Canada General Discussion (2019-)

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

https://twitter.com/theJagmeetSingh/status/1780329390666055745
Lol. Lmao, even.

How likely is it that Jagmeet breaks the confidence and supply agreement and an election is triggered?

As others have said, there's nothing for the NDP to gain by doing this. Conservatives have all the momentum right now, Liberals and NDP have none. Notice how Singh doesn't actually threaten to pull the plug - because that would be mutually assured destruction for both parties. The idea seems to be to slander the Liberals as corporate stooges who hate the poor and want them to die hungry and lonely in a gutter. Liberals make concessions, then the NDP claims that as a huge win for the left and votes for it. This is what happens. Every. Single. Time. So the game there is that Canadians still hate the Liberals and want them out regardless, but they might give the NDP enough credit for pushing left-wing policy and reward them with official opposition. This is a very weak strategy with a low chance of working, but at least the NDP will get some favourable policies out of it in whatever time the Liberals have left, whether or not they get credit for it. Triggering an election by contrast risks handing over an easy majority to an orthodox Harperite who's also good at playing the populist game and winning over traditional NDP voters like private sector union workers, who as polls suggest, have gone from being a three-way battleground in the last two elections to a solid Conservative vote bank.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

Another example of a provincial government in Canada backtracking on a policy they previously defended religiously.

B.C. Premier says changes could come to decriminalization project amid backlash

How badly do you have to screw up a country to then backtrack massively on literally all your policies just to stay in power?

BREAKING: Policy that sounds ridiculous turns out to be ridiculous. More news at 6.

Btw, "decriminalization" is such a weird thing to focus on. Here in Ontario, you tell me simple possession is still a criminal act. I'm not talking about the Criminal Code of Canada, I'm talking about whether that so-called crime actually gets enforced. All of the harm reduction policies that BC has been pursuing has been tried in virtually every major city in Canada, and I'm tired of people telling me that decriminalization is a thing we NEED to do in drug policy when in actuality, the government already massively subsidizes the use of hard drugs, which they don't do for ACTUAL crimes. I'm not saying we need to start locking up homeless addicts, that's not the right approach either, so I guess in principle I have no problem with decriminalization. I actually think some of the harm reduction policies are good, like providing clean needles so we don't have to deal with an AIDS epidemic on top of an opioid epidemic. But presenting "decriminalization" to the people and actually implementing policies that result in people being allowed to shoot up in children's playgrounds is a genuinely evil approach to drug use that is fundamentally dishonest to the people of Canada. Yes, I know that particular case was a decision of the almighty courts and not Eby or Trudeau, but they certainly opened the door to the courts even considering drug use in children's playgrounds as a genuine Charter rights issue by trying to destigmatize something that clearly should be stigmatized. Not to mention the other things that have happened, like flooding the streets with even MORE opioids (but you know, the "safe" stuff), which has made its way into the black market and will inevitably create MORE addicts, not less. And here again, Trudeau has given up the Liberal Party's traditional commitment to pragmatism and dove head-first into whatever nonsense the activist class is jerking themselves off over. Eby has allowed his province to become a human experiment in this nonsense, and ordinary people suffer as a result.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

https://twitter.com/theJagmeetSingh/status/1780329390666055745
Lol. Lmao, even.

How likely is it that Jagmeet breaks the confidence and supply agreement and an election is triggered?

As others have said, there's nothing for the NDP to gain by doing this. Conservatives have all the momentum right now, Liberals and NDP have none. Notice how Singh doesn't actually threaten to pull the plug - because that would be mutually assured destruction for both parties. The idea seems to be to slander the Liberals as corporate stooges who hate the poor and want them to die hungry and lonely in a gutter. Liberals make concessions, then the NDP claims that as a huge win for the left and votes for it. This is what happens. Every. Single. Time. So the game there is that Canadians still hate the Liberals and want them out regardless, but they might give the NDP enough credit for pushing left-wing policy and reward them with official opposition. This is a very weak strategy with a low chance of working, but at least the NDP will get some favourable policies out of it in whatever time the Liberals have left, whether or not they get credit for it. Triggering an election by contrast risks handing over an easy majority to an orthodox Harperite who's also good at playing the populist game and winning over traditional NDP voters like private sector union workers, who as polls suggest, have gone from being a three-way battleground in the last two elections to a solid Conservative vote bank.

the ndp are where they are now because of the official deal

Idk, I think the NDP would be in a tough position regardless because Singh is just not a good leader. But I guess we will never know if things would have turned out differently if not for the official deal. We will also never know whether Trudeau would have pushed for pharmacare, dental care, childcare etc without the NDP pressuring him. So whatever we can posit hypothetically, in reality the NDP is in the situation they're in, and I think staying in the agreement makes more sense than pulling the plug.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

Another example of a provincial government in Canada backtracking on a policy they previously defended religiously.

B.C. Premier says changes could come to decriminalization project amid backlash

How badly do you have to screw up a country to then backtrack massively on literally all your policies just to stay in power?

BREAKING: Policy that sounds ridiculous turns out to be ridiculous. More news at 6.

Btw, "decriminalization" is such a weird thing to focus on. Here in Ontario, you tell me simple possession is still a criminal act. I'm not talking about the Criminal Code of Canada, I'm talking about whether that so-called crime actually gets enforced. All of the harm reduction policies that BC has been pursuing has been tried in virtually every major city in Canada, and I'm tired of people telling me that decriminalization is a thing we NEED to do in drug policy when in actuality, the government already massively subsidizes the use of hard drugs, which they don't do for ACTUAL crimes. I'm not saying we need to start locking up homeless addicts, that's not the right approach either, so I guess in principle I have no problem with decriminalization. I actually think some of the harm reduction policies are good, like providing clean needles so we don't have to deal with an AIDS epidemic on top of an opioid epidemic. But presenting "decriminalization" to the people and actually implementing policies that result in people being allowed to shoot up in children's playgrounds is a genuinely evil approach to drug use that is fundamentally dishonest to the people of Canada. Yes, I know that particular case was a decision of the almighty courts and not Eby or Trudeau, but they certainly opened the door to the courts even considering drug use in children's playgrounds as a genuine Charter rights issue by trying to destigmatize something that clearly should be stigmatized. Not to mention the other things that have happened, like flooding the streets with even MORE opioids (but you know, the "safe" stuff), which has made its way into the black market and will inevitably create MORE addicts, not less. And here again, Trudeau has given up the Liberal Party's traditional commitment to pragmatism and dove head-first into whatever nonsense the activist class is jerking themselves off over. Eby has allowed his province to become a human experiment in this nonsense, and ordinary people suffer as a result.

It's insane how the definition of 'decriminalization' went from simply not arresting people for simple possession to the government handing out free drugs within a couple of years.

The left in 2014: "Come on, it's not like we're gonna start handing out opioids or something crazy like that!"

The left in 2024: *hands out opioids*

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

Another example of a provincial government in Canada backtracking on a policy they previously defended religiously.

B.C. Premier says changes could come to decriminalization project amid backlash

How badly do you have to screw up a country to then backtrack massively on literally all your policies just to stay in power?

BREAKING: Policy that sounds ridiculous turns out to be ridiculous. More news at 6.

Btw, "decriminalization" is such a weird thing to focus on. Here in Ontario, you tell me simple possession is still a criminal act. I'm not talking about the Criminal Code of Canada, I'm talking about whether that so-called crime actually gets enforced. All of the harm reduction policies that BC has been pursuing has been tried in virtually every major city in Canada, and I'm tired of people telling me that decriminalization is a thing we NEED to do in drug policy when in actuality, the government already massively subsidizes the use of hard drugs, which they don't do for ACTUAL crimes. I'm not saying we need to start locking up homeless addicts, that's not the right approach either, so I guess in principle I have no problem with decriminalization. I actually think some of the harm reduction policies are good, like providing clean needles so we don't have to deal with an AIDS epidemic on top of an opioid epidemic. But presenting "decriminalization" to the people and actually implementing policies that result in people being allowed to shoot up in children's playgrounds is a genuinely evil approach to drug use that is fundamentally dishonest to the people of Canada. Yes, I know that particular case was a decision of the almighty courts and not Eby or Trudeau, but they certainly opened the door to the courts even considering drug use in children's playgrounds as a genuine Charter rights issue by trying to destigmatize something that clearly should be stigmatized. Not to mention the other things that have happened, like flooding the streets with even MORE opioids (but you know, the "safe" stuff), which has made its way into the black market and will inevitably create MORE addicts, not less. And here again, Trudeau has given up the Liberal Party's traditional commitment to pragmatism and dove head-first into whatever nonsense the activist class is jerking themselves off over. Eby has allowed his province to become a human experiment in this nonsense, and ordinary people suffer as a result.

It's insane how the definition of 'decriminalization' went from simply not arresting people for simple possession to the government handing out free drugs within a couple of years.

Though in actual facts neither of those things is *actually* decriminalisation.

The first is merely more relaxed illegality, the second legalisation (and maybe then some)

Yeah, that's exactly the point. "Decriminalization" is a very small and honestly trivial part of what's happening with drug policy in Canada. That's what Eby and Trudeau have put on the shop window, but most of the problems people have with modern drug policy isn't with decriminalization, it's destigmatization and so-called harm reduction

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

Another example of a provincial government in Canada backtracking on a policy they previously defended religiously.

B.C. Premier says changes could come to decriminalization project amid backlash

How badly do you have to screw up a country to then backtrack massively on literally all your policies just to stay in power?

BREAKING: Policy that sounds ridiculous turns out to be ridiculous. More news at 6.

Btw, "decriminalization" is such a weird thing to focus on. Here in Ontario, you tell me simple possession is still a criminal act. I'm not talking about the Criminal Code of Canada, I'm talking about whether that so-called crime actually gets enforced. All of the harm reduction policies that BC has been pursuing has been tried in virtually every major city in Canada, and I'm tired of people telling me that decriminalization is a thing we NEED to do in drug policy when in actuality, the government already massively subsidizes the use of hard drugs, which they don't do for ACTUAL crimes. I'm not saying we need to start locking up homeless addicts, that's not the right approach either, so I guess in principle I have no problem with decriminalization. I actually think some of the harm reduction policies are good, like providing clean needles so we don't have to deal with an AIDS epidemic on top of an opioid epidemic. But presenting "decriminalization" to the people and actually implementing policies that result in people being allowed to shoot up in children's playgrounds is a genuinely evil approach to drug use that is fundamentally dishonest to the people of Canada. Yes, I know that particular case was a decision of the almighty courts and not Eby or Trudeau, but they certainly opened the door to the courts even considering drug use in children's playgrounds as a genuine Charter rights issue by trying to destigmatize something that clearly should be stigmatized. Not to mention the other things that have happened, like flooding the streets with even MORE opioids (but you know, the "safe" stuff), which has made its way into the black market and will inevitably create MORE addicts, not less. And here again, Trudeau has given up the Liberal Party's traditional commitment to pragmatism and dove head-first into whatever nonsense the activist class is jerking themselves off over. Eby has allowed his province to become a human experiment in this nonsense, and ordinary people suffer as a result.

It's insane how the definition of 'decriminalization' went from simply not arresting people for simple possession to the government handing out free drugs within a couple of years.

Though in actual facts neither of those things is *actually* decriminalisation.

The first is merely more relaxed illegality, the second legalisation (and maybe then some)

Yeah, that's exactly the point. "Decriminalization" is a very small and honestly trivial part of what's happening with drug policy in Canada. That's what Eby and Trudeau have put on the shop window, but most of the problems people have with modern drug policy isn't with decriminalization, it's destigmatization and so-called harm reduction

And prohibition has been a success for the last previous 90 or so years? Prohibition was, is and always will be a failure. There is no magical solution but the best policy by far that doesn't corrode society or lead to the deaths of thousands of people a year and that is consistent with freedom is to legalize and regulate illicit drugs.

The 'war on drugs' is authoritarian and murderous.

Yes, you're right, there are only two conceivable approaches to dealing with drug use. Either you're going full-on Reagan-era DEA and busting down crackhouses, or you have an unchecked proliferation of legal drug use beyond what even the likes of Portugal and Netherlands have allowed. There couldn't possibly be anything in between.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

The current immigration situation is very quickly turning into an emergency. Trudeau and his enablers the NDP think they can let in as many people as possible when no one's looking while trying to delay the reduction for as long as they can (which is why he is stalling until the fall to agree to the targets for the provinces).

Regardless of whether you are on the left or the right you should be concerned about this. With their immigration policy, the Liberals and the NDP are very quickly sowing the seeds in Canada for a permanent decline in living standards and long-term social tension and conflict. If they want to prevent this from happening, and boost their support in the polls at least to the extent that they still can, they have to reverse their immigration policy immediately. Not in a few months when they 'finalize the targets with the provinces' or whatever, but immediately. And when I say reverse immigration policy, I mean reduce both permanent and temporary residents to sustainable levels.

If the immigration situation isn't solved like, now, Canada will quickly develop a reactionary, far-right anti-immigration movement that may dominate the country over time, and at some point it will be impossible to reverse that trend. I don't think anyone wants that, because for the most part there has been a consensus that immigration has been a net positive for the country (and it's true, it has), but by completely ruining Canada's immigration system within a short period of time, the Liberals and the NDP are basically handing over the narrative to the hardline anti-immigration crowd.

What's shocking to me is that lefties in Canada don't even seem to care that much what's happening with immigration. Instead they seem to spend all their time dunking on Poilievre while ignoring the reasons why the Liberals and NDP might have such low support in the first place (and are seriously damaging the country).

Canada used to do immigration mostly right until 3 to 5 years ago. Why can't we go back to the old-school points-based system immigration? Does no one on the left notice the difference between how immigration is impacting life in Canada and attitudes toward it compared to how it was 5, 10, 15 or 20 years ago?

I'll be honest, I also have to hold Poilievre accountable here. As others like laddicus finch have mentioned, he does not do a good enough job holding the government to account for the immigration crisis. We're also supposed to take his word for it that 18 months from now when he takes office he will fix the immigration issue?

To be fair, Canada still has a points-based immigration system. That wasn't the only form of immigration under Harper (we still had family reunification, refugees, students, TFWs etc), and it's not like Trudeau has repealed the point system either. Although it's undeniable that there has been a shift away from the former to the latter.

Honestly, as far as the politics of it goes, it's all about numbers. Indian students have gotten the short end of this immigration debate (and not just the debate, I would argue outcomes have been worst for them too), but in reality I don't think it's so much about what kind of immigration, although perhaps it should be, it really is the numbers. People complain about them, sure, but if the government went back to 250k/year but with an immigration mix that's tilted towards students/TFWs/reunification/refugees rather than points-based, nobody would notice or care. It would still be bad, but outside of Conservative think tank types, it wouldn't be an issue. It's the fact that numbers are so high, and people notice just how high they are, that immigration is an issue.

Underlying this though is that I really think the patriotic myth (held by liberals) about the Canadian middle class being this lovely liberal group of people is unraveling. It is this class of people that massively supported a government that prioritized your typical centre-left priorities such as climate action, high immigration, drug decriminalization, and nebulous promises of more investment in public services. But clearly, all four of those priorities are now the root of a backlash by the very same group of people, because what underpins Canadian liberalism is that we're a stable, prosperous country with a strong market economy, where you don't have to be anything special in order to live a good life. When that economy falters, then we see all those priorities falling to the wayside, and people who voted for Trudeau just three years ago are now siding with a guy who wants to go scorched earth on the Liberal Party's legacy.

If the Liberals can refocus and convince the Canadian middle class that they'll (at least try to) restore their quality of life expectations, I don't think immigration will be a big issue anymore. Nor will the carbon tax, decriminalization, the budget deficit, or really any issue that is plaguing the Liberals. But it may be too late to re-establish that trust.

As for Poilievre and immigration, I've been critical of his softness before, but I've made peace with "we'll have immigration in line with our needs", with the understanding that if Poilievre doesn't reduce rates further than Trudeau has already scaled it back, his base will revolt.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

More generally though I wonder if the broad centre-left in the western world will start moderating on immigration rates because it's proving to be a real vote-loser. Sweden basically used to never have right-wing governments, for most of its postwar history it was governed by Social Democrats. At most you'd have a coalition led by a standard CDU-type conservative party, with its more conservative impulses moderated by centrist partners. This used to be a testament to the supposedly inherent progressivism of Swedes. But right now, Sweden is governed by a distinctly right-wing coalition that includes basically their PPC, which also happens to be the second largest party in parliament. And their rise was almost entirely to do with Sweden's high immigration rates.

Sweden is just one example, but you can take basically any European country and the same pattern emerges. In the states, I would argue that immigration is the #1 vote-winner for Trump, and should he win this November that will be why. Biden's hands are tied, even using the word "illegal" in his SOTU speech pissed off a lot of the Democrats' base. In the UK, of course, immigration was the main reason behind a Brexit vote that has objectively had awful outcomes for Britain. And in Canada, although Poilievre is significantly less anti-immigration compared to European right-wingers or Trump (it really isn't even a part of his pitch), there's no doubt that Liberal immigration policy has turned off a lot of former LPC voters.

So at some point, progressives will get the message, right? This is not a hill worth dying on. You don't have to go racist or full on close the borders like some right-wingers do, it's not one or the other. But why exactly must "high immigration" be such a key part of the modern left, when clearly all it does is give easy wins to the right?

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

Any guesses at seats?

I mean the next election isn't scheduled for another 17 months, so guessing seat counts right now is pointless.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

It's that time of year again: ‘Summer of discontent’ coming over public service in-office order: unions

I was sympathetic to last year's PSAC strikes (not that PSAC should even exist, but hey), because the Treasury Board put off discussions for two years only to give them a meager raise. If I were a public servant, I'd be pissed too. But this year, the discontent is entirely over the government's order for public servants to return to the office for 3 days a week.

I'm not sure what leverage they think they have. This was Singh's response:

Aylward and other union leaders sent a letter to the New Democrats urging the party to reconsider its “stance” over the NDP’s agreement with the Liberals.

The New Democrats are propping up the federal government through a supply and confidence deal. NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh would not answer whether he’s prepared to back out of the agreement, which would effectively trigger an election.

“We have lots of tools [at] our disposal with the agreement we have, which allows us to put a lot of pressure on the Liberals. We’re going to use that pressure. We’re going to use those tools to stand up for working people,” said Singh.

Yeah, based on that I'd say the likelihood of NDP revoking confidence over this is basically 0%. The threat of a non-confidence vote is the only real leverage the NDP has over Liberals, and it would be stupid to waste that power on this. I also doubt the public will be on their side. Whatever the merits of their argument, or the potentially misguided reasons behind this back-to-work order, there won't be much public sympathy if they strike. From a layman's perspective, this is a generally underworked and overpaid class of people crying foul at the horror of...having to go to the office...three days a week. Lmao.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

what are the odds singh carpetbags somewhere else?

If he does, it won't be a transparent carpetbag. One important factor is redistricting, the next election will be fought under a new map, which actually axes his current Burnaby South riding. That said, he's not getting gerrymandered out of his seat, because the new Burnaby Centre riding is nominally NDP and won't have another incumbent, so it's almost guaranteed that he'll run there.

Moving halfway across the country for a safe seat is just not something sitting MPs in Canada do, at least in modern times. It would look (and be) incredibly cynical and self-serving, which is not something Singh wants to be portrayed as. That said, if one of the three safe Vancouver-area NDP MPs decides to retire, then I could see him maybe switching. Moving from Burnaby South to, say, Vancouver East, wouldn't really be that big of a deal, and it would all but guarantee his re-election.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

Actually, after the last redistribution, Poilievre pulled a similar "soft carpetbag". He used to represent a rural-suburban hybrid seat called Nepean-Carleton, which was split into the ridings of Nepean and Carleton (duh). Carleton is the more rural and Conservative one, but Poilievre lived in Barrhaven, which is in the Nepean riding. So he moved to a small township on the outskirts of Ottawa called Greely, and ran for the more rural Carleton riding. Had he chose to stay in the Nepean riding, he almost certainly wouldn't be an MP today.

That being said, Barrhaven to Greely is like a 20 minute drive, and Greely used to be part of his old Nepean-Carleton riding, so it really wasn't much of a carpetbag. It's still part of the same city, and he had already represented that community for 11 years, so despite the transparent political calculation it wasn't a big deal. That's the kind of move I could see Singh pulling, but nothing more than that.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

Actually, after the last redistribution, Poilievre pulled a similar "soft carpetbag". He used to represent a rural-suburban hybrid seat called Nepean-Carleton, which was split into the ridings of Nepean and Carleton (duh). Carleton is the more rural and Conservative one, but Poilievre lived in Barrhaven, which is in the Nepean riding. So he moved to a small township on the outskirts of Ottawa called Greely, and ran for the more rural Carleton riding. Had he chose to stay in the Nepean riding, he almost certainly wouldn't be an MP today.

That being said, Barrhaven to Greely is like a 20 minute drive, and Greely used to be part of his old Nepean-Carleton riding, so it really wasn't much of a carpetbag. It's still part of the same city, and he had already represented that community for 11 years, so despite the transparent political calculation it wasn't a big deal. That's the kind of move I could see Singh pulling, but nothing more than that.

Greely is not and never has been a "township". It is an exurb, which used to be a rural (unincorporated) village before its recent exurbanization.

Anyway, you're right that it wasn't really carpetbagging. Carleton's primary successor riding was Nepean-Carleton (though, more of Nepean-Carleton went to Nepean). Can't begrudge him from running in the safer of the two ridings.

I sometimes forget that Ottawa's boundaries are comically large and places that feel like typical "townships" are actually part of the city. I can imagine how frustrating that must make municipal politics for you lol.

Regardless, yeah that's really the level of "carpetbagging" we see in Canadian politics. I've also noticed this often happens within the same metropolitan area, like in the GTA you'll sometimes see Tory sacrificial lamb candidates "graduate" from running in a no-hope urban seat to a more suburban one. But I certainly can't think of any examples of sitting MPs actually moving provinces. I guess there's Bernier switching from Beauce to Portage-Lisgar, but that was in a byelection after losing Beauce twice.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

Now this is an actual interesting poll. It gets a little boring seeing every poll confirming what we already know about the horserace, but this offers something new. Now there's not much history of religion polling in Canadian politics, and some of these sample sizes are probably too small, but it's interesting nonetheless.

The Christian denominations aren't surprising at all. Evangelical Christians are the most likely to vote CPC, yeah that's pretty obvious. It's weird seeing 73% support for any party, but considering the CPC is above 40% with the general public, not surprising that evangelicals are in the 70s. Mainline protestants are significantly more Conservative than Catholics too, but this seems to mostly come down to the fact that self-identified Catholics are disproportionately from Quebec. 16% of Catholics polled said they'd vote Bloc, which certainly validates that theory.

The non-Christians are more interesting. Atheists being quite left-wing is no surprise, while "no religious identity" is closer to the general population. It doesn't surprise me to see CPC support among Muslims in the teens, but NDP 41% LPC 31% is a little surprising considering how solidly Liberal the Muslim vote has been. I figured the Israel/Palestine issue would hurt the big two and help the NDP among Muslims, but not by this much.

And on that topic, I would have guessed the Jewish vote would be a little more Conservative at the NDP's expense, but maybe I'm overestimating the conservatism of Canadian Jews because ridings like Thornhill. More conservative Jews (typically Soviet-era or Israeli immigrants) tend to be more concentrated in ethnic enclaves while more liberal, secular, pre-WWII Jews tend to be more spread out, so it's easy to overestimate just how Conservative the Jewish vote is. Still, I'd imagine the Gaza War is helping the Tories a few points with the Jewish vote.

Now Hindu and Sikh, I haven't the faintest clue what's going on. Maybe someone more clued into the Indian diaspora can explain this. If there really is a big rightward swing among non-Muslim South Asians, we could see the Conservatives doing much better than projected in South Asian ethnoburbs, and this is a very large diaspora that is relevant in tons of key ridings. A lot of universal swing projections show pretty bizarre results like Spadina-Fort York and Vancouver Centre going Tory while ridings in Scarborough and Surrey remain Liberal, but if there's something to this poll and Tories really are above 50% with Hindus and Sikhs, we would likely see the opposite.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

Btw, that poll is also an example of why I don't buy the fantasy that some conservatives have that just because immigrant groups aren't "woke", they're natural Conservatives. Frankly I just don't think most first-generation immigrants know or care much about North American culture war dynamics, and it doesn't seem to affect how they vote. This poll suggests that Muslims are the most left-wing religious demographic in Canada, even more so than atheists. Yeah, somehow I don't think the 72% LPC/NDP support among Muslims boils down to Islam being such a woke religion that is famously pro-LGBT or whatever. The issues that seem to concern immigrant voters are often different than native-born Canadians.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

Actually, after the last redistribution, Poilievre pulled a similar "soft carpetbag". He used to represent a rural-suburban hybrid seat called Nepean-Carleton, which was split into the ridings of Nepean and Carleton (duh). Carleton is the more rural and Conservative one, but Poilievre lived in Barrhaven, which is in the Nepean riding. So he moved to a small township on the outskirts of Ottawa called Greely, and ran for the more rural Carleton riding. Had he chose to stay in the Nepean riding, he almost certainly wouldn't be an MP today.

That being said, Barrhaven to Greely is like a 20 minute drive, and Greely used to be part of his old Nepean-Carleton riding, so it really wasn't much of a carpetbag. It's still part of the same city, and he had already represented that community for 11 years, so despite the transparent political calculation it wasn't a big deal. That's the kind of move I could see Singh pulling, but nothing more than that.

Greely is not and never has been a "township". It is an exurb, which used to be a rural (unincorporated) village before its recent exurbanization.

Anyway, you're right that it wasn't really carpetbagging. Carleton's primary successor riding was Nepean-Carleton (though, more of Nepean-Carleton went to Nepean). Can't begrudge him from running in the safer of the two ridings.

I sometimes forget that Ottawa's boundaries are comically large and places that feel like typical "townships" are actually part of the city. I can imagine how frustrating that must make municipal politics for you lol.

Regardless, yeah that's really the level of "carpetbagging" we see in Canadian politics. I've also noticed this often happens within the same metropolitan area, like in the GTA you'll sometimes see Tory sacrificial lamb candidates "graduate" from running in a no-hope urban seat to a more suburban one. But I certainly can't think of any examples of sitting MPs actually moving provinces. I guess there's Bernier switching from Beauce to Portage-Lisgar, but that was in a byelection after losing Beauce twice.

I mean MPs sometimes have carpetbagged from their home turf to somewhere more electorally viable or immediately accessible if they are running for the first time. Singh running in Burnaby and Elizabeth May in Saanich are just two very prominent examples that are in a similar boat to the Bernier example. You have it right though for after someone gets elected.

Right, on second thought Singh is probably the best high-profile example of this. Elizabeth May at least hadn't been elected to anything, she ran in Central Nova, lost, then moved to Vancouver Island. Singh actually has been an elected official in two separate provinces.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

I'd imagine those Muslim numbers are a bit off (they are usually the most solidly Liberal group), but if true, then we know the Israel-Palestine conflict is going to make things difficult for the Liberals in heavily Muslim ridings. I wonder if they're even at risk of losing my home riding of Ottawa South? :-o 

For what it's worth, I think the fundamentals still look decent for the Liberals with Muslim voters. ARI also published leadership favourability by religious group:



Singh is easily the most favourable party leader according to Muslim voters, but we've seen in the past that Singh's favourability doesn't always translate to NDP votes. Perhaps more importantly, Poilievre is wildly unpopular with Muslims, and Trudeau is...well he's not exactly popular with anyone, but his net favourability is higher among Muslims than any other category in that poll. Add on top of that the fact that Muslim voters have been quite reliably Liberal, and the ridings with the largest Muslim concentrations usually don't have much history of voting NDP, and I think the Libs still come out on top with this group.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

The fact that Singh is in the negatives with Sikhs is a disaster. I mean, I've heard anecdotally he was

Interesting, any particular reasons/theories as to why?

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

Speaking of Sikhs though, I had no idea the Sikh population is so concentrated in such a small number of municipalities. Brampton and Surrey alone comprise 40% of Canada's Sikh population. If you add Abbotsford and Edmonton too, you get over half.

But maybe that's also why Sikhs are so prominent in Canadian politics, at least relative to their population. Geographically concentrated diasporas have a huge advantage in getting elected due to the nature of nomination elections.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

Guys just concede the next election, this is such an embarrassing thing to post on your website.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

1.The actual cost of the drugs themselves is pennies and the supply chain is straightforward. Safe supply is far cheaper than treatment, if the concern is cost.

2.Overdose deaths have increased everywhere. This is what I meant by media narratives promoting falsehoods. The only published study showed that drug decriminalization in Oregon did not lead to increased deaths relative to other areas. This study was never promoted by the media and nor is the increase in deaths in all the places that haven't engaged in decriminalization.
https://www.opb.org/article/2023/09/27/oregon-drug-decriminalization-measure-110-overdose-deaths/

Danielle Smith in Alberta even deliberately lied about the number of death to promote her false claim that Alberta's drug treatment programs work.
https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2023/06/29/Drug-Deaths-Discredit-Alberta-Model/

3.Some people morally don't like the idea of the government being a 'drug dealer' I don't like the government, in my name, killing people through policies that Defacto promote unsafe illicit drugs and I don't like these same policies Defacto promoting criminal gangs.

It's a fairly obvious point in economics that when something is illegal, only the worst people will engage in the activity on the supply side such as these gangs and, for instance, when it was illegal to compete against the monopoly taxi cartels. Uber was run by some of the worst people alive and they were all let go when their business was legalized (or around the same time.)

Of course, government as the 'drug dealer' is only the case where drugs remain illegal, legalize and regulate drugs and they'd operate as any other market, such as with cannabis, cigarettes....
So, I agree with you, get government out of the way, and there is no need (or a much smaller need) for the government to provide 'safe supply.' As with other regulated industries, the cost of the regulations are paid for through the taxes paid by the industry.

3.Voluntary drug treatment can work and can be promoted as well, but keeping people alive, especially when it's government policy that is causing the illicit unsafe supply, should be the priority.

4.As to the cost of illicit drugs. Wow, we need to make drugs illegal to stop this...oh wait, drugs already are illegal and governments can't prevent people from making them or selling them and other people using them. The alleged savings from drug treatment in terms of cost might be possible but is another example of 'government spending pays for itself' which this federal Liberal government has become so fond of claiming.

On the effectiveness of drug prohibition, another Thomas Sowell quote unironically:
“Those who cry out that the government should ‘do something’ never even ask for data on what has actually happened when the government did something, compared to what actually happened when the government did nothing.”

Milton Friedman explained all the reasons prohibitions can never work, except to increase prices of illicit substances, which is usually a bad thing in itself and is usually welcomed by the illicit gangs.

Of course, Friedman might have been referring only to relatively free societies like the United States, because prohibition is claimed to be effective in authoritarian states like Singapore. However, certainly it's impossible to simply pick and choose what policies Singapore uses to supposedly achieve this. You might not need to do everything Singapore does to claim to be 'drug free' but the citizens certainly need to have the mindset that authoritarian policy is worth the cost.

This is an article written by Friedman that summarizes (some of) his arguments:
https://miltonfriedman.hoover.org/internal/media/dispatcher/214093/full

Oddly, left out is probably the most important argument in all this: drug dealing is not a crime like theft because both parties in the deal want the deal. This is where the term 'victimless crime' comes from. Even those who disagree with that term need to recognize that because of this, only authoritarian measures can prevent the sale of drugs, such as widespread use of cameras, searches of bank records and police warrantless 'stop and frisk.'

It certainly seems to be the case that most people who claim to support 'the war on drugs' generally balk at doing the things necessary to actually prosecute it.

Coming back to this only because you clearly put a lot of thought into this, and I don't want to completely ignore it. That said, I've been spending a little too much time on the internet lately and I'll probably take a little hiatus, so I might not continue this discussion further.

The thing is, I don't necessarily think you're wrong in the points you make. I can't speak for BlahTheCanuck (but we do seem to have very similar views on this...and basically everything else lol) but a lot of people who are frustrated with this approach to drug policy, myself included, are actually pretty agnostic on the "decriminalize" part of it. You're right that prohibition hasn't worked, the criminality of drug use didn't stop so many people from getting addicted anyway. Ultimately I just don't think it matters what the Criminal Code says, because at some point Canada reached a consensus that pursuing war on drugs strategies was a futile endeavour. You cite the Alberta model, which also hasn't proven a resounding success - but even this conservative approach by a very conservative government isn't one that emphasizes, or really even enforces, the criminality of drug abuse.

That's why I think decriminalization is a false priority. Look, when even the most right-wing government in Canada isn't actually enforcing the criminality of drug abuse, I think it's pretty dishonest to act like the criminal status of drug abuse is the fundamental issue of the opioid crisis. I'm not accusing you or any other private citizen of dishonesty, but I do think this is a fair accusation to make of the politicians who have packaged an entire suite of fairly radical changes to drug policy under this banner.

A big part of the problem is really just the shock factor of how we've made drug abuse a public matter. Canadians have every right to be shocked and offended that the abuse of deadly drugs is now something that ordinary non-addicted people can't get away from. In the name of harm reduction, the BC pilot project made everywhere an acceptable venue for hard drug abuse, including particularly sensitive places like playgrounds, hospitals, and schools. It's patently ridiculous to expect that Canadians would just think this is okay and normal. It's clearly not lost on David Eby, who was looking at a 2001 Gordon Campbell style landslide a few months ago, and is now at risk of losing to frankly a very amateurish Conservative party that basically nobody has voted for in 7 decades. And this is part of a broader frustration with Canada's progressive intelligentsia, who make their arguments based entirely on studies and theories rather than an observation of how these policies shake out on the ground. But the ground is where the rest of us peasants live.

There's also something so inherently preposterous about the idea that making it easier to access a bad thing could ever lead to less people doing that bad thing. In recent decades, pretty much every western government has significantly curbed cigarette smoking, in large part by making it basically impossible to smoke anywhere indoors.

Here in Ontario, you can't smoke inside a workplace, restaurants and bars (incl. patios), children's playgrounds, government buildings, stadiums, arenas, etc, all places where people used to smoke not too many years ago. Cigarette smoking has become a very inconvenient habit to have. Now, nicotine is a very addictive drug and smokers struggle to quit, but the greatest success of these policies was that less and less people picked up the habit in the first place, because they were less exposed to it. It became less "normal" to smoke. Vaping reversed this trend, but now governments are trying to crack down on that too, following the same model that had resounding success with cigarette smoking.

I'm not equating nicotine to fentanyl, I know these are different drugs. Granted nicotine has been proven to be as addictive as heroin, but fentanyl is a different beast, and you can't OD on cigarettes the way you can with opioids. Regardless, governments followed a very obvious, common-sense strategy to reduce the number of people who pick up smoking in the first place - make it less likely for people to be exposed to that habit, and they're less likely to pick it up.

Let's think about literally any other kind of addiction. If I'm an alcoholic or at risk of alcoholism, and the government makes it easier for me to access alcohol by installing whiskey vending machines on street corners, am I more or less likely to drink? If I enjoy gambling a little too much, and the government announces thousands of new casinos, am I more or less likely to gamble? I could go on, but it should be pretty damn obvious that making it easier to access a thing makes it more likely for more people to do said thing. And if said thing is addictive, then making it easier to access invariably leads to more addicts.

Maybe there's a public health benefit to supplying government-funded, tested opioids to opioid abusers, namely in reducing overdoses. Sure. But does the same policy not also make it harder for those addicts to quit, and perhaps more importantly, does that not make it easier for people at risk of addiction to fall into that habit? I don't know how you could argue that it doesn't. Making addicts less likely to overdose and die is a good thing, but creating more addicts and making it harder for them to quit is not.

And beyond opioids - on opioids and other IV drugs, I've argued that supplying clean needles is actually a good thing because it reduces the likelihood of STD transmission. But what about drugs that are smoked, like crack? As far as I know, you can't get AIDS from sharing a crack pipe. So what's the argument for the government supplying those?

The onus is on the governments of the day to figure out something that works for the public. The public, broadly speaking, rightly sees drug abuse as a disgusting and destructive force, and doesn't think increased public exposure to such things is in our best interest. They also don't want their taxes to go to buying drugs and creating more addicts (ironically, this is something that leftists correctly criticize about Reagan-era CIA funneling cocaine into America in order to support the Contras in Nicaragua...funny how flooding the streets with drugs is a good thing when the left does it, but a bad thing when it's the right). I think those are the main concerns, at least those are the concerns I have. The way we construct drug policy needs to take into account the interests of the broader public which doesn't use these drugs, and the tendency of progressives to scorn the public for supposedly being regressive and not enlightened enough to understand their pet projects is probably the single biggest reason for right-wing populism being on the rise all around the world.

Credit where it's due, Trudeau did take this into account when rejecting Toronto's request for decriminalization. But frankly I think Poilievre deserves more credit for actually bringing this up in parliament and forcing Trudeau to defend his decriminalization policies, something he couldn't do and therefore is backing down from.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

Tbh, I've largely become disillusioned with politics lately. As most people who read my posts know, the issue I'm currently the most concerned about is Canadian immigration policy - however, the government has sent very mixed messages on this issue, leading most people to guess how (or even if) the immigration crisis will be solved. They say they will release targets in September, so I will be waiting patiently until then.

Otherwise, politics has become a boring series of annoying soundbites and talking points. In Canada, Poilievre is campaigning on his own set of sound bites (eg, carbon tax and lobbyists) and Trudeau/Singh have their own soundbites (Poilievre is a climate change denier, wants to take away abortion rights, etc.). It's annoying because it's very hard to have any kind of serious policy debate anymore on any issue - politics has just been reduced to the lowest common denominator of talking points. US politics & politics in other countries is largely the same - Democrats say Trump is a threat to democracy/abortion rights/whatever, Republicans accuse Biden of being weak & senile, etc. Then there is also the fixation on issues that have been overdiscussed to death, like various culture wars and the Israel-Palestine conflict.

It would be nice to hear some interesting and creative policy debates & new ideas, rather than the same tired repetitive talking points that I've heard for years at this point. But I don't think that will happen anytime soon, so I guess I will post less frequently on Atlas or take a break from Atlas altogether until something interesting happens in politics.

I hear you, and unfortunately I don't think we're gonna get anything interesting for the remainder of this parliament. The whole "wacko" episode was a good example. Poilievre isn't going to shake things up with the polls the way they are, and the Liberals are trying to cling on to anything they can at this point. The next election can't come any sooner, and not just because I want a CPC government, but I'm also frustrated with the political dynamic being so stagnant.

If things do get more interesting though, I hope we see you back!

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

This is probably a massive nothingburger, but Gurratan Singh is a lobbyist for Metro?

For those uninitiated, Metro is a grocery store chain, and the main competitor to Loblaw, a company that has been a huge target of the NDP's attacks. Gurratan Singh is a former Ontario NDP MPP and the brother of Jagmeet Singh. The two of them are known to be very close, including in a political capacity.

Guys, I'm not alleging that Jagmeet is a Metro plant lmao. Gurratan is a defeated politician, and defeated politicians turn into lobbyists. It's more the fact that NDP's line is always some sanctimonious rendition of "we're not like those other politicians, we care about people, not profit. Between this and NDP supporters acting like landlords are earthly manifestations of the devil (while Jagmeet's wife is gasp a landlord), come on guys. Let's stop pretending that you're above wanting to make money like the rest of us.