Misguided and misinformed.

You should move to the USA. Despite your obvious beliefs, Canada has one of the most efficient governments in the world given the limited taxable population and amount of services provided. Check out the pie chart below, now remove things that don't, in any significant form, exist in a place like the USA such as elderly benefits, employment insurance, medical benefits and child benefits... that's nearly 50% of what's being allocated from each tax dollar you pay.

Don't care about those things? Move somewhere else that also doesn't care about them and pay less tax. It's asinine to move to a country for the aforementioned benefits/reasons which created a lifestyle you found beneficial to yourself and then complain about having to pay for those things.

Are you trying to imply that those tax increases upped your taxes substantially Mr.happysilp?
I don't really get negatively effected by a couple extra grand tax a year. I just by a couple less Americanos and make them at home.
I do however want some accountability for where my taxes go.
Healthcare, education, social programs are all important to me.
Keep in mind the giant foreign buyers tax NDP put in place is the only way you could afford your new condo.

HMMM let's see spending millions on bikes lanes that no one wants and cause more grind lock, less parking is sure what everyone wants! Oh and let's keep dumping money into "Research project" such as if ride sharing is feasible only to come up with such a stupid conclusion that you need to have class 4 liscense and there is a limit on how many uber drivers there can be in a given time. Or how about stopping the Site C project only to see that is actually better just to go ahead and wasted millions of dollars on the so call "research" . And the list goes on where our gov waste our tax dollars.

All other department and agencies
Pretty vague description for the biggest slice of the pie.
Must be where the billions of dollars in corporate welfare, gender based analysis, and reconciliation derive.

For once I agree with you.:damn: I hope he gets at least 20 to 30% of the conservative vote.

Well said, and very true.

The US actually spends a higher percentage (19.3%) of its gdp on social welfare programs than Canada (17.2%) does.
According to the OECD.
https://data.oecd.org/socialexp/social-spending.htm
Common misconception amongst Canadians

I'm not voting for the candidate i think will win. I'm voting for the candidate i think should win.

Out of curiosity, why is it that you think he should win?

Come on man you’re smarter than that nonsense assessment. That would be DFO, RCMP, Passport, PWGSC, Industry Canada, INAC and every other federal government office/service that employs across the entire country.

I guess every project or business you start always goes for a profit? Just cuz you think something is a waste of money doesn’t mean it actually is a waste of money.

Are you an expert on all subjects and aware of all the nuances of every societal situation and the policies that govern them? Or are you just extremely arrogant? I’m guessing the latter.

Uh the conclusion of the Site C review was that we’re fucked with any of the 3 options (continue, delay, or halt), and continuing and halting the project were basically a wash in terms of loss (with delaying being by far the worst option).

How you interpreted that as we were better off to just go ahead and finish it is incredible (well, it would be if you actually read the review). The review basically said it shouldn’t have been done to begin with as it relied far too heavily on as yet to be built LNG plants (3 minimum required to justify the project).

There will always be mistakes made, and everyone will disagree with the funding of something or another. Obviously it's good to minimize waste but it's impossible to eliminate it completely.

Sure, those are some of them. But it's a big umbrella.
This government spent nearly the same amount, annually, on reconciliation ($2.5b) as it did the rcmp ($3.5b).
What do you think the results from that vast amount of money have/will be? Think about that honestly for a second.
It's only one example.
You know, it boggles my mind that we live in this country of such mass, so sparsely populated, so rich with natural resources, and yet the average Canadian is stretched financially, overloaded with debt. Something doesn't add up.

-end to corporate welfare
-revising the equalization payment formula
-scrapping the federal carbon tax and allowing individual provinces to dictate.
-end to provincial trade barriers
-SUSTAINABLE immigration
-revising foreign aid spending
Just to name a few.

Basically, he's the only candidate running on a free market platform. He's also the only candidate not looking to our number one trading partner with hostility.
Foreign investment has been plummeting in this country since Trudeau. That much we know. What's not documented is how many businesses and firms are heading south for a much more favorable climate. I'd imagine that number to be very high though.
It's pretty frustrating to see this happening while our current PM focuses on BS gender and racial disparities.

I'm not disillusioned though. I'm fairly certain we'll be stuck with another four years of Trudeau. As painful as that is to admit. But like i said, voting my conscience.
By 2023 we'll be so screwed that we'll be ready to vote for someone with some semblance to sanity. By then, Bernier will have gained enough popularity, IMO.

The review also preceded the government's new goal of 100% emissions free vehicle sales by 2040. The electrical capacity needed to attain this new goal is going to be far greater than those 3 LNG plants.

You mean instead of saying mankind we should all say peoplekind! :lawl::lawl::lawl:

Actually, the review did account for increased EV sales out to 2036, which match the numbers set out in the NDP's CleanBC legislation (10% by 2025, 30% by 2030). The review only projects to 2036, which was as far out as BC Hydro provided, but there's a non-linear uptick in EV sales accounted for.

Obviously, there's a lot of other stuff accounted for like DSM, microgeneration, etc.

From Site C review documentation:
If 2/3 of BC's existing fleet (approximately 1.9 million light duty vehicles), the ANNUAL projected consumption in the report is 5.6 GWh.

I think you're also underestimating how much electricity LNG plants use. The initial BC Hydro forecast under the Liberals was 2.85 Gigawatts (not GWh) for the new LNG plants they planned to have built. Site C is a 1.1 Gigawatt power plant.

According to this article here:

https://www.fleetcarma.com/electric-...3-2018-canada/

new EV sales already account for over 15% of total new car sales in BC. Quite frankly, I'm surprised by the number because I certainly don't see that many EVs around town. But at parking spots that offer free EV charging, I rarely see an open and available spot. Unless there is some sort of major battery tech / charging breakthrough though, I am still rather skeptical about EV sales expanding beyond a certain percentage.

I can see that sales figure increasing, as more automakers start to offer cheaper options. People with EVs might be charging at home overnight, so you might not see them at stations through out the day.

I can see a case for site C with EVs in mind, in terms of demand. In terms of ethics, that's another story.

Does the electricity production capacity in British Columbia today match th expected electricity requirement for bc in 2050? If no, where does that power come from?

Most infrastructure megaprojects like site c take in excess of 20 years from idea and studies to completion. If we realize in 20 years that we need more electricity, when do new generation projects come online? Secondly, what does a project like site c cost in 20-30 years? I bet it's a lot more than it does today, and I bet it doesn't even get off the ground, at the site c location, or anywhere else.

Construction started with site preparation activities in summer 2015 and will be completed in 2024.

That's just construction, there was probably years of design and planning before that.

Project capital cost estimate of $7.9 billion is peer-reviewed
https://www.sitecproject.com/sites/d...-case-2014.pdf

Demand was calculated based on LNG plans, I don't know if that's changed, but here is the resource explaining it.

https://www.sitecproject.com/sites/d...feb-2018_0.pdf

I wonder if there are transmission lines that run down to Vancouver from site C. It will probably just service Northern BC, in reality.

I can't imagine that they wouldn't connect it into the 500kV lines that run down from Peace & Bennett Dams to feed the lower mainland and all the rest of the grid.

https://www.bchydro.com/content/dam/...s/transplt.pdf

Yeah, looks like you're right, they've got some lines close to site.

https://app.bchydro.com/content/dam/...ystems-map.pdf

It makes sense to put up another dam.

It's guaranteed any project like this in the future would cost orders of magnitude more. Higher labour & material costs, more red tape, more protesting, all guaranteed to be more than today.

We should be thanking our lucky stars that our leaders in the 60's had the fortitude to get this shit all built back then, or we'd never get it built today if we had to start from scratch.