Canada General Discussion (2019-)

[OSR stands with Israel]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ro1spVdQO9Q

TLDR: Canada has a plan for what happens if the US becomes a full-on authoritarian fascist state. I've never been more ashamed of my own nationality.

Right Wing populists are ahead in the polls in Canada too.

The Conservative Leader is someone who became prominent by backing the Trucker Protest

Poilievre was elected leader of the Conservative Party with 70% of their votes before the terrorist occupation of Ottawa. Poilievre has also taken two positions on his backing of these terrorists. To Conservative partisans he proudly states his support and even sometimes what he did to support them, to Canadians in general though he denies any involvement and the he essentially only supported them in principal but opposed any of the lawlessness.

PP was elected leader after the convoy/occupation (O'Toole was turfed more or less due to his opposition to it) but the rest stands. I may be sympathetic to the centre-right and want action on cost of living and housing, but I'll find it hard to support a party led by a guy who chose to hold a meet and greet with Diagolon Nazis when he could have attended a Stanley Cup parade at the same time in the same city, no matter how nice his wife says he is.

It is a very hyperbolic overstatement to say O'Toole was removed because of his lack of support of the convoy. The CPC typically removes their leader after poor election performances (as what happened with Scheer in 2019).

I think people who associate Poilievre's leadership with the convoy horribly miss the point. The reason Poilievre is popular isn't because of the convoy, not amongst the Tory base nor amongst voters outside the Tory base. He's popular because of his focus and messaging on the cost of living crisis. Roman Baber and Leslyn Lewis were also in favour of the convoy - but they didn't win the leadership race!

Poilievre's support in the Conservative Party goes back before that. He nearly ran for the leadership in 2019 and would have been a frontrunner had he run. I think his support with Conservatives is mainly due to his 'attack dog' abilities.

In terms of candidate quality would you agree that Polievre is a better campaigner than Scheer or Erin . Like he has polling leads they never did and produces far more enthusiasm as well

[Independents for Nihilism]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ro1spVdQO9Q

TLDR: Canada has a plan for what happens if the US becomes a full-on authoritarian fascist state. I've never been more ashamed of my own nationality.

Right Wing populists are ahead in the polls in Canada too.

The Conservative Leader is someone who became prominent by backing the Trucker Protest

Poilievre was elected leader of the Conservative Party with 70% of their votes before the terrorist occupation of Ottawa. Poilievre has also taken two positions on his backing of these terrorists. To Conservative partisans he proudly states his support and even sometimes what he did to support them, to Canadians in general though he denies any involvement and the he essentially only supported them in principal but opposed any of the lawlessness.

PP was elected leader after the convoy/occupation (O'Toole was turfed more or less due to his opposition to it) but the rest stands. I may be sympathetic to the centre-right and want action on cost of living and housing, but I'll find it hard to support a party led by a guy who chose to hold a meet and greet with Diagolon Nazis when he could have attended a Stanley Cup parade at the same time in the same city, no matter how nice his wife says he is.

It is a very hyperbolic overstatement to say O'Toole was removed because of his lack of support of the convoy. The CPC typically removes their leader after poor election performances (as what happened with Scheer in 2019).

I think people who associate Poilievre's leadership with the convoy horribly miss the point. The reason Poilievre is popular isn't because of the convoy, not amongst the Tory base nor amongst voters outside the Tory base. He's popular because of his focus and messaging on the cost of living crisis. Roman Baber and Leslyn Lewis were also in favour of the convoy - but they didn't win the leadership race!

While Scheer definitely had opposition within the caucus after famously missing a goal on an open net, he ultimately resigned and didn't face a full-fledged caucus revolt and removal like O'Toole did. I'd definitely characterise the circumstances of the end of each of ther leaderships differently.

Poilievre's leadership campaign, to me at least, hinged on a combination of vax mandate grievance and railing against inflation as the two reasons why Canada wasn't free enough. I don't think he wins the party leadership in as much of a landslide without both of those coming together.

Regarding their record as Reform Party/Canadian Alliance members, yes Harper was chastised for his past controversial statements, but he was actually relatively moderate for a Reform MP. He frequently broke ranks with his party, like being the only Reform MP to vote in favour a Canadian Firearms Registry or, at a policy convention, was one of the few Reform delegates to vote against restricting the definition of marriage to being between a man and a woman. Harper also opposed Manning's propensity toward populism, which is very in character with how he governed. On the other hand, Poilievre is a natural populist and has been known to take a more hardline stance on most issues.

I think Harper is far less of an ideologue than Poilievre is.

As an aside, Stephen Harper has said the Conservative government he led from 2006 to 2015 practiced what he calls "populist conservatism." though in his book on the concept it seems he describes "populist conservatism" as being pragmatic when it comes to addressing the issues driving populist outrage.

[Benjamin Frank]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ro1spVdQO9Q

TLDR: Canada has a plan for what happens if the US becomes a full-on authoritarian fascist state. I've never been more ashamed of my own nationality.

Right Wing populists are ahead in the polls in Canada too.

The Conservative Leader is someone who became prominent by backing the Trucker Protest

Poilievre was elected leader of the Conservative Party with 70% of their votes before the terrorist occupation of Ottawa. Poilievre has also taken two positions on his backing of these terrorists. To Conservative partisans he proudly states his support and even sometimes what he did to support them, to Canadians in general though he denies any involvement and the he essentially only supported them in principal but opposed any of the lawlessness.

PP was elected leader after the convoy/occupation (O'Toole was turfed more or less due to his opposition to it) but the rest stands. I may be sympathetic to the centre-right and want action on cost of living and housing, but I'll find it hard to support a party led by a guy who chose to hold a meet and greet with Diagolon Nazis when he could have attended a Stanley Cup parade at the same time in the same city, no matter how nice his wife says he is.

It is a very hyperbolic overstatement to say O'Toole was removed because of his lack of support of the convoy. The CPC typically removes their leader after poor election performances (as what happened with Scheer in 2019).

I think people who associate Poilievre's leadership with the convoy horribly miss the point. The reason Poilievre is popular isn't because of the convoy, not amongst the Tory base nor amongst voters outside the Tory base. He's popular because of his focus and messaging on the cost of living crisis. Roman Baber and Leslyn Lewis were also in favour of the convoy - but they didn't win the leadership race!

Poilievre's support in the Conservative Party goes back before that. He nearly ran for the leadership in 2019 and would have been a frontrunner had he run. I think his support with Conservatives is mainly due to his 'attack dog' abilities.

In terms of candidate quality would you agree that Polievre is a better campaigner than Scheer or Erin . Like he has polling leads they never did and produces far more enthusiasm as well

Hard to say. I tend to agree with the longtime great media commentator Don Newman who extended the notion of 'governments aren't elected, they're defeated.'

This isn't Newman's exact quote which I can't find, but it was something like "whenever Canadians get tired of a government, they tend to notice positive qualities in the leader of the opposition that they hadn't noticed before, and they tend to think that negative qualities they had previously expressed about the leader of the opposition aren't important after all."

So, had Pierre Poilievre been the Conservative Party leader in 2019, for instance, who knows?

[CumbrianLefty]

Surely that statement implies the result would have been much the same?

Indeed, if the Liberals still had some credit in the electoral bank then they might have made his past "extremist" positions resonate with the electorate more.

[Benjamin Frank]

There are many commentators, like Andrew Coyne, who think that Harper's claim of populism was revisionist history after the election of Trump in 2016.

I don't know. Harper referred to himself as a 'Tim Horton's Conservative' (I don't remember if that was the exact reference but he frequently stated electorally he considered Tim Horton's customers as his preferred vote base.)

His signature move as Prime Minister, cutting the GST from 7% to 5% was a direct attempt to appeal to Tim Horton's customers. So, I think he definitely had some genuine populist insticts that aren't just revisionst history. However, he continued to embrace and expand free trade and did not reduce immigration levels, which seem to be the present scapegoats of populists (not that there aren't valid reasons to be unhappy with both.)

By and large his tenure as Prime Minister I think on most issues was led by his view that 'every day Canada is governed by the Conservatives is another day that Canada is less Liberal/liberal.'

So, I think he didn't necessarily do all that much as Prime Minister, especially in areas of social policy, because he thought he had to shift away Canadians from liberalism first before he could enact conservative policies.

His biggest concern of policy was clearly being a wholly owned subsidiary of the fossil fuel sector.

[oldtimer]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ro1spVdQO9Q

TLDR: Canada has a plan for what happens if the US becomes a full-on authoritarian fascist state. I've never been more ashamed of my own nationality.

Right Wing populists are ahead in the polls in Canada too.

The Conservative Leader is someone who became prominent by backing the Trucker Protest

Poilievre was elected leader of the Conservative Party with 70% of their votes before the terrorist occupation of Ottawa. Poilievre has also taken two positions on his backing of these terrorists. To Conservative partisans he proudly states his support and even sometimes what he did to support them, to Canadians in general though he denies any involvement and the he essentially only supported them in principal but opposed any of the lawlessness.

PP was elected leader after the convoy/occupation (O'Toole was turfed more or less due to his opposition to it) but the rest stands. I may be sympathetic to the centre-right and want action on cost of living and housing, but I'll find it hard to support a party led by a guy who chose to hold a meet and greet with Diagolon Nazis when he could have attended a Stanley Cup parade at the same time in the same city, no matter how nice his wife says he is.

It is a very hyperbolic overstatement to say O'Toole was removed because of his lack of support of the convoy. The CPC typically removes their leader after poor election performances (as what happened with Scheer in 2019).

I think people who associate Poilievre's leadership with the convoy horribly miss the point. The reason Poilievre is popular isn't because of the convoy, not amongst the Tory base nor amongst voters outside the Tory base. He's popular because of his focus and messaging on the cost of living crisis. Roman Baber and Leslyn Lewis were also in favour of the convoy - but they didn't win the leadership race!

I watched the news and O'Toole was indeed ousted because he opposed opposing the government.

What's the point of being leader of the opposition if you don't oppose anything ?
You can see their point in ousting him.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

To be clear, I'm not implying Harper was not a conservative (he definitely was), but I'm just saying he is not as much of an ideological purist as Poilievre.

This is an interesting debate, because there are several ways we can use to compare the two in this regard - either by their record long ago as Reformers, how they campaigned during elections and how they governed (though the latter is not possible for Poilievre as he has not governed yet).

In terms of how they campaigned during elections, I find one major philosophical difference between Harper and Poilievre. Harper was mainly focused on making government agencies more accountable, transparent, fiscally responsible and less bureaucratic, but not necessarily privatizing or downsizing the government agency outright. On the other hand, Poilievre is very hostile to government structures - he wants to privatize the CBC, is very critical of the Bank of Canada, has promoted bitcoin, even if only as a campaign tactic in poor taste. In this regard, Poilievre is definitely much more of an ideological purist than Harper - Harper wouldn't have advocated for any of those things.

Regarding their record as Reform Party/Canadian Alliance members, yes Harper was chastised for his past controversial statements, but he was actually relatively moderate for a Reform MP. He frequently broke ranks with his party, like being the only Reform MP to vote in favour a Canadian Firearms Registry or, at a policy convention, was one of the few Reform delegates to vote against restricting the definition of marriage to being between a man and a woman. Harper also opposed Manning's propensity toward populism, which is very in character with how he governed. On the other hand, Poilievre is a natural populist and has been known to take a more hardline stance on most issues.

I think Harper is far less of an ideologue than Poilievre is.

Fair enough, I see your point. Part of the difference between the two is just their personalities. Harper was always the more understated, unassuming type, and Pierre is...not. Ideologically, I'd say they're both somewhere on the spectrum between Mulroney-type blue tory market conservatism, and Manning-type populist institutional reform agenda. Things like social/cultural issues are politically expedient to both of them and clearly is more of a means to an end than what drives them politically.

But whatever ideological differences, what truly sets Pierre apart from Harper is not ideology, but personality. Harper was a famously risk-averse leader, which meant he didn't get in hot water as much, but was also afraid to take bold stances and measures. His M.O. was to do just enough to ensure stable conservative governance, no more, no less. Poilievre is more risk-seeking, and is willing to take stances Harper wouldn't be. Which in practice means that he's more of a high-risk/high-reward kind of leader. He's more likely to take more hardline positions on things like the CBC, but he's also able to generate more support by pushing a bolder message on generic pocketbook issues to a wider audience. Tories seem to be particularly bullish on young people and immigrants right now, two of the main demographics that put Trudeau in office in the first place. Harper was never successful with the former, and was only briefly successful with the latter after years of trying and failing.

[Bernie Derangement Syndrome Haver]

I've been a bit out of the loop - do we think the most likely scenario is the next election is around two years from now in 2025? Or could we see one sooner - and if so, when?

I know the Grits are very unlikely to pull the plug right now given their unpopularity...would Jagmeet be able to break the confidence and supply agreement if he wanted to? Would the NDP want to anytime soon (to vote with the Tories, Bloc and Greens to dissolve Parliament?)

I'm bored, I want an election to follow lol. Not knowing if the wait will be 2 years or only a few months is agonizing when you're an election geek!

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I've been a bit out of the loop - do we think the most likely scenario is the next election is around two years from now in 2025? Or could we see one sooner - and if so, when?

I know the Grits are very unlikely to pull the plug right now given their unpopularity...would Jagmeet be able to break the confidence and supply agreement if he wanted to? Would the NDP want to anytime soon (to vote with the Tories, Bloc and Greens to dissolve Parliament?)

I'm bored, I want an election to follow lol. Not knowing if the wait will be 2 years or only a few months is agonizing when you're an election geek!

The late 70s called, they wanted their long-stretches-without-jazzy-elections back!

[Hatman 🍁]

I don't think the NDP wants to be blamed for handing over the government to Skippy, so they're probably going to continue their timidity in their role as junior partners in the confidence and supply agreement.

[mileslunn]

I don't think the NDP wants to be blamed for handing over the government to Skippy, so they're probably going to continue their timidity in their role as junior partners in the confidence and supply agreement.

Agreed.  Layton got blamed in 2006 by many on left over Harper winning even though wasn't his fault.  I mean it was voters who made decision but agreed want to avoid that.  I think bigger problem both parties face is changing electorate.  Loss of Red Wall in UK and Obama-Trump counties are not unique to respective places, we are seeing same thing.  Main thing is parties need to pivot.  For Liberals upper middle class suburbs much like Biden is where they will compensate and already have by and large.  For NDP, urban core ridings is where they will make up for potential loss of blue collar resource based ones. 

So even though things not looking good for NDP now, I do think NDP can still gain seats.  If they were to sweep downtown Toronto, gain Halifax, a few in Montreal like Laurier-Sainte Marie, maybe another seat or two in Edmonton, a few left leaning in Lower Mainland, that could offset the more blue collar ones many expect them to lose (not saying they will but real risk).

[Bernie Derangement Syndrome Haver]

I don't think the NDP wants to be blamed for handing over the government to Skippy, so they're probably going to continue their timidity in their role as junior partners in the confidence and supply agreement.

Agreed.  Layton got blamed in 2006 by many on left over Harper winning even though wasn't his fault.  I mean it was voters who made decision but agreed want to avoid that.  I think bigger problem both parties face is changing electorate.  Loss of Red Wall in UK and Obama-Trump counties are not unique to respective places, we are seeing same thing.  Main thing is parties need to pivot.  For Liberals upper middle class suburbs much like Biden is where they will compensate and already have by and large.  For NDP, urban core ridings is where they will make up for potential loss of blue collar resource based ones. 

So even though things not looking good for NDP now, I do think NDP can still gain seats.  If they were to sweep downtown Toronto, gain Halifax, a few in Montreal like Laurier-Sainte Marie, maybe another seat or two in Edmonton, a few left leaning in Lower Mainland, that could offset the more blue collar ones many expect them to lose (not saying they will but real risk).

Agreed -- and they're well poised to gain the northern Saskatchewan seat (or at least just as likely as the Liberals depending on the candidate) following redistribution, plus they can still hold the northern Manitoba one and Nunavut (and gaining NWT is a possibility) and at least some of the less urban Vancouver Island ones. There's really only 5 or 6 rural non-Indigenous working class ridings the NDP holds right now (2 in northern Ontario, two on Vancouver Island, one in the BC interior, and maybe Skeena although that one also has a large Indigenous population). So really the realignment is already well on its way for the NDP and they are in a good position to have net gains even with a similar share of the popular vote if Libs fall a bit in urban cores.

[OSR stands with Israel]

I don't think the NDP wants to be blamed for handing over the government to Skippy, so they're probably going to continue their timidity in their role as junior partners in the confidence and supply agreement.

Agreed.  Layton got blamed in 2006 by many on left over Harper winning even though wasn't his fault.  I mean it was voters who made decision but agreed want to avoid that.  I think bigger problem both parties face is changing electorate.  Loss of Red Wall in UK and Obama-Trump counties are not unique to respective places, we are seeing same thing.  Main thing is parties need to pivot.  For Liberals upper middle class suburbs much like Biden is where they will compensate and already have by and large.  For NDP, urban core ridings is where they will make up for potential loss of blue collar resource based ones. 

So even though things not looking good for NDP now, I do think NDP can still gain seats.  If they were to sweep downtown Toronto, gain Halifax, a few in Montreal like Laurier-Sainte Marie, maybe another seat or two in Edmonton, a few left leaning in Lower Mainland, that could offset the more blue collar ones many expect them to lose (not saying they will but real risk).

Agreed -- and they're well poised to gain the northern Saskatchewan seat (or at least just as likely as the Liberals depending on the candidate) following redistribution, plus they can still hold the northern Manitoba one and Nunavut (and gaining NWT is a possibility) and at least some of the less urban Vancouver Island ones. There's really only 5 or 6 rural non-Indigenous working class ridings the NDP holds right now (2 in northern Ontario, two on Vancouver Island, one in the BC interior, and maybe Skeena although that one also has a large Indigenous population). So really the realignment is already well on its way for the NDP and they are in a good position to have net gains even with a similar share of the popular vote if Libs fall a bit in urban cores.

The fundamental problem for the NDP is being in this unofficial coalition is hurting their popularity too as they are getting blamed for the problem of the current government too . It’s why they haven’t gone up in the polls as they usually do when liberals fall

[brucejoel99]

https://twitter.com/CBCNews/status/1703852363419697613

[brucejoel99]

https://twitter.com/Gray_Mackenzie/status/1703864704152506659

[Ferguson97]

So I'm pretty out of the loop on this, how big of a deal is this if it's true? (I'm assuming it is)

[Benjamin Frank]

So I'm pretty out of the loop on this, how big of a deal is this if it's true? (I'm assuming it is)

Certainly Modi and Trudeau don't like each other and discussions on a free trade deal were suspended.

Modi is a Hindu supremacist who has cracked down on non Hindus and who blames Trudeau for not doing the same in Canada. At the same time as the meeting in India, Sikhs in British Columbia held a plebiscite (not the first place in the world to do this) on Khalistan independence, which obviously has no force of law.

Modi has demanded that Trudeau crack down on diaspora activities like this in Canada and obviously the Canadian government has pushed back.

However, in regards to the specific allegation made by Trudeau here, the RCMP has said several times that they don't believe the Indian government (directly or indirectly) was involved and that it was a local matter.

One problem in Canada for reporting on this, although the last story I heard on this on the CBC was reasonably balanced, is that the Canadian media takes a reflexively anti Canadian government position, so Modi's claims tend to be given as being 'valid' and truthful even though he is making anti democratic, anti free speech, and Hindu supremicist demands and is hardly somebody who claims should be taken at face value.

For an example of this media bias, you could check out retired Canadian journalist Terry Milewski who was shown up as the complete fool that he is for taking Modi's side in an issue supposedly involving Jagmeet Singh, but the media generally still regards moron Milewski as some kind of hero.

By this, I don't mean the national media is reflexively anti Liberal federal government, but reflexively anti government. This was true for Harper, Kim Campbell, Brian Mulroney... as well.

The closest thing to an exception to this was in regards to the Trudeau government and Donald Trump. The national media has been very slow to notice how similar Trump and Modi are.

[2952-0-0]

Ottawa has to respond with more than just expelling a diplomat. If that's the only price for conducting an assassination, then other countries will be emboldened to do the same. Russia can send agents to assassinate pro-Ukraine activists, China can send agents to assassinate anti-CCP activists, the Mossad can assassinate pro-Palestine activists. And if Trump gets in next year, he can send agents to assassinate anti-Trump activists. So there must more greater retaliation.

Perhaps, perhaps, collecting a dossier of senior BJP members with houses in Canada bought with stolen money would be a good start, and then leaking it two weeks before the Indian election. I don't know.

It's a good thing that the upcoming public inquiry into foreign interference is tasked to examine all nation-states, and non-state actors. It's also very sus why the Conservatives were reluctant to expand the inquiry's mandate. Could it be??? 🤔

[PSOL]

A very apt live by the sword outcome if true

[super6646]

Ottawa has to respond with more than just expelling a diplomat. If that's the only price for conducting an assassination, then other countries will be emboldened to do the same. Russia can send agents to assassinate pro-Ukraine activists, China can send agents to assassinate anti-CCP activists, the Mossad can assassinate pro-Palestine activists. And if Trump gets in next year, he can send agents to assassinate anti-Trump activists. So there must more greater retaliation.

Perhaps, perhaps, collecting a dossier of senior BJP members with houses in Canada bought with stolen money would be a good start, and then leaking it two weeks before the Indian election. I don't know.

It's a good thing that the upcoming public inquiry into foreign interference is tasked to examine all nation-states, and non-state actors. It's also very sus why the Conservatives were reluctant to expand the inquiry's mandate. Could it be??? 🤔

The harsh reality is there isn't much we can do unless the US is seriously willing to back Canada on this one and impose serious retaliatory measures against India. With the US' aim to try and contain China in Asia, I don't think they will risk hampering relations with India. Tough reality of international relations really, but there are no good guys here.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I've heard that it's possible they might ban remittances from Canada to India over this. Not sure how much stock to put into that, though.

[2952-0-0]

The harsh reality is there isn't much we can do unless the US is seriously willing to back Canada on this one and impose serious retaliatory against India. With the US' aim to try and contain China in Asia, I don't think they will risk hampering relations with India. Tough reality of international relations really, but there are no good guys here.

An outright confrontation with India - as with Russia - is unworkable. But, doing nothing isn't an option either. There are some serious cards that Canada has to play, and they should be used well. The US will want to see Canada push back as well, or else Indian agents will be conducting assassinations in the US without consequence.

There must be many officials from India's BJP who have bought property in Canada using stolen money. Any one of them can be seized under the Magnitsky Act. The property could be taken from some relatively junior officials, to avoid an uncontrolled escalation. The proceeds could be used to compensate the relatives of the victim. It would cause embarrassment to Modi himself, but wouldn't be worth breaking his relations with the entire western world. He - and other wannabe autocrats - would take the hint and learn that the cost of offending Canada - or any comparable nation - would be far greater than just an expelled diplomat.

So, while Canada isn't a superpower, it isn't powerless either.

[EastAnglianLefty]

I don't think the NDP wants to be blamed for handing over the government to Skippy, so they're probably going to continue their timidity in their role as junior partners in the confidence and supply agreement.

Agreed.  Layton got blamed in 2006 by many on left over Harper winning even though wasn't his fault.  I mean it was voters who made decision but agreed want to avoid that.  I think bigger problem both parties face is changing electorate.  Loss of Red Wall in UK and Obama-Trump counties are not unique to respective places, we are seeing same thing.  Main thing is parties need to pivot.  For Liberals upper middle class suburbs much like Biden is where they will compensate and already have by and large.  For NDP, urban core ridings is where they will make up for potential loss of blue collar resource based ones. 

So even though things not looking good for NDP now, I do think NDP can still gain seats.  If they were to sweep downtown Toronto, gain Halifax, a few in Montreal like Laurier-Sainte Marie, maybe another seat or two in Edmonton, a few left leaning in Lower Mainland, that could offset the more blue collar ones many expect them to lose (not saying they will but real risk).

Agreed -- and they're well poised to gain the northern Saskatchewan seat (or at least just as likely as the Liberals depending on the candidate) following redistribution, plus they can still hold the northern Manitoba one and Nunavut (and gaining NWT is a possibility) and at least some of the less urban Vancouver Island ones. There's really only 5 or 6 rural non-Indigenous working class ridings the NDP holds right now (2 in northern Ontario, two on Vancouver Island, one in the BC interior, and maybe Skeena although that one also has a large Indigenous population). So really the realignment is already well on its way for the NDP and they are in a good position to have net gains even with a similar share of the popular vote if Libs fall a bit in urban cores.

I don't think shrugging and accepting it's a re-alignment is a viable option for a serious party (and yes, I accept the NDP may not necessarily meet this definition.) Even if the NDP were to sweep the urban cores, if they wanted to hold meaningful power in future then that isn't enough seats to do so. They'd either need to be able to extend into the ethnoburbs or blue-collar provincial seats and a likely Liberal revival in opposition is likely to be a lot easier in the former than the latter.

[Agafin]

This is going to sound like "he was no angel" deflection but is it true that the organisation Nijjar was part of (Khalinstad or something) was openly calling for the assassination of indian diplomats in Canada? That's what I'm seeing bombarded in every indian subforum (on reddit) that I occasionally visit. They seem to be pretty universally on India's side (except the sikh specific ones).

Honestly, the world would be a better place if immigrants just left behind whatever their native countries' issues were once they go to another country. Be it middle eastern muslims trying to bring their religious cultures or indian sikhs trying to bring their seperatist movements and the like. You came to a new country for a better future, just keep the other stuff for when you go back home. I know that this goes against Canada's idea of a "salad bowl" or whatever their concept of multiculturalism is, but I'm sure some canadians would agree. 

[2952-0-0]

But Canada, like the US and Australia, is a free nation that also built its identity around migration. No one can be prevented from agitating about events abroad.

However, it's true that the political class should be treating foreign policy as a whole-of-nation issue, rather than gaining the votes of particular demographics. We support Ukraine because it's in the overall national interest, not merely because of the votes of the Ukrainian diaspora. That's true for the US as well, with the embargo on Cuba maintained purely to try to win Florida's electoral votes.