Canada General Discussion (2019-)

[Upper Canada Tory]

https://twitter.com/CanadianPolling/status/1635429972339826688
Um...

As a Jewish Canadian living in English speaking Canada, these poll results make sense to me (for Canada excluding Quebec). From my personal experience, LPC and CPC voters are the most Jewish friendly, while NDP, GPC and PPC voters tend to be less friendly/more hostile. The Jewish community in Canada also tends to swing between the Liberal and Conservative parties in federal elections.

[Upper Canada Tory]

These election interference allegations keep getting worse and worse. How the Trudeau government could allow such allegations to linger in his caucus and do nothing about it for years is beyond me. The fact that he's obviously trying to hide something by opposing a public inquiry and being reluctant to have Katie Telford testify makes even worse. Trudeau has always seemed like a dishonest phony but I never could have imagined his government would turn out to be this perfidious.

[Upper Canada Tory]

The budget released by the Liberals on Tuesday throws any notion of fiscal restraint out the window. The deficit is set to be $40 billion, $10 billion more than projected in their so-called 'economic snapshot' last fall. Some economists are apparently warning that the deficit may even be larger than that if economic growth is more sluggish than expected or if tax revenue from tax hikes fails to materialize.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-canada-federal-budget-2023/

This is note, on top of that, the cost of financing the debt is expected to more than double from the start of the COVID-19 pandemic to the 2026 budget (it will be nearly $50 billion by then, which would be larger than our deficit). The federal government is now borrowing large sums of money with the highest interest rate since November 2007.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-federal-debt-costs-to-exceed-40-billion-a-year-by-2025-26-pbos-pre/

[Upper Canada Tory]

I hate our entire system.  The NDP will break soon and we'll get a no confidence vote, another election, and another liberal minority now with the added uncertainty of Chinese interference.  There's really nothing preventing Trudeau from running indefinitely.  No term limits or way to impeach.  67% of Canadians who voted did not back our PM in 2021. It's frustrating.

A significant proportion of that 67% would prefer Trudeau over Poilievre.

Both come from the wormy, smarmy, disingenuous, pretentious Ted Cruz tradition, so honestly we’re in bad shape either way. I’ll meaninglessly throw my vote to the NDP again, even though they insist on keeping a leader who should’ve got the boot two losses ago.

I remember when Jack Layton was running to be Prime Minister. In 2011, before he got sick, it really did seem like he could finally be our guy in the next cycle. That is not going to happen for Singh.

Jack Layton dying was a tragedy, he was one of the few I genuinely respected and liked.
He made his cane a symbol of strength.

It was also a tragedy because he honestly could have won. There was a real sense that the Liberal Party could die, at least for a bit. It was a nice feeling.

Regarding why he has been allowed to stay on… I can’t say. I guess he “saved the campaign” in 2019, but as far as I can remember, half the reason they were down so embarrassingly low was because his rollout as leader had been a huge flop. He was not in the House of Commons, he was making weird comments about extremists… he had the stink of failure on him before he even started. He’s pretty clearly a lightweight on the policy side and, like it or not, isn’t ever going to receive the votes of a pretty large number of Canadians simply because of his faith. It’s not “nice,” but you sort of have to win to play.

Singh didn't make 'weird comments about extremists.' That sounds more like Poilievre who supported the terrorist occupiers in Ottawa.

What did happen is Singh was blindsided by questions from Terry Milewski who asked him about the Air India bombing that occured when Singh was 6 years old.

Politicians need to be aware of historical events but Milewski's questions were informed by disinformation that came from Indian Prime Minister Modi who is an anti Sikh bigot Hindu Supremicist. If Canadians cared about Terry Milewski, he would have been laughed out of Canada for being shown up as the fool he is.

There is an unfortunate tradition in the Canadian media of believing everything that's anti a politician no matter how lacking in credibility it is, as may also be the case with these (alleged) CSIS documents.

You believe that CSIS documents leaked by whistleblowers which contain detailed allegations about Beijing funding and supporting specific candidates while CSIS itself is openly calling Chinese interference 'Canada's greatest national security threat' have no credibility?

I get that all the accused individuals are innocent until proven guilty, but the allegations seem quite credible to me.

[Upper Canada Tory]

I hate our entire system.  The NDP will break soon and we'll get a no confidence vote, another election, and another liberal minority now with the added uncertainty of Chinese interference.  There's really nothing preventing Trudeau from running indefinitely.  No term limits or way to impeach.  67% of Canadians who voted did not back our PM in 2021. It's frustrating.

A significant proportion of that 67% would prefer Trudeau over Poilievre.

Both come from the wormy, smarmy, disingenuous, pretentious Ted Cruz tradition, so honestly we’re in bad shape either way. I’ll meaninglessly throw my vote to the NDP again, even though they insist on keeping a leader who should’ve got the boot two losses ago.

I remember when Jack Layton was running to be Prime Minister. In 2011, before he got sick, it really did seem like he could finally be our guy in the next cycle. That is not going to happen for Singh.

Jack Layton dying was a tragedy, he was one of the few I genuinely respected and liked.
He made his cane a symbol of strength.

It was also a tragedy because he honestly could have won. There was a real sense that the Liberal Party could die, at least for a bit. It was a nice feeling.

Regarding why he has been allowed to stay on… I can’t say. I guess he “saved the campaign” in 2019, but as far as I can remember, half the reason they were down so embarrassingly low was because his rollout as leader had been a huge flop. He was not in the House of Commons, he was making weird comments about extremists… he had the stink of failure on him before he even started. He’s pretty clearly a lightweight on the policy side and, like it or not, isn’t ever going to receive the votes of a pretty large number of Canadians simply because of his faith. It’s not “nice,” but you sort of have to win to play.

Singh didn't make 'weird comments about extremists.' That sounds more like Poilievre who supported the terrorist occupiers in Ottawa.

What did happen is Singh was blindsided by questions from Terry Milewski who asked him about the Air India bombing that occured when Singh was 6 years old.

Politicians need to be aware of historical events but Milewski's questions were informed by disinformation that came from Indian Prime Minister Modi who is an anti Sikh bigot Hindu Supremicist. If Canadians cared about Terry Milewski, he would have been laughed out of Canada for being shown up as the fool he is.

There is an unfortunate tradition in the Canadian media of believing everything that's anti a politician no matter how lacking in credibility it is, as may also be the case with these (alleged) CSIS documents.

You believe that CSIS documents leaked by whistleblowers which contain detailed allegations about Beijing funding and supporting specific candidates while CSIS itself is openly calling Chinese interference 'Canada's greatest national security threat' have no credibility?

I get that all the accused individuals are innocent until proven guilty, but the allegations seem quite credible to me.

It depends what specifically you're referring to. I volunteer for the local Friends of the Library and one of the books at our sale this weekend in the 'Canadiana' section was a book about foreign government interference in Canada and how the Canadian government was ignoring it...published in 2009.

So, there certainly is truth of foreign government interference in Canada, but that especially doesn't mean the allegations in the media against Han Dong or Vincent Ki are true.

Also, since nobody but a handful of journalists have seen these documents, nobody can really know if they're real or not. It is concerning that there was the claim that CSIS told Justin Trudeau to tell Han Dong to step down as a candidate, and CSIS immediately officially responded they would never do any such thing.

I also find it concerning that whenever the issue seems to die down in the media, that a new claim is released, usually more sensational than the last.

I have never heard of CSIS saying they would never do such a thing in response to the claim that they told the PM to rescind Han Dong's candidacy. Can you provide a source/link for that?

Regarding foreign interference, I'm talking about the recent allegations of Beijing's interference into the Canadian election. These allegations aren't exclusive to specifically Han Dong and Vincent Ki (who again, I believe are innocent until proven guilty), but also allege that the Chinese government funded and supported 11 GTA candidates at the federal level and in some cases interfered in local elections (such as Vancouver).

Yes, only a handful of journalists have seen these documents, but they are risking their journalistic credibility and potential defamation lawsuits to do so. CSIS has also not denied the accuracy/authenticity of the documents (as far as I'm concerned). If the claims regarding the documents by Global News were 100% false, you'd think CSIS would say something by now. In fact, the fact that there is an RCMP investigation against whoever leaked these documents proves that these documents are real, even if not everything the journalists claim is in it is true - they wouldn't be investigating someone who is leaking fake documents that don't exist.

Also, Terry Milewski's question toward Jagmeet Singh may have been inappropriate but it wouldn't be accurate to call it foreign interference. He was not helping a foreign government sway the result of our election. It was just a question in poor taste.

[Upper Canada Tory]

Looks like Twitter is dying even faster than anticipated.  Elon's latest stunt involves Canada so I'll post it here.

https://twitter.com/WatcherGuru/status/1648133618206748672
It's sadly not inspect element.  

I've been voting Conservative ever since I was old enough to vote and intend to vote for them in the next election, but stunts like this by Poilievre disappoint me. Regardless of what you think of the CBC and whether or not you think it should be privatized, there is obviously a difference between a public broadcaster with a slight liberal bias and actual state propaganda networks in authoritarian regimes. The designation on Twitter blurs the line between the two and presents them as if they were the same. CBC has its issues with bias, but it is not a state propaganda network with government controlled content like RussiaToday, CGTN, Al Jazeera, etc.

[Upper Canada Tory]

I've been voting Conservative ever since I was old enough to vote and intend to vote for them in the next election, but stunts like this by Poilievre disappoint me. Regardless of what you think of the CBC and whether or not you think it should be privatized, there is obviously a difference between a public broadcaster with a slight liberal bias and actual state propaganda networks in authoritarian regimes. The designation on Twitter blurs the line between the two and presents them as it they were the same. CBC has its issues with bias, but it is not a state propaganda network with government controlled content like RussiaToday, CGTN, Al Jazeera, etc.

I agree with you 100 percent.  I am really losing my faith in Poilievre, and I'm starting to doubt he has what it takes to win. But we shall see..

I agree with you and Blah, but I don't think this is actually going to hurt the CPC. Most people don't use twitter or even watch the CBC, whose viewership numbers have been declining for a long time. Twitter drama about the CBC isn't the kind of thing that will actually become an election issue. But dunking on the CPC is catnip to the base. So at least strategically, I don't think there's anything wrong with latching onto an issue that will help you boost turnout and donations, without really scaring off other voters who polling suggests are pretty "meh" on the CBC.

It probably won't significantly hurt Poilievre's chances of being elected but it does hurt his credibility as a leader.

You can criticize the CBC, or even support privatizing it, without engaging in Twitter drama over the issue. Today, political leaders try to engage in publicity stunts on social media in order to get attention in order to rile up their base (similar to Trudeau's 'refugees are welcome tweet' back in 2017 or so when Trump got elected).

While this seems like harmless bone throwing to the base, it hurts our political leaders' credibility and creates a political culture of simplistic social media dialogue. This isn't going to end with Poilievre dunking on the CBC. 5 or 10 years from now when Poilievre is elected PM and has a social media provocateur as his political opponent, the same exact strategy will be used against him and against Conservatives in general.

IMO, politicians should go back to tweeting solely in a professional capacity, like Stephen Harper did.

[Upper Canada Tory]

On a more serious topic, 155,000 federal workers are on strike.

This is a major test for the government. A timely agreement with PSAC that satisfies public workers while avoiding too much of a service backlog would be a major boost. For all my criticism of this government, they've proven fairly competent in crisis situations, but their third term has had a general cloud of malaise. Now more than ever, they need to show competence, ideally in a way that doesn't bleed support to the NDP (i.e. back-to-work legislation). But back-to-work might also work out if the strike goes on long and public opinion turns against PSAC. Conservatives have been non-committal so far and mostly pinned this on the government (which is the right call for now, no need to take a strong stance either way on an issue that won't gain you much support). But if the strike goes on long enough to have a noticeable impact on public service delivery, taking a hard line on PSAC could be a good way to boost support. In fact, the Liberals might have something to gain from cynically prolonging the strike, getting the public annoyed with PSAC, then invoking back-to-work with Tory support, because the Conservatives are a bigger threat than the NDP. Of course, this comes with the risk that the NDP pulls out of confidence-and-supply altogether, because it's very clear that Trudeau does NOT want an election right now.

And honestly, PSAC's wage demands (13.5% raise over 3 years) is really quite reasonable. Although they also seem very preoccupied with making remote work a permanent thing, and I have to roll my eyes at that a little bit. It's really not that big of an ask to show up to the office.

If Canadians won't be able to get passports for an extended period of time, like Minister Karina Gould said, back to work legislation is the most reasonable option, in my view.

I'm not sure I find the wage demands reasonable. The average federal public servant makes roughly $75,000 a year. The proposed 13.5% raise would give them a $10,000 raise within 3 years, to $85,000. (After those three years when they negotiate another labour contract, they will likely want an even more generous deal since they will have a stronger negotiating position). Keep in mind that the average unionized worker in Canada has gotten a 9% raise in the last 3 years. The average non-unionized worker has recieved a raise of 14%. You can argue that public servants should recieve a raise as high as the non-unionized work force, but keep in mind that public servants already earn $75K per year which is much more than the average Canadian worker, union or non-union. In addition to this, constant wage increases due to labour disputes that outpace productivity and output are bound keep inflation high for longer than necessary.

With that said, I think it's fair to say that the federal government should be more willing to compromise than they currently are. The wage demands are not quite what I would call reasonable but they're not outrageously high either. There needs to be a middle ground.

However, note that the 13.5% is if you only include wage demands - when non-wage demands are included it ranges from 25% to 47% for three years. Some of the non-wage demands need to be scrapped because they are unreasonably high.

As you mentioned, the right-to-remote work demand is completely ridiculous.

[Upper Canada Tory]

On a more serious topic, 155,000 federal workers are on strike.

This is a major test for the government. A timely agreement with PSAC that satisfies public workers while avoiding too much of a service backlog would be a major boost. For all my criticism of this government, they've proven fairly competent in crisis situations, but their third term has had a general cloud of malaise. Now more than ever, they need to show competence, ideally in a way that doesn't bleed support to the NDP (i.e. back-to-work legislation). But back-to-work might also work out if the strike goes on long and public opinion turns against PSAC. Conservatives have been non-committal so far and mostly pinned this on the government (which is the right call for now, no need to take a strong stance either way on an issue that won't gain you much support). But if the strike goes on long enough to have a noticeable impact on public service delivery, taking a hard line on PSAC could be a good way to boost support. In fact, the Liberals might have something to gain from cynically prolonging the strike, getting the public annoyed with PSAC, then invoking back-to-work with Tory support, because the Conservatives are a bigger threat than the NDP. Of course, this comes with the risk that the NDP pulls out of confidence-and-supply altogether, because it's very clear that Trudeau does NOT want an election right now.

And honestly, PSAC's wage demands (13.5% raise over 3 years) is really quite reasonable. Although they also seem very preoccupied with making remote work a permanent thing, and I have to roll my eyes at that a little bit. It's really not that big of an ask to show up to the office.

If Canadians won't be able to get passports for an extended period of time, like Minister Karina Gould said, back to work legislation is the most reasonable option, in my view.

I'm not sure I find the wage demands reasonable. The average federal public servant makes roughly $75,000 a year. The proposed 13.5% raise would give them a $10,000 raise within 3 years, to $85,000. (After those three years when they negotiate another labour contract, they will likely want an even more generous deal since they will have a stronger negotiating position). Keep in mind that the average unionized worker in Canada has gotten a 9% raise in the last 3 years. The average non-unionized worker has recieved a raise of 14%. You can argue that public servants should recieve a raise as high as the non-unionized work force, but keep in mind that public servants already earn $75K per year which is much more than the average Canadian worker, union or non-union. In addition to this, constant wage increases due to labour disputes that outpace productivity and output are bound keep inflation high for longer than necessary.

With that said, I think it's fair to say that the federal government should be more willing to compromise than they currently are. The wage demands are not quite what I would call reasonable but they're not outrageously high either. There needs to be a middle ground. However, note that the 13.5% is if you only include wage demands - when non-wage demands are included it ranges from 25% to 47% for three years. Some of the non-wage demands need to be scrapped because the --non-wage demands, however, are unreasonably high.

As you mentioned, the right-to-remote work demand is completely ridiculous.

This is kind of a conflicting issue for me. On one hand, I agree that many federal public service jobs are glorified make-work programs that wouldn't be valued as much in the private sector. I've spent enough time in Ottawa, and met too many public workers who brag about how little work they have to do in exchange for nice salaries and benefits, to feel any other way. Obviously a ton of waste also exists in the private sector, but in that case, shareholders are held accountable, not taxpayers. And yeah, part of the problem is public sector unions. This isn't just me being a right-wing crank, even objectively pro-labour politicians like FDR were very opposed to public sector unions, as they distort the ability of the government to serve citizens in the best way possible, and leads to, like you said, unnecessary and wasteful spending. I'm completely supportive of private-sector unions, but in an ideal world, they wouldn't exist in the public sector. But the cat's out of the bag now, public-sector unions exist and we have to work within that reality.

On the other hand, ideology aside, I can understand PSAC workers' frustrations. For them, this isn't an abstract ideological debate, but their jobs. Their contracts expired two years ago and Treasury Board has been twiddling their thumbs instead of renewing the contracts. Even if they are overpaid, it's not their fault that the government set an expectation that they would get paid as much as they are. So considering that we have a government that is clearly willing to spend out the wazoo, I'd be a little pissed too if this is the thing where they draw the line. From the workers' perspective, they have the ability and willingness to demand inflation-matching pay from their employers, so it's only natural that they would do so.

Here's a poll result regarding the strike I found somewhat surprising.

https://globalnews.ca/news/9653337/canada-psac-strike-ipsos-poll/

'Despite the higher support for PSAC, 54 per cent of respondents said that Canada cannot afford to give public servants a raise of 4.5 per cent a year right now, which is a key demand of the union. Meanwhile, 58 per cent said the demand to work from home was reasonable'

So most people don't agree with the 4.5%/year raise demand, but most people agree with right to work from home? I find that extremely surprising, because I find the wage demand much more reasonable than right to wfh.

[Upper Canada Tory]

The current government has terrible approvals on basically all top issues, but BCLP BCUP just sucks that much more that they can't even get competitive numbers.

Is their new name reflecting any ideological changes, or is it a pure branding exercise?

I get the impression it's to avoid being associated with the federal Liberals.

[Upper Canada Tory]

The current government has terrible approvals on basically all top issues, but BCLP BCUP just sucks that much more that they can't even get competitive numbers.

Is their new name reflecting any ideological changes, or is it a pure branding exercise?

Pure branding exercise. Like BlahTheCanuckTory said, they don't wanna be associated with federal Liberals.

The ideological change happened decades ago, under the Liberal name. BC used to be polarized between the right-wing Social Credit and left-wing NDP, with the Liberals barely registering, just a rump centrist party with not much going for themselves. In 1991, the SoCreds crashed and burned after the SoCred premier had to resign due to scandal, they had been in power for 16 years and people were tired, and frankly the Social Credit brand had no business surviving into the 1990s.

The collapse of Social Credit allowed for the Liberals to emerge as the opposition in 1991 as the NDP formed majority government. SoCreds weren't coming back anytime soon, so the Liberals figured moving to the right was their best bet. They branded themselves as a "Free Enterprise Coalition" of Liberals, Conservatives, and anyone who didn't like the NDP. In practice, this just led to them being a conservative party in all but name.

So yeah, the "Liberal" label is a holdover from a bygone era. It was only a matter of time before they dropped it.

An additional factor is the provincial Conservative Party is attempting a comeback with MLA and former Liberal John Rustad as leader. 

The name change was being voted on by party members before Rustad did this, but the Liberals were increasingly concerned of a provincial Conservative party come back, especially, I think, in the Interior.

The provincial Conservatives have been around for a number of years, and were expected to be a factor in the 2013 election when they were led by former Conservative M.P John Cummins, but in that election, infighting within the Conservative Party hurt their chances. The party had the infighting problem until a couple years ago or so.

So, the 'United' is also meant to send a signal that this is the party 'united' against the NDP.

Given that Kevin Falcon has gone 'woke' on a number of social issues, it might be remotely possible that the Federal Conservative Party under Poilievre will provide some subtle support to the B.C Conservative Party.

Poilievre has mostly avoided getting mixed up with provincial stuff. "Woke" or not, BCUP is the provincial party of most federal conservatives. It would be very risky for Poilievre to gamble on the BC Conservatives

Regarding Poilievre, I'm not even sure how much he agrees with BC Liberals/BC United ideologically to the extent that he would enthusiastically campaign for them.

Even though BC United is on the centre-right of the BC political spectrum and has been independent of the federal Liberal Party for a long time, they still have passed policies Poilievre disapproves of, such as the carbon tax. He would likely also be critical of the BC Liberals' management of housing affordability issues and certain crown corporations.

Additionally, if you'll remember who Poilievre's main opponent was in the CPC leadership, it was Jean Charest - former leader of the Quebec Liberal Party, which is also independent from the federal Liberals and seen as centre to centre-right in provincial politics, but Poilievre still criticized many aspects of Charest's record such as implementing carbon pricing.

So, is Poilievre so ideologically aligned with BC Liberals/BC United? I'm not so sure.

[Upper Canada Tory]

Doesn’t seem to have been mentioned on forum, but a couple weeks ago the BC Liberals finalised their renaming and new identity.

Very curious to see whether Wayne Rooney can turn them around!

Lol "BC United" now holds the title of "most incompetent major right-wing party in Canada", and these days that's a very competitive list to top.

The name sounds like an English football club, the logo looks like an insurance company, and the polling is atrocious. After one year as leader Falcon has made zero impression.

Exhibit A: Top Issues in BC


Exhibit B: Approval of NDP government's handling of top issues


Exhibit C: Vote intent


The current government has terrible approvals on basically all top issues, but BCLP BCUP just sucks that much more that they can't even get competitive numbers.

Also, to be fair, part of BCUP's current incompetence is simply the fact that they haven't released a platform or any policy commitments. If they did that they'd probably get far more support.

[Upper Canada Tory]

Regarding Poilievre, I'm not even sure how much he agrees with BC Liberals/BC United ideologically to the extent that he would enthusiastically campaign for them.

Even though BC United is on the centre-right of the BC political spectrum and has been independent of the federal Liberal Party for a long time, they still have passed policies Poilievre disapproves of, such as the carbon tax. He would likely also be critical of the BC Liberals' management of housing affordability issues and certain crown corporations.

Additionally, if you'll remember who Poilievre's main opponent was in the CPC leadership, it was Jean Charest - former leader of the Quebec Liberal Party, which is also independent from the federal Liberals and seen as centre to centre-right in provincial politics, but Poilievre still criticized many aspects of Charest's record such as implementing carbon pricing.

So, is Poilievre so ideologically aligned with BC Liberals/BC United? I'm not so sure.

It's not about ideological alignment, it's about politicking. If by the time of the next election, BC NDP has plummeted in the polls and BCU are on the up, most federal Conservatives will happily hitch their wagons to them, even if they personally would prefer the BC Conservatives. But yeah I don't think Poilievre is bursting at the seams to be best buddies with Kevin Falcon. He's stayed out of provincial politics for the most part, and keeping the focus squarely on his role as opposition leader seems to be working.

Honestly, there are some areas where Poilievre might actually find more common ground with Eby's NDP than Falcon's United. YIMBY politics is growing in popularity both on the left and right, and both Eby and Poilievre are trying to jump on this bandwagon, while BC United are one of, if not the most NIMBY major party in Canada.

Here's the thing, it is quite likely that if the Conservatives form a government, it will be a minority government. In fact I think a strong CPC minority is the most likely outcome. But with a centre-left majority in the house, firebreathing conservatism will have to wait, and Poilievre will have to do what Harper did in his minorities and focus on more pragmatic policies with a broad appeal. For Harper it was the Accountability Act and other measures to reform government, and for Poilievre, it's likely to be his promises to boost housing construction, speed up work permits for immigrants, etc. These things require provincial cooperation, and the BC NDP has shown a willingness to support similar things as Poilievre is proposing. Of course, some of his other views like on crime and drugs go against the BC NDP, but those things are unlikely to pass in a minority parliament anyway.

So while I have no doubt that Poilievre would prefer either one of BCU or the BC Tories if he were a BC resident, realpolitik dictates that he's better off staying out of provincial politics and potentially burning bridges with provincial governments, and I think he understands that.

Oh, to clarify, I wasn't saying Poilievre was going to intervene in provincial politics to support one or the other, I expect him to remain neutral and stay out as well. It's moreso that if he were going to intervene in BC politics I'm not sure he'd be entirely on the same page as BCUP/BC Liberals ideologically.

[Upper Canada Tory]

Seems the strike is mostly done, as they settled. The only place left striking is the Revenue Agency, as they have their own union and don't negociate directly with the Treasury Board (the revenue Agency is at arm's lenght).

12.6% raise over four years (as opposed to PSAC's demand for 13.5% over three) and a lump-sum payment of $2500, and a "review" for telework. Overall, seems like a pretty clear-cut "meet in the middle" situation. I guess neither PSAC nor the government wanted to prolong this strike too long. On PSAC's end, it can be hard to keep up worker morale past the point where they're still getting paid - strike pay is 60% of regular pay. As for the government, even though opinion polls were all over the place re: who the public sided with, the Liberals can't really afford to lose any more public support, so playing the long game and potentially invoking back-to-work would have been a risky move.

Idk how (or if) this will affect generic ballot polling. The CPC stood to benefit from a prolonged strike, but they didn't do anything to lose support either, so no net effect for them, apart from a missed opportunity had the strike gone on longer. For Liberals, if they want to unite a strong anti-Poilievre coalition for 2025, they can't afford to alienate public sector labour. This won't boost their polling right now, but could pay off when they most need it. As for the NDP, I'm sure Singh will claim victory over this, and perhaps rightly so, question is whether voters reward him for his role (I doubt it).

The issue is that if the NDP/Singh claims victory over this, it won't be very convincing to voters. This is clearly a middle of the ground situation, so the government didn't have to sacrifice much and the union didn't gain much. The most important thing the labour union wanted, the right to telework, ended up not happening.

[Upper Canada Tory]

I was polled by Léger and there were a couple of questions on an alliance LIB-NDP and merger of the two. I hope it's for a public poll.

I would also like to see the provincial numbers. The CAQ abandoned its promise to get another link for cars between Quebec City and Lévis. Many in the region will feel betrayed.

It is public. Normal federal vote intentions from Léger:
CPC 36%
LIB 30%
NDP 19%
Bloc 7%
Green 4%
PPC 2%

If there is an alliance between LIB and NDP, with only one of the two parties running a candidate in a riding:
LIB-NDP 41%
CPC 39%
Bloc 8%
Green 6%
PPC 3%

For Quebec provincial voting intentions, CAQ drops 4% since February:

CAQ 36%
PQ 22%
QS 16%
LPQ 14%
PCQ 10%

In the Quebec City region, CAQ has declined by 14%, PQ and PCQ benefit. It's PQ 28, CAQ 26. PCQ 23.

Quebec City is split on the decision to abandon building a tunnel for cars between Québec and Lévis.  46% agree with the decision, 45% disagree. The whole province number is 47% agree, 29% disagree.

Is this a poll that has already been released? I can't seem to find it online.

[Upper Canada Tory]

For provincial politics the full results are on the French side of their website.

For the federal vote intentions / possible alliance, the result was in a son of Léger column (result at the bottom). It doesn't give regional numbers which could be interesting (does the race in the prairies get more competitive? what happens in Ontario?) He says the Bloc would gain 4% with a Lib-NDP alliance.

https://www.journaldemontreal.com/2023/04/29/sondage-lalliance-entre-les-liberaux-et-le-npd-pourrait-etre-la-voie-de-sortie-de-trudeau

Merci!

[Upper Canada Tory]

I was polled by Léger and there were a couple of questions on an alliance LIB-NDP and merger of the two. I hope it's for a public poll.

I would also like to see the provincial numbers. The CAQ abandoned its promise to get another link for cars between Quebec City and Lévis. Many in the region will feel betrayed.

It is public. Normal federal vote intentions from Léger:
CPC 36%
LIB 30%
NDP 19%
Bloc 7%
Green 4%
PPC 2%

If there is an alliance between LIB and NDP, with only one of the two parties running a candidate in a riding:
LIB-NDP 41%
CPC 39%
Bloc 8%
Green 6%
PPC 3%

For Quebec provincial voting intentions, CAQ drops 4% since February:

CAQ 36%
PQ 22%
QS 16%
LPQ 14%
PCQ 10%

In the Quebec City region, CAQ has declined by 14%, PQ and PCQ benefit. It's PQ 28, CAQ 26. PCQ 23.

Quebec City is split on the decision to abandon building a tunnel for cars between Québec and Lévis.  46% agree with the decision, 45% disagree. The whole province number is 47% agree, 29% disagree.

One thing that surprises me a bit in the polling regarding the Lib-NDP alliance is that the CPC doesn't get more of a boost from Blue Grits and moderate former Liberal voters. The CPC only gets a 3% boost post Lib-NDP alliance. Also, the smaller parties mostly have mostly similar amounts of support pre and post Lib-NDP alliance, interestingly.

[Upper Canada Tory]

God I love Scott Aitchison.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the CPC should go all-in on YIMBY politics. O'Toole started the shift, but he was a terrible messenger and it didn't land. Poilievre has continued going in that direction, but it's mostly rhetoric so far. But he's made a very smart choice in giving Aitchison the housing portfolio and letting him loose on that file.

Aitchison isn't the kind of guy to inspire the rank-and-file, which is why he's not cut out for leadership in today's age of GOTV. But he's the kind of guy who can soothe the concerns of undecided voters who may not like the leader's hard edge. I believe the next election will be the election of the single-issue housing voter, so housing is exactly where you want a more moderate and conciliatory messenger.

I've always been skeptical of the idea that the way for Canadian Conservatives to win elections is to pivot to the center, because there's very little evidence to actually suggest that. The way Tories typically win elections is not by running as centrists, but by flanking the Liberals on their weak spots. Harper did this with the Accountability Act. Paul Martin was trusted on the economy, environment, childcare, healthcare, foreign policy, pretty much everything except for ethics/accountability, due to the sponsorship scandal. So Harper used this weak spot to put forward a message that non-Tories could get on board with. For Poilievre, housing in particular and CoL in general could be the breakthrough, and Aitchison is the guy who can push "YIMBY Toryism" into the mainstream.

Sounds like someone has a conflict of interest here, eh, Doug Ford's Developer Buddy?  

In all seriousness, Aitchison's YIMBY politics is one of the reasons I supported him in the leadership race. At the same time, I think even the conservatives who have campaigned on YIMBYism could to a better job of coming up with well-thought out policy to that effect. For example, Aitchison promised in his 2022 leadership race platform to end exclusionary zoning, but that's not something the federal government could do since that is implemented by municipal governments.

To do so, the federal government would need to create an incentive system for the provinces to increase housing supply, which is likely what candidates at the federal level should be talking about more than solutions that should be implemented by municipal/provincial governments.

[Upper Canada Tory]

God I love Scott Aitchison.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the CPC should go all-in on YIMBY politics. O'Toole started the shift, but he was a terrible messenger and it didn't land. Poilievre has continued going in that direction, but it's mostly rhetoric so far. But he's made a very smart choice in giving Aitchison the housing portfolio and letting him loose on that file.

Aitchison isn't the kind of guy to inspire the rank-and-file, which is why he's not cut out for leadership in today's age of GOTV. But he's the kind of guy who can soothe the concerns of undecided voters who may not like the leader's hard edge. I believe the next election will be the election of the single-issue housing voter, so housing is exactly where you want a more moderate and conciliatory messenger.

I've always been skeptical of the idea that the way for Canadian Conservatives to win elections is to pivot to the center, because there's very little evidence to actually suggest that. The way Tories typically win elections is not by running as centrists, but by flanking the Liberals on their weak spots. Harper did this with the Accountability Act. Paul Martin was trusted on the economy, environment, childcare, healthcare, foreign policy, pretty much everything except for ethics/accountability, due to the sponsorship scandal. So Harper used this weak spot to put forward a message that non-Tories could get on board with. For Poilievre, housing in particular and CoL in general could be the breakthrough, and Aitchison is the guy who can push "YIMBY Toryism" into the mainstream.

Sounds like someone has a conflict of interest here, eh, Doug Ford's Developer Buddy?  

In all seriousness, Aitchison's YIMBY politics is one of the reasons I supported him in the leadership race. At the same time, I think even the conservatives who have campaigned on YIMBYism could to a better job of coming up with well-thought out policy to that effect. For example, Aitchison promised in his 2022 leadership race platform to end exclusionary zoning, but that's not something the federal government could do since that is implemented by municipal governments.

To do so, the federal government would need to create an incentive system for the provinces to increase housing supply, which is likely what candidates at the federal level should be talking about more than solutions that should be implemented by municipal/provincial governments.

What conflict of interest? Anyway, Dougie's on the phone, he wants to sell me a beautiful piece of wetland.

I joke, I'm not actually a developer, but without giving away too much personal information, my line of work is very close to the development industry. In fact, housing/planning/zoning is probably the singular political issue that I feel most confident and qualified speaking about. And yes, it's fundamentally a supply imbalance, however you cut it - the federal government and BoC subsidize demand, and local governments restrict supply, you get higher prices. Speculation is a problem, but the very thing that made housing speculation such a lucrative business in Canada is the supply imbalance. Flipping houses for a profit only works when you have 50 people desperately lining up to buy.

So on the incentives thing, Poilievre has actually been talking about it, because really this is the only lever the federal government has. The idea of tying federal transfers to the easing of supply-restricting policies is easier said than done and would have complications, but is still the most realistic way of getting anything done on this file from the federal level. Thing is, I'm not sure how effective Pierre's messaging on this issue is. His line is "get the gatekeepers out of the way", which appeals to people like me, but people like me are going to vote Conservative anyway. There's also the promise of selling off unused government buildings (which wouldn't make much of a difference, but is better than nothing), and requiring high-density housing around federally-funded transit stations (which is a great policy, but again, would only make a difference in limited cases).

The main thing has to be to get municipal governments to massively reform zoning and cut red tape so we can actually get some supply. Some of this is already happening on the provincial level, from politicians of all stripes, like Ford in Ontario and Eby in BC. So "get the gatekeepers out of the way" is a pretty good way of going about it, but I'm not sure this message really lands with voters concerned about the housing issue, at least in the way he delivers it.

That's where I think Aitchison comes in. I think the housing issue is the singular thing that could drive Conservative turnout in the next election (although the way this whole China business is going, we may get an election sooner than expected fought on a completely different set of issues). Poilievre needs to keep delivering his message, but I'm glad he's given Aitchison this file, and I hope he lets Scott do his thing and speak directly to voters, to drive the YIMBY message home.

To this, I would also add that the CMHC is part of the problem by subsidizing the mortgage insurance market & by not recognizing we have a supply problem while doing so. This is another area of federal government policy that can be reformed.

Otherwise, I agree. Bring the YIMBY message home!

[Upper Canada Tory]

Ontario has passed a bill allowing private clinics to provide certain OHIP-covered surgeries.
https://globalnews.ca/news/9681967/ontario-passes-health-reform-bill-private-care/

[Upper Canada Tory]

Something very bad has happened in canadian society especially among the young there, they are a lot in favour of killing people on the basis of poverty, that's some way radical conservatism there:

https://twitter.com/yuanyi_z/status/1655394452817555469

You see this as radical conservatism, I see it as pervasive hopelessness and a widespread belief that capitalism is broken with no way out (an incorrect belief if you ask me, of course).

It is radical conservatism, some Reagan and Thatcher people proposed doing the same to the poor and the homeless in the 1980's.

Cruelty instead of reform is a radical conservative thing.

Young Canadians are behaving like this:

How is it 'radical conservatism' if the Liberals (often with the support of other left-of-centre parties like the NDP) have significantly expanded medical assistance in dying in Canada, a policy which was opposed by the Conservatives?

[Upper Canada Tory]

Something very bad has happened in canadian society especially among the young there, they are a lot in favour of killing people on the basis of poverty, that's some way radical conservatism there:

https://twitter.com/yuanyi_z/status/1655394452817555469

You see this as radical conservatism, I see it as pervasive hopelessness and a widespread belief that capitalism is broken with no way out (an incorrect belief if you ask me, of course).

It is radical conservatism, some Reagan and Thatcher people proposed doing the same to the poor and the homeless in the 1980's.

Cruelty instead of reform is a radical conservative thing.

Young Canadians are behaving like this:

How is it 'radical conservatism' if the Liberals (often with the support of other left-of-centre parties like the NDP) have significantly expanded medical assistance in dying in Canada, a policy which was opposed by the Conservatives?

Whereas Conservatives thought that doing anything to prevent the spread of Covid was Nazism.

Conservatives are concerned about the sancitity of life...as long as it doesn't impinge on their life.

Of course, I recognize that Progressive Conservative governments were mostly responsible, but the 'freedom' loving terrorist sympathizer Pierre Poilievre won the Conservative leadership overwhelmingly, and many Conservatives did argue that Covid protections were a violation of their 'rights.'

I find it reasonable to believe that a fair number of the people responding to this survey, especially young people, have the attititude of 'if people thought it was their 'right' to pass on a potentially deadly virus and kill somebody else, who am I to tell somebody that they can't commit suicide?'

I don't think that COVID public health restrictions were 'Nazism' & share your frustration with those who didn't adhere to them at the time. With that said, much of the opposition to COVID restrictions was motivated by the far-reaching effects the lockdowns had on people's lives. Many people lost their jobs and were unemployed, others were unable to access healthcare, others didn't have social interaction and had their mental health negatively impacted.

I don't see an analogy for this with euthanasia. Supporting MAID for the poor and the homeless is just a much more unreasonable position from my point of view.

[Upper Canada Tory]

Something very bad has happened in canadian society especially among the young there, they are a lot in favour of killing people on the basis of poverty, that's some way radical conservatism there:

https://twitter.com/yuanyi_z/status/1655394452817555469

You see this as radical conservatism, I see it as pervasive hopelessness and a widespread belief that capitalism is broken with no way out (an incorrect belief if you ask me, of course).

It is radical conservatism, some Reagan and Thatcher people proposed doing the same to the poor and the homeless in the 1980's.

Cruelty instead of reform is a radical conservative thing.

Young Canadians are behaving like this:

How is it 'radical conservatism' if the Liberals (often with the support of other left-of-centre parties like the NDP) have significantly expanded medical assistance in dying in Canada, a policy which was opposed by the Conservatives?

Whereas Conservatives thought that doing anything to prevent the spread of Covid was Nazism.

Conservatives are concerned about the sancitity of life...as long as it doesn't impinge on their life.

Of course, I recognize that Progressive Conservative governments were mostly responsible, but the 'freedom' loving terrorist sympathizer Pierre Poilievre won the Conservative leadership overwhelmingly, and many Conservatives did argue that Covid protections were a violation of their 'rights.'

I find it reasonable to believe that a fair number of the people responding to this survey, especially young people, have the attititude of 'if people thought it was their 'right' to pass on a potentially deadly virus and kill somebody else, who am I to tell somebody that they can't commit suicide?'

I don't think that COVID public health restrictions were 'Nazism' & share your frustration with those who didn't adhere to them at the time. With that said, much of the opposition to COVID restrictions was motivated by the far-reaching effects the lockdowns had on people's lives. Many people lost their jobs and were unemployed, others were unable to access healthcare, others didn't have social interaction and had their mental health negatively impacted.

I don't see an analogy for this with euthanasia. Supporting MAID for the poor and the homeless is just a much more unreasonable position from my point of view.

There were negative effects caused by the pandemic. These would have been lessened with mandatory vaccine requirements after the vaccine became available.

It's not a case of supporting MAID for the poor and the homeless as saying that it should be their choice. Saying that people have the 'right' to pass on a deadly virus and kill others but don't have the right to access MAID and kill themselves is about as unreasonable a position as possible from my point of view.

I personally am very uncomfortable with the idea of supporting MAID for the poor and homeless, but, then I supported mandatory vaccines.

Sorry, I misspoke. I meant to say supporting legalizing MAID for the poor and homeless.

Vaccine mandates were implemented by the federal government and provincial governments did have vaccine passports (which is not the same as a mandate but the purpose and end result is the same).

[Upper Canada Tory]

Blaine Higgs seems to be surviving as Premier by a thread. Couldn't happen to a more deserving horrible person.

Another N.B. cabinet minister resigns from Blaine Higgs government
https://globalnews.ca/news/9788527/nb-trevor-holder-resigns-higgs-cabinet/

and with slightly different information
https://ca.movies.yahoo.com/brunswick-premier-loses-second-cabinet-161335475.html

On Wednesday, 26 out of 49 current riding presidents signed letters asking for Higgs to step down, claiming his leadership has divided the party.

What is the cause of his problems?

Officially, the repeal of Policy 713, which allows teens to be called by the pronoun of their choice in schools without parental approval, among other things.

Officiously, Higgs is trying to run the province and his party without listening to anybody (but his pastor), which has transformed the caucus, the Cabinet and party meetings into echo chambers where Higgs get upset if you don't agree with him.

How much more time would you give him?

He'll stay, he made pretty clear he'll call an election the second the party looks likely to get rid of him and replace every candidate by a lackey of him.

What are the selection arrangements for the New Brunswick PCs? Do the individual riding associations have a say, or is the decision ultimately in the hands of the party leader?

Candidates have to be nominated by the party members. From the PCNB party constitution:

4. In order to stand for nomination, the potential candidate must meet the following requirements:
4.1 Be a Member of the Party;
4.2 Meet the qualifications for a candidate under the Elections Act;
4.3 Be nominated and seconded by Members of the Party; and
4.4 Any person who wishes to have his or her name stand for nomination shall advise in writing the President of the
Registered District Association as well as the Executive Director of the PC Party of New Brunswick, no fewer
than fourteen (14) days before the nomination meeting, of his or her intent to seek such nomination, witnessed by
at least fifteen (15) members of the Party.
4.5 Any person who wishes to have his or her name stand for nomination shall submit such application forms,
declarations, background checks, bonds, and other requirements, and shall submit himself or herself to such
interviews, as may be established by the Provincial Council from time to time.

[Upper Canada Tory]

On productivity and Canada being lower than Australia, I think it is partly cultural too.  Canada has a very risk averse culture and that has advantages in that things are less likely to go wrong, but also disadvantage in that for growth and innovation, you have to take risks.  So while government policy has some impact on edges, I think culture has a bigger one.

I don't think culture is the main factor. A few decades ago Canada actually had relatively high productivity, despite still having a risk averse culture. What changed? Government policy with regards to productivity growth. Canada's attitude and policy toward foreign direct investment, research & development spending and innovation needs to change.