the subject, I'll indulge you. I'm not going to do that here and drag this thread off topic.

All the prattling on about not being far left? You demonstrated in your answer your just that. You think we should have unlimited social programs for everyone because the government has the money. You said it, not me. Yes, you did, don't shake your head no.

I did not, in fact, say it, but you'd made it up and tried to attribute it to me. You're being silly again. Don't lie about things I have and haven't said please; it discredits your argument, and you personally.
 
You pay for part of is. PSHCP also receives significant contributions from the federal government, which is typical of extended health coverage offered as a benefit during or following employment. Make no mistake, taxpayers are on the hook for a lot of your health coverage. You aren't paying it all yourself, not by a long shot.


You're being silly.


Correct. All policy that involves spending needs to be carefully thought out. Some spending is merited, some is not. A lot of what we spend on various public benefits programs is, of course, dependent on the ideological views of the electroate. Some of us have social democratic view towards some public benefits than others. It still needs to be paid for, and in the case of a country that runs systemic deficits, that mans being careful about our nation's borrowing capacity. Generally speaking, and this is informed by comparison to other OECD countries, Canada is.


See above.


Someone else made a very good post farther upthread, which among other things, noted the very early stage of the dental care program that a lot of the media coverage and criticism covered. It's a new, developing, and growing program, and appears to be improving. There are now over 20,000 dental care providers participating, and over 640k Canadians who have received care as of early this month. I'm not sure that's 'little' coverage. Source: Application statistics - Canadian Dental Care Plan - Canada.ca


You're trying to change the subject again. I've already called you on that. If you really want to know what I, as a police officer, and as a family member of someone who died of a Fentanyl overdose, think of our approaches to addictions, by all means introduce the subject in an appropriate thread. If you can be civil and stick to the subject, I'll indulge you. I'm not going to do that here and drag this thread off topic.



I did not, in fact, say it, but you'd made it up and tried to attribute it to me. You're being silly again. Don't lie about things I have and haven't said please; it discredits your argument, and you personally.
If I remember back to the last election correctly, neither a dental programme nor a drug programme was part of the liberal platform. It was purely an NDP thing and they received the fewest vote of any of the major parties. The majority of Canadians therefore did not ask for these so-called benefits and the majority of Canadian families earn less than 90,000 so we qualify. As ArmyRick has pointed out there are other areas where the money is needed far more but it isn't going to be spent there because it isn't there to spend. Unless of course we increase the debt even further. Get your MP to vote in favour of PP's motion and get rid of these spendthrifts before we end up like Argentina. (broke and with a huge inflation rate)
 
I see. You have no valid points but rehashing Liberal/NDP talking points and "I am too angry"? OK.
Again. If you want a rational discussion I’m happy to explain. But you are going on all sorts of rants right now.
Your right, I don't have a monopoly on hardship. My half native cousin, Lisa Flynn, OD'd in the streets of Vancouver had it much harder than me. Yeah, I really do have several relatives who are half native, and live a really tough life. I also have several white relatives who suffer from alcoholism and drug addiction. Their lives are way worse than mine.

Keep telling me how Canada is ok. And everything is just fine.
what exactly are you imagining I said to you. Go look at what I said about subsidized dental care a bit. I don’t say anything about the state of Canada or how fine things are.
 
If I remember back to the last election correctly, neither a dental programme nor a drug programme was part of the liberal platform. It was purely an NDP thing and they received the fewest vote of any of the major parties. The majority of Canadians therefore did not ask for these so-called benefits and the majority of Canadian families earn less than 90,000 so we qualify. As ArmyRick has pointed out there are other areas where the money is needed far more but it isn't going to be spent there because it isn't there to spend. Unless of course we increase the debt even further. Get your MP to vote in favour of PP's motion and get rid of these spendthrifts before we end up like Argentina. (broke and with a huge inflation rate)

Welcome to Westminster parliamentary democracy. Parties have to make deals and reach consensus to maintain confidence of the House in a minority government. We elect representatives, it’s not a direct democracy with policy by referendum. Every few years we get to decide if the current crop deserves another shot. Most of us here, myself included, believe the current crew do not. But I won’t pretend we’re victims because our elected representatives work the way parliamentary parties always work.

My MP is Pierre Poilievre, so I have a reasonably good idea about how he’ll vote on his theatrical confidence motion.
 
You're trying to change the subject again.
Nope, we are talking federal government spending and it actually does apply to health care.

Yes, I know your a cop, guess what? I know many in your profession who would disagree with you.
 
You pay for part of is. PSHCP also receives significant contributions from the federal government, which is typical of extended health coverage offered as a benefit during or following employment. Make no mistake, taxpayers are on the hook for a lot of your health coverage. You aren't paying it all yourself, not by a long shot.


You're being silly.


Correct. All policy that involves spending needs to be carefully thought out. Some spending is merited, some is not. A lot of what we spend on various public benefits programs is, of course, dependent on the ideological views of the electroate. Some of us have social democratic view towards some public benefits than others. It still needs to be paid for, and in the case of a country that runs systemic deficits, that mans being careful about our nation's borrowing capacity. Generally speaking, and this is informed by comparison to other OECD countries, Canada is.


See above.


Someone else made a very good post farther upthread, which among other things, noted the very early stage of the dental care program that a lot of the media coverage and criticism covered. It's a new, developing, and growing program, and appears to be improving. There are now over 20,000 dental care providers participating, and over 640k Canadians who have received care as of early this month. I'm not sure that's 'little' coverage. Source: Application statistics - Canadian Dental Care Plan - Canada.ca


You're trying to change the subject again. I've already called you on that. If you really want to know what I, as a police officer, and as a family member of someone who died of a Fentanyl overdose, think of our approaches to addictions, by all means introduce the subject in an appropriate thread. If you can be civil and stick to the subject, I'll indulge you. I'm not going to do that here and drag this thread off topic.



I did not, in fact, say it, but you'd made it up and tried to attribute it to me. You're being silly again. Don't lie about things I have and haven't said please; it discredits your argument, and you personally.
Look at what I found
"Ottawa police Const. Paul Stam said officers have a wealth of anecdotal evidence, collected with their own eyes as they patrol what he called one of the city's top three high-priority hotspots for crime.

It's the block of Rideau Street between King Edward Avenue and Nelson Street, the site of Steve's Music and locations of two Safer Supply partners: Recovery Care and Respect RX.

Virtually any time officers pull up, he said, "they would observe people openly trafficking in diverted hydromorphone."

In Stam's view, that hydromorphone is coming from safer supply providers. He said there are also reports of street gangs edging into the trade near the clinics and extorting their patients.

Stam said the street price of Dilaudid has fallen through the floor provincewide from about $8 to $9 per pill to just $1 or $2 today.

"The street is flooded with this pharmaceutical grade hydromorphone," he said."

 
Remember that when Pierre P mops the floor next election with a super majority.
Like I keep saying will happen, yes.

Nope, we are talking federal government spending and it actually does apply to health care.

Yes, I know your a cop, guess what? I know many in your profession who would disagree with you.
How do you know that when you don’t actually know my opinions on the subject? I suspect you’re making assumptions about my beliefs, and I suspect your assumptions are probably pretty inaccurate because you seem to have pisgeonholed me into what you believe my beliefs must be.

As I said, bring it up in another appropriate thread, engage in good faith, and I’ll consider expressing my view on addiction and drug policy.
 
There's a reason the aisle width in Westminster, itself, is two sword lengths and a bit.
More, from today's Globe and Mail on Mr Singh and the two sword ;egth thing:

----------

House Speaker Greg Fergus asks MPs to behave better in question period after incident​

LAURA OSMAN
OTTAWA
THE CANADIAN PRESS
PUBLISHED 1 HOUR AGO

House of Commons Speaker Greg Fergus says he expects members of Parliament to behave better than they did last week, when an exchange between two party leaders got so heated one MP thought it may actually come to physical blows.

Fergus says he hopes to have more to say later this week in light of several demands from MPs for more discipline in the House.

“There were words which fall outside of what’s acceptable,” Fergus said before question period Monday.

“There was behaviour which was also outside of the parliamentary traditions.”

His warning comes after NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh stepped out from behind his desk to shout at the Conservative leader last Thursday, when Pierre Poilievre called Singh a phoney and a fraud for his refusal to vote to bring down the Liberal government.

The Conservatives insist Singh challenged Poilievre to a fight, while NDP House leader Peter Julian says Singh was merely standing up to bullying from the Tory leader.

“I, for the first time ever sitting in the House, thought, ‘If they get near each other, they’re going to start hitting each other,”’ said Green Party Leader Elizabeth May, who sits directly across the aisle from Singh in the House.

“It was uncomfortably close to that, I thought.”

Fergus has so far not sanctioned any MPs or called for any apologies, but instead asked all members to conduct themselves “in a manner that is befitting of our constituents” moving forward.

Bloc Quebecois MP Claude DeBellefeuille put forward a motion on Monday calling on members to reaffirm that violence, insults and threats have no place within Parliament, and urging all MPs to behave with civility and respect toward their colleagues.

All MPs in the House at the time voted in support.

Meanwhile, May and Julian have both called on the Speaker to do more to rein in the antics that they say have degraded decorum in the House of Commons.

“The Speaker has lots of powers that can be used to keep decorum, and they’re not used,” May said.

After the exchange last week, Fergus asked the MPs to respect the long-standing traditions of the House but did not ask anyone with withdraw their comments or apologize.

MPs were far more docile during Monday’s question period, which may have had something to do with the fact that Singh was the only party leader in attendance.

On Tuesday, however, the House is expected to debate a Conservative non-confidence motion — the Opposition’s first attempt at taking down Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government this fall. The Bloc and NDP have already said they do not support the Tory motion.

----------

Things are getting testy.

Quite a few people who, I suppose, know him well, dislike Mr Poilievre on a very personal level.
 
"Look at how mean and inappropriate PP is!"

The LPC/NDP coalition are getting desperate. Singh is a fraud, he just doesn't like it being put on record so pointedly.
 
Things are getting testy.

Quite a few people who, I suppose, know him well, dislike Mr Poilievre on a very personal level.

Actions have reactions. And PP is the reaction to this LPC Gov and its leadership. The LPC couldn't just ride the middle, no led by JT they had to surge left in an attempt to out left flank the NDP, spout divisive tones and pit Canadians against each other. Their demise and the current state of politics and our national discourse is soundly anchored to their waist.

They created this atmosphere and monster, and I am more than happy to sit back with come popcorn and watch it all crescendo and crumble.

Anticipation Popcorn GIF
 
Anyways…

The Bloc has already made its first demand and it seems the LPC is open to the discussion.

A 10% increase in OAS for those 65 to 74.
 
Back
Top