Canada General Discussion (2019-)

[cp]

Trudeau was asked about Trump's clearing of protestors with tear gas and threats to use the military against the protestors, and he stood silently figuring out which words he could use to not trigger Trump for literally 20 to 21 seconds. Translated from Canadian that roughly means something like "Trump is a piece of s___".

Being criticised for his "cowardice" by some, though your reasoning behind it is likely correct.

Those people are idiots. Canada has always needed to pull it's punches and be delicate with America, as our foreign policy and international trade both have heavy stakes in a positive Canada-USA relationship.

Agreed. I'm not inclined to cut Trudeau any slack and I usually find myself agreeing with Singh and the NDP's criticisms of him, but in this case I honestly can't think of a better response. Any Canadian PM who isn't dangerously incompetent knows that keeping a good relationship with the US, and the President in particular, is a top foreign policy priority. Doing so when said President is as volatile, malevolent, and vengeful as Trump is pretty much mandatory.

I will say, though, that the pause itself had a somewhat melodramatic performativity to it. You can take the man out of drama class ...

[cp]

RIP https://twitter.com/DuaneBratt/status/1307375189601050624

I don't mean for this to sound at all callous, but it's really amazing that Canada hadn't seen a former PM pass away since 2000: 20 years ago! With the recent news of Chretien's wife passing away too, it feels like the near future will see Canada lose quite a few historic policy-makers, & that's really unfortunate.

RIP, Prime Minister.

Sadly you might be right. Of the remaining former PMs, Clark, Mulroney, and Martin are all just over 81; Chretien is 86. Less likely to pass are Kim Campbell, who is a relatively spry 73, and Harper who's 61

Of course, we also had the heartbreakingly premature death of Jack Layton back in 2011, which came close to matching the elder Trudeau in outpourings of official mourning.  

[cp]

Can Canadians explain to me why when Harper prorogued parliament when he held a minority it was this travesty of democracy that made international news, and when Trudeau did it to stop investigation of the WE Charity scandal from hurting the Liberal Party further in a minority parliament (as well as going back on a campaign promise) it's not even discussed here on this thread or board I believe, or makes larger news?

Hmm, I could've sworn I grumbled about this on the thread... anyway to answer your question:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias

Ridiculous. Virtually all of the Canadian media leans to the right, so, if there is any bias it would be against the Liberals.

Everyone in this Canada general political discussion thread is a right-leaning Canadian media member?

There's a few posts about Bill Morneau resigning and then nothing.

I don't know why it wasn't mentioned here.  But, I'd hardly call the Canadians here as reflective of all Canadians or the Canadian media.

Atlas is representative of Atlas. There is nowhere else like this, and certainly not a whole country of us (thankfully!).

On media bias, I'm unconvinced by the arguments about media bias on ideological grounds. The broadcast media might lean a little left, the print media definitely right, but the bigger difference is between the corporate/conglomerate outlets and the local/independent ones.

Something of note: Harper gave an interview at some right wing conclave a few years back where he moaned about how the Canadian media was all stacked against him and that's why he lost in 2015. It was typical self-pitying whining, but I found it interesting how he made his point: he brought up the right wing trope of the supposed left wing bias of the BBC. He offered the riposte that had BBC reporting been disseminated in Canada it would have been the furthest right outlet 'by a country mile'.

[cp]

Can Canadians explain to me why when Harper prorogued parliament when he held a minority it was this travesty of democracy that made international news, and when Trudeau did it to stop investigation of the WE Charity scandal from hurting the Liberal Party further in a minority parliament (as well as going back on a campaign promise) it's not even discussed here on this thread or board I believe, or makes larger news?

Harper move cancelled three months of Parliament sitting.
Trudeau move postponed the end of summer recess by a week.

Harper also prorogued Parliament to prevent an imminent defeat of his government with the other parties poised to take power, that wasn't the case with this prorogation.

It was still wrong, because the purpose of the Liberals was clearly to shut down the investigation into the WE charity scandal, but the anti-Democratic nature is much less serious.

I find that explanation disingenuous. The Prime Minister's family are involved in a corruption scandal, the Finance Minister falls on a knife never admitting blame, and we're going to whisk that away? It was clearly a move to stop the Trudeau government from falling when they only hold a minority to start with. They couldn't do what they did with SNC Lavelin and just vote to not investigate because they didn't have a majority.

The Boys in Short Pants podcast Twitter had a funny line when Morneau was fined $300 post-fact for violating the Canada Elections Act. "I got a $280 ticket for jaywalking once. It was -20C I was wearing a T-shirt and trying to catch a cab. Don't judge my life choices."

What threat was there of the government falling? The NDP never made a serious move to suggest that, and without them there'd be no chance of Trudeau losing a vote of no confidence.

Not sure that line about Morneau is funny. Maybe you had to be there?

[cp]

I think timing is key too.  Tories are generally known as fiscally conservative and until economy recovers, no one wants to hear about austerity or balanced budgets.  But down the road this could come to bite the Liberals but probably after next election.  Realistically I think O'Toole needs to do better than Harper in Quebec to have any chance.

Lower Mainland is swinging hard away from Tories, but unlike provincially there are strong splits so while repeating Harper's showing in Lower Mainland of 2011 probably not realistic, no reason cannot do better than 2019.  Already have most of the Prairies and only a few ridings left there to win.  In Ontario, 905 belt is a mixed bag.  York region used to be solidly Liberal back in Chretien/Martin days, but nowadays its region Tories tend to perform best in.  He is from Durham region so has some local roots although I think Ajax and Pickering-Uxbridge have bad demographics and probably out of reach for Tories.  Pickering-Uxbridge maybe possible if he can start pulling off Trump like margins in rural parts (going through US precincts, that was how Trump stayed north of 40% in many suburban counties, but getting over 2/3 in rural precincts which outside Prairies Tories are not doing).

Peel region, need to like Doug Ford do better in cultural communities and I feel there is potential but usually it takes time to get known before you can breakthrough.  Harper took more than one election while Doug Ford due to his brother being mayor already had those connections.  Halton region is a lot like Loudoun County, Virginia, Fairfield County, Connecticut, or Chester County, Pennsylvania; not too long ago GOP won there easily, but now has become toxic.  Mind you if O'Toole takes on a more traditional fiscally conservative socially liberal, he could gain there, but only once we've recovered and concerns about deficits and big spending rise, which I don't see happening before next election.

London is gone and for Kitchener, only Kitchener-Conestoga and Cambridge winnable and likewise with Ottawa only Nepean and Kanata-Carleton.  That being said all of those do include some rural polls so again if like Trump O'Toole can run up the margins in the rural parts and not get blown out too badly in suburban parts possible but so far no Tory has yet done this successfully. 

For Atlantic Canada it tends to prefer Red Tories, so I think MacKay with his roots there and strong ties to provincial PCs probably had a better shot there than O'Toole but O'Toole an improvement over Scheer.

Realistically its true, Tories don't really have a path to 270.  Mind you in Ontario, PCs path to 63 is really difficult yet Ford managed to achieve it so if people are mad enough can be done.  But I think you need to reach throw the bums out level before this happens which we are not at yet.

I think just in general, now is a good time for the left and bad for right.  Look at how bad Kenney is crashing in polls and Pallister too.  People aren't interested in fiscal conservatism right now and libertarianism as Kenney is learning the hard way only sells amongst rabid base.  Thus the big challenge for Tories and I think Trudeau knows this so will go while public is still in left wing mood knowing eventually it will swing back towards centre.

Also wonder what role provincial politics will play.

Will Horgan's popularity help NDP win big in BC or does it just push NDP up enough to allow Tories to come up middle in several seats or no impact as seems lots of Trudeau-Horgan voters in BC.

Does Kenney's tanking approval rating cost O'Toole seats in Alberta, especially as Kenney endorsed O'Toole or do they as often the case separate two.  One pollster thinks Kenney is toast, although I think that is probably true if an election were held today, skeptical it will necessary be the case in 2023.  Definitely possible he loses but still time to recover, but any recovery in his numbers if it happens comes after next federal election.

Does Ford's rebound work in O'Toole's favour.  Liberals did well in Ontario by tying Scheer to Ford.  Now Ford is no longer a liability like he was last year.  Kenney is but Tories have a big enough cushion in Alberta and outside people's opinions aren't as strong so seat wise being tied to Kenney probably doesn't worry O'Toole too much but maybe helps Liberals gain a seat or two in Alberta.

What is Legault's impact?  He is very popular but likely stays neutral although I don't think any federal leader wants to get on his bad side.

They have a shot if they can win MI, PA, and WI?

[cp]

National Post pleads for unity:

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/np-view-conservatives-must-unite-behind-erin-otoole-if-they-are-to-defeat-trudeau

Its been a decade since Tories federally last won an election and it seems since then base has become more right wing while median voter more left wing so I believe the gap between two has become so large its not possible to appeal to both.  O'Toole is sort of all over map as trying to appeal to both but finding not appealing to either.  When Harper was leader, appealing to both was tough, but a skilled leader could do it.  Harper did it by staying close to centre on big issues but going right on peripheral ones to fire up base and hope public wouldn't care.  That worked then, but today median voter is now on left not dead centre while base has gone from right to even further right.

Expanding on what you said, Harper also benefited from an utterly dysfunctional and balkanized Liberal Party, while today's Liberal Party is a well-oiled machine with remarkable internal unity. People still doubt Trudeau's leadership chops, but the man has been able to run a tight ship without having to muzzle his caucus nearly to the extent that Harper did. All things considered, the Liberals look like the governing party, and that goes a long way in convincing LPC-CPC swing voters.

The CPC simply has nowhere to go, and so the right wing of the party is gaining relative influence. Perhaps things would be different without the pandemic, but as of right now, the Liberals have all the ingredients they need: their policies remain around the median of Canadian public opinion, government approval is strong, there is no infighting whatsoever, and scandals haven't gotten the better of them (yet). The CPC is therefore cornered into being the party of ideological conservatives, and Canada's just not the sort of country you can win with ideology alone.

Agreed, I see Conservatives in long term decline and while I don't want to say never, I don't see Tories forming government anytime soon.  I also think pandemic may be pushing a big shift left and Liberals have moved left with public while Tories are not and probably cannot without another split.

I'm loathe to do this, as I think it's usually just naive two-pint praxis, but it's remarkable how the Canadian Tories' and UK Labour's problems mirror each other right now:

- A decade out of power
- Split between an ideologically inspired grassroots and a compromise-for-power-at-all-costs elite which sneers at said grassroots with palpable contempt
- Facing an electorate that's moving decisively away from both factions' preferred policy programmes
- Ostracized/pathologized/condescended to by mainstream news/entertainment outlets
- Led by a milquetoast in pragmatists' clothing
- Opposed by a governing party/leader that is inexplicably resilient and/or tolerated

I'm not much more optimistic about Labour's chances than mileslunn is about the Canadian Tories'.

[cp]

A lot of commonalities sure, but one respect in which UK Labour is better off is that a lot of its policy programme is in itself quite popular (which is why our Tories have continually cherry picked ideas from it, especially since 2016) It doesn't look like the Canadian Tories have even that straw right now.

(and another recent poll showed them doing worse, and the NDP better, than the one cited above)

I see what you're getting at, but I think the picture is more complex than that. The Canadian Tories are out of step with the public on fiscal matters right now, but their policies and rhetoric on immigration are probably much closer to the median voter than the Liberals' are. Same goes with certain aspects of foreign policy (China, mainly), and matters of federal/provincial sovereignty in Québec and the Prairies.

Also worth noting how much Labour has mimicked Tory policies on crime and immigration for much of the past 30 years, and have doubled down on doing so in the past few months, to its considerable discredit.

[cp]

[snip]

Both in bad shape, but Labour at least has somewhat easier plausibility of winning.  Neither can realistically get a majority, but Labour in UK just has to deny the Tories a majority by more than 10 seats (so cannot form with unionist party) and they likely get to form government.  Tories in Canada have to actually win a majority.

I think a lot feel Labour is too far to left but I don't see same loathing towards them as Tories in Canada.  Most Canadians hate the Tories with a passion and are absolutely terrified at the prospect of them ever forming government again. Median Canadian voter is more left wing than median British so I think in past Tories could win, but now I think median has shifted enough left they are no longer electable.  In fact its arguable unlike a decade ago that NDP is closer to median voter than Tories are although Liberals closest.  Just many NDP types vote Liberal to keep Tories out while Tories have a base around 25% but their appeal beyond that limited and shrinking.

I'll grant Labour has a higher floor than the Canadian Tories, around 30% barring some SDP-style split. But the level of contempt shown for the Labour Party here is just as strong as the passionate hatred of the Canadian Tories. It's just expressed differently, more as a sneering condescension. Also, notably, a lot of that sneer comes from the Labour Party itself, specifically its rightward fringes.

The point about the shift in median voter habits is another parallel between the two parties, albeit a mirrored one. Both parties are facing a shift in median voter attitudes, but for UK Labour it's largely to their benefit: the public's warming to communitarian statist ideas that its left flank has long endorsed. Therein lies the rub, of course, because the party's recent leadership change has put the faction opposed to those ideas back in charge. For the Canadian Tories, they have the inverse problem: a public that's moving away from their activist base's beliefs on social and economic issues, but a recently elected leader that's much more in step with that shift.

[cp]

Layton strategist Brad Lavigne reflects on the 10 year anniversary of the orange wave.  Can't say it's a very profound analysis: the NDP "decided" it "wanted to win" and then...it almost did?

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-ten-years-after-his-orange-wave-the-ndp-must-recommit-to-jack-laytons/

'wanting to win' and variants like it has got to be the most meretricious non-analysis in political commentary today. I see it all the time in the UK and US when centrists criticize more radical co-belligerents in their parties. I guess it's no surprise the NDP isn't immune to it.

[cp]

In regards to the Canadian Senate, there certainly are regional inequities and I don't doubt they can be a problem, but the Senators being appointed seem to be taking more of a 'pan Canadian' approach.

At its best, the purpose of this Senate can be as a useful tonic to the 'fake news' problem of today.  The goal of the reformed Senate seems to be to create a body of general experts who can cut through the 'fake news' and act as a counterbalance to the craven elected House of Commons.  

Obviously it's too soon to say if it's having much of a positive effect.  I think once the transition period is over with and all the partisan Conservative Senators are gone, we'll have a much better idea (I know a few of the less partisan Conservative Senators quit the Conservative caucus to sit as Independents) if this experiment works or not, assuming the Conservatives don't get back into power and start appointing partisans again.

However, the Senate does already seem to be working as intended: amending generally agreed flawed legislation from the House.  It would be a mistake however to believe that the partisan Senate did not do this work from time to time previously.  Even prior to these changes, a number of Senate committees were highly regarded for the quality of their hearings.

The idea of a popularly elected lower House matched by an inferior but still powerful unelected upper House of experts is not new.  At a minimum, the United States considered this before coming up with the idea of its Senate to be elected by state legislatures and it was a proposal that was going to be discussed at the Russian Constituent Assembly in 1918 as well.  I'm sure other nations have considered the idea as well.  

Obviously I strongly disagree that this isn't real reform or that this isn't an idea with its own history and body of research behind it.  I don't really see the purpose or the reform that comes with a second body of craven elected politicians.

Welcome to the House of Lords Preservation Society!

Other than removing most of the hereditary Lords, I'm not sure what changes were brought in by Tony Blair or what has happened subsequently.  There are a lot of potential benefits to an unelected House of experts that has the ability to amend legislation but that ultimately realizes it has to defer to the elected House.

It can:
1.amend unconstitutional legislation rather than going through the time consuming process of court challenges (of course the Senators are assuming the legislation is unconstitutional, but if a group of non partisan experts think legislation is unconstitutional that's generally good enough for me, even if they aren't all lawyers.)
2.sit on craven populist legislation until the populist sentiment cools
3.propose unpopular changes to legislation or propose unpopular legislation that the House of Commons is trying to avoid (not dissimilar than the Supreme Court)
4.hold non partisan hearings that influence public opinion

I need to read up on this (and shall do so this summer) but yes, all he managed to do was reduce the number of hereditaries, which was probably a good compromise.

I mean, it was literally the least they could do besides absolutely nothing. There were proposals to expunge up to 80% of the desiccated appointees but they couldn't get enough Labour support to pass. (This was due to left Labour principled opposition to any non-elected HoL, something that I think was a dreadful mistake of theirs).

Fwiw, I think both upper chambers would be far better served by being selected by lottery from all eligible voters.

[cp]

That's terrific! I love how it sort of helps factor out the magnitude of loss/victory. 2011 and 1958 look a lot less like outliers or dramatic shifts, as it's clear the pattern of Liberal seats remained pretty much unchanged from before and after. 1984, on the other hand, really *was* a big shift, with the era of Liberal domination in Québec transitioning to the era of Liberal domination in Ontario.

Great work