So this is a guy from the party that the Bloc wants to give another chance at winning an election when they dont vote for the budget. Hopefully NDP knows better. We'll see tonight! Thanks Elizabeth May. I knew she is smart.

Its the O & G focus, lack of help for the public and perceived drop in environmental action that's turning the NDP voters off. The way the budget has been presented by the media doesn't help either. The major projects are being "considered" and are not a done deal as presented by the press.

A lot of NDP voters are. I'm not happy with LNG but I fear PP more. He'll drop all environmental laws, reconciliation and cut social programs. I'd rather have a liberal government who might listen to voters. Big fear, CPC removes PP & elects Ford. Same as PP with added corruption & incompetence.

We shall wait and see. If the budget does not pass tomorrow we will be into an election. Either Carney will get a majority, we're back to where we are except for time and money wasted, or we get Pollievre. NDP or Greens will not win. Take your pick!

I don't think that will happen. They haven't used the bill yet. The political backlash to a minority government would be huge. I'm aware of the law suits and hope the FNs win.

You should read the article before using it to substantiate your claims. It says the exact opposite to your argument by pointing out all the indeginous consultations that are underway and have happened. Many First Nations are in favor of these projects & will benefit. Some are not in favor.

Pollievre also said he wants to use the notwithstanding clause regularly and his solution to Trump is that we need to buy more from the US. He also told Trump to "knock it off", his other solution.

Do you have proof of this? Pollievre would be a disaster. He said he'd build 15 pipelines, make his own laws, told First Nations that they dont need money, they just need to learn the value of hard work.

Check the date on your article. Its old news. Carney consulted with First Nations all summer and came to agreements. www.canada.ca/en/privy-cou...

The problem is the provinces. With Carneys background, I think he would prefer to act on climate but he has to govern for all. If Smith, Ford and Moe weren't in O&Gs back pockets we'd have better climate policies. NDP can't win if there were to be an election. PP would take us back 50 years.

Business related investing like stores etc? Not housing? We need affordable housing supply, in which our new govt is working on. Modular homes, co-ops etc. If we get first time buyers out of the affordable rentals, more supply will open up, hence lower rents. This is the theory. Good discussion!

True, which is why I said earlier there needs to be restrictions on how many units a landlord can buy. Yes, I am a landlord & am tired of being treated as the bad guy. And I do agree rents are too high. I think you need to be willing to see the other side. My reading comprehension is perfect.

Unfortunately we have premiers, one in particular, that is looking at changes that will essentially remove rent control. He's getting backlash but he has a record for doing whatever he pleases. Sound familiar?

You aren't getting it. Not all landlords exploit tenants. Many landlords are work hard to provide good homes at reasonable rents. What i didn't notice is that you are in the US. In Canada we do have rent controls and tenants usually get preferential treatment over landlords.

Aha. The pearl clutching comment to be used whenever you can't come up with a viable answer. There's nothing wrong with middle income earners who saved money and lived a reasonable lifestyle investing in property. Stocks, bonds etc are volatile. Having a nest egg keeps retirees off govt funds.

Apartment building rentals right now are either purpose built rentals owned corporately or condo buildings with rentals mostly owned by corporate landlords. Many house rentals are mom and pop owners investing for retirement. What's wrong with that?

I totally get what you're saying. You want landlords to only buy or build commercial units in apartment buildings. Not everyone wants to live in an apartment building. Families want yards and their own space.

It costs more to build commercial residential properties. You will then be encouraging corporate ownership which i dont think you want. What about limiting the number of homes an entity can own so mom and pop ownership is still on the table.