Canada General Discussion (2019-)

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

This is where I think the Liberal government went off track.

There are some people who think that governments are all politics all the time and are complete incompetents otherwise, there are those who think that governments are some kind of evil geniuses with complete control over 'everything' (oddly, many people seem to think both.)

My view is somewhere in the middle. Governments are mostly made up of decent but flawed humans who have imperfect information and an inability to understand the full consequences of their policies anyway, even at the macro level.

There are two types of thinking: the concrete 'micro' level practical thinking, and the abstract 'macro' level 'big picture' thinking.

Beyond this, there is the idea in social science of 'partial equilibrium' and 'general equilibrium.' Partial equilibrium is based on what social science refers to as 'first order effects.' That is, the immediate or 'concrete' consequences of, in this case, government policy. General equilibrium is based on 'second order effects', 'third order effects... Much more complex abstract thinking is required.

Most humans, are good at understanding 'first order' effects but get pretty hopeless taking it further. There is no reason to believe that politicians are any different.

Then, there is this silly notion that governments have perfect information. In reality, governments make 'macro level' decisions based on theories, whether they are from political science, economics, sociology...

When the Liberals were first elected in 2015, they argued, backed up by many economists, that government spending could boost 'supply side' productivity so would result in at least enough revenue to the government to finance the interest costs on this increased deficit.

That was essentially what they argued at that time.

At some point however, this government became enamored with this notion, just as at least some people on the right used to sincerely claim (like Jack Kemp) that 'tax cuts pay for themselves' that 'government spending pays for itself.' This is the argument that the Liberals made when it came to (supposedly) rolling out child care, for instance: the increase in the labor force participation rate would be so great with child care, that it will end up bringing in as much revenue as it costs.

I think you can see the big difference from claiming that increased government spending could boost productivity enough to pay for the interest on the increase in the deficit, to the increased government spending will pay for itself.

Anyway, very unfortunate when governments take their theories to an extreme level and believe it, but I think that's what happened here.

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

To add to the last post: rent control also has the perverse effect of discouraging rental housing.

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

So can anyone actually explain what these new public workers are doing? Is it literally just digging holes with a spoon? Some of it is somewhat required due to population growth I guess.

Some of it has gone in to hiring additional police officers. Do you think we should defund the police?

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

The government increased the percent of a capital gain subject to tax from 50% to 67% for those earning over $250,000 a year.

As a history lesson, this provides another example of the conservative (also meaning cautious here) nature of the first term of the Pierre Trudeau Liberal government. I've mentioned previously the only additional social spending was for the rollout of Medicare passed but not implemented under the Pearson government as well as for increases in social security.

In addition to the Trudeau Liberals shelving the LeDain Commission report that recommended legalizing marijuana, the Trudeau Liberals also shelved a Royal Commission on taxation that recommended taxing all income equally under the slogan 'a buck is a buck.' For those concerned, this would not have effected tax progressivity, only that all forms of income would be subject to the same marginal rate the person was paying.

I agree with that. Different tax treatments for income ultimately distort markets.

Edit to add: One more point on this, there is an argument that the Trudeau Liberals lost their majority in 1972 due to this conservatism, and it seems Justin Trudeau has taken that to heart.

I think the better explanation for the Pierre Trudeau Liberals fortunes is that they focused on issues that weren't of concern for most Canadians, like official bilingualism. I don't necessarily totally agree, but it can be easily argued this was a problem for the Justin Trudeau Liberals as well.

It really is interesting how much of a failure the Pierre Trudeau government was from 1968-1979. Had he not gotten a second chance in 1980 and achieved patriation of the Constitution, Pierre Trudeau would easily go down as one of the worst Prime Ministers in Canada, certainly far worse than Justin Trudeau from 2015-2021.

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

Many Conservatives who decry the deficit also oppose the tax increases (and want the carbon tax eliminated) and want massive increases in military spending and a massive new social program for forced mandatory treatment of drug addicts (which would obviously also require hiring a lot of new public servants.) It's hard to take these things seriously.

To be sure, Poilievre himself has (wisely) not committed to increase military spending to 2% of GDP and has also lied that this new social program would be financed through the revenue received from suing Perdue Pharma.

One last history lesson: up until the mid 1980s, the official opposition used to put out an alternative budget.

Edit to add: One more point. I'm sure that there is bloat and redundancies in the government. These things tend to be much smaller than people believe (just as the amount actually spent on foreign development is much lower than people believe.)

In the mid 1990s and early 2000s both Mike Harris and Gordon Campbell also campaigned promising 'painless cuts.' Mike Harris' budget cuts led to Walkerton and in British Columbia...

There were, as there always are, a series of problems in the late 1990s for children in care under the protection of the Ministry of Children and Families. As leader of the opposition Campbell promised to not only not cut funding to this ministry, but to increase it. In his first budget as Premier, in order to cut taxes and reduce the deficit, he cut the budget to the Ministry of Children and Families by 50%.

In terms of whether this cut in funding had an impact, in early 2004 Christy Clark was going to be moved from Minister of Education to Minister of Children and Families, and she responded by quitting the government and going to work for radio station CKNW (she didn't have that job lined up before quitting, she did nothing unethical in that.) She knew that being the minister of that department would end her desired political career advancement because the problems in the ministry had gotten so bad.

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

Not that anybody asked, but a little more (simplified) history on the Pierre Trudeau governments.

Each term seems to be quite discrete.

1968-1972. Pierre Trudeau, although far more of a pragmatist than he had led people to believe (I mentioned the conservative nature) but also in terms of being completely on top of government files, sometimes more so than the relevant minister, this term largely focused on idealistic concerns like official bilingualism and academic pursuits like trying to, I believe, prioritize policy by trying to quantify utility and trying bureaucratic measures to create participatory democracy. Trudeau abandons both of these things even before the end of the term I believe.

1972-1974 The partnership with the Liberals that the NDP are still likeliest to bring up. The Liberals with Trudeau's philosophical disagreement, implement a number of economic nationalist policies favored by the NDP which were a big concern at the time (not dissimilar to now) such as the Foreign Investment Review Agency and Petro Canada. An increasingly savvy Trudeau outwits NDP leader David Lewis into abandoning supporting the Liberals while allowing Lewis to believe that it was his idea.

1974-1979 This was the one term that a now pragmatic Trudeau focused on the issues that actually were of immediate concern to Canadians. However, Trudeau had also become increasingly cynical and he increasingly engages in patronage. Policy wise, he implements wage and price controls to address inflation after campaigning against them in 1974, and, contrary to any belief that this started with the National Energy Program, he implements legislation that lowers the price of domestic oil to benefit Ontario manufacturers of the expense of Alberta oil producers, since there are a lot more ridings in Ontario than in Alberta. Ontario P.C Premier Bill Davis loves Trudeau while Alberta P.C Premier Peter Lougheed hates Trudeau.

However, Trudeau, possibly for the first time, sees dishonest cynicism from (some) Canadians. In answering a question on economics, Trudeau, who has a PPE bachelors (Politics, Philosophy and Economics) gives a long academic response that is critical of free markets in terms of their negative externalities and says that part of the role of governments it to address these negative externalities. To any mainstream economist, there is absolutely nothing controversial about that, but he receives wild over the top attacks from the business community who refer to him as a 'socialist who hates business.'

The mainstream media dutifully respond by pointing out that Trudeau no longer has any representative of big business in the cabinet. (DEI at its finest.)

The political fortunes of the Trudeau Liberals go up and down as does Pierre Trudeau's marriage (there is a lot of reason to believe that his separation caused Liberal poll numbers to significantly improve for around one year) but ultimately despite all of Trudeau's pragmatic and cynical efforts his government falls due to the stagflation experienced in 1979.

1980-1984 Despite the still terrible economy, Trudeau essentially returns to his first term self and focuses (not that he has a choice) first on the Quebec 'sovereignty' referendum and then on finally realizing his dream of patriating the Constitution (although, contrary to what is generally believed, there is no evidence that was Trudeau's dream when he was first recruited as a candidate in 1965) with a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Canadians seemingly surprise themselves, at least for a while, with the amount of interest they show in the Constitution (as also happened during Meech Lake and Charlottetown.)

After achieving this, he then focuses on foreign policy with a peace initiative and an initiative to address poverty in the 'global south.' Many people, including my parents, believe that Trudeau was simply looking for taxpayer funded trips around the world. I believe, for instance, then when travelling Europe to get support for his initiatives, that they were very similar routes that he took when travelling Europe in the late 1940s.

It also seems that he spent the last 3 years or so, expecting that John Turner would win the Liberal leadership, poisoning the well of the Liberal Party.

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

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.

Conservative opposition to legalization with all the other things Conservatives normally argue should be legal and their reasoning for that is a clear case of 'freedom for me but not for thee.' An obvious example of that is guns. "You can't ban guns, you can only ban people from owning guns legally.' Uhh, drugs are a lot easier to hide than guns.

The 'war on drugs' is authoritarian, paternalistic and murderous.

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

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.

All of the problems people associate with illicit drugs, correctly or not, exist where drugs haven't been decriminalized: homeless camps, street crime, rising deaths from unsafe drugs, it's just that the media doesn't report on it anywhere near as much. In Canada, this 'decriminalization leads to these harms in Vancouver/British Columbia' is one of the worst cases of media pushing a (false) narrative that I've seen in a long time.

I don't know what you mean by 'unchecked proliferation,' if you think that there will be a large increase in the use of heroin or cocaine if it's legalized and regulated, you're a fearmonger afraid of your fellow citizens.

But, if you have something that might actually work and not some pie in the sky nonsense in between drugs being illegal and drugs being legal (and I never just said 'legal' I said 'legal and regulated.') I'd love to hear the plan. That's kind of what decriminalization is supposed to be.

Certainly this notion of mandatory forced treatment but not jail for drug addicts is pie in the sky nonsense. In addition to it being a massive new very expensive social program (or large increase) there are neither the qualified workers available nor the facilities. Beyond that, involuntary treatment of drug addicts has been demonstrated to mostly not work.

I certainly see a lot of evidence though that the owners of existing drug treatment centers are a major player behind this false narrative of the supposed harms caused by decriminalization (as opposed to the reality that the harms are mostly caused by drugs being illegal.)

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

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.

All of the problems people associate with illicit drugs, correctly or not, exist where drugs haven't been decriminalized: homeless camps, street crime, rising deaths from unsafe drugs, it's just that the media doesn't report on it anywhere near as much. In Canada, this 'decriminalization leads to these harms in Vancouver/British Columbia' is one of the worst cases of media pushing a (false) narrative that I've seen in a long time.

I don't know what you mean by 'unchecked proliferation,' if you think that there will be a large increase in the use of heroin or cocaine if it's legalized and regulated, you're a fearmonger afraid of your fellow citizens.

But, if you have something that might actually work and not some pie in the sky nonsense in between drugs being illegal and drugs being legal (and I never just said 'legal' I said 'legal and regulated.') I'd love to hear the plan. That's kind of what decriminalization is supposed to be.

Certainly this notion of mandatory forced treatment but not jail for drug addicts is pie in the sky nonsense. In addition to it being a massive new very expensive social program (or large increase) there are neither the qualified workers available nor the facilities. Beyond that, involuntary treatment of drug addicts has been demonstrated to mostly not work.

I certainly see a lot of evidence though that the owners of existing drug treatment centers are a major player behind this false narrative of the supposed harms caused by decriminalization (as opposed to the reality that the harms are mostly caused by drugs being illegal.)

Why is there no money for treatment but plenty of money for handing out so-called 'safe supply'?

I think you're right that involuntary treatment is ill-advised and a violation of civil liberties, but the money being used on so-called safe injection sites could instead be used funding treatment for those who seek it voluntarily. Sure, not every addict will seek treatment or is ready for it, which is fine, but why does the government need to hand out drugs to people? The stated purpose of the supervised injection sites was to reduce overdoses - 'decriminalization' has been in place for a year and that hasn't happened. Overdoses have increased.

One other important point - while treatment is costly, so is substance abuse. It costs the taxpayer $46 billion annually in terms of things like healthcare costs and lost productivity. A part or this cost includes abuse of alcohol and tobacco, but even if you exclude those I imagine that a large part of that cost would be illicit drugs. Yes funding treatment for people would cost money but it would save money in other ways.

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.

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

Justin Trudeau needs to resign. Over many things, but especially the student visa/immigration issue. This is unacceptable. It's time for some accountability.

Who would take over? Every Liberal M.P is ultimately complicit. If the Liberals are going to lose over this (or whatever else) it should be with the guy who *was* (edit) in charge the whole time.

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

Justin Trudeau needs to resign. Over many things, but especially the student visa/immigration issue. This is unacceptable. It's time for some accountability.

Who would take over? Every Liberal M.P is ultimately complicit. If the Liberals are going to lose over this (or whatever else) it should be with the guy who in charge the whole time.

Literally anyone who is competent enough to fix the immigration system.



Or we should have an election to elect a new government.

Either way this cannot go on any longer.

I was thinking of what high profile person who is associated with the Liberal Party and likely still a member but quit so has a profile independent from the Justin Trudeau Liberal Party (I'm pretty sure Jody Wilson Raybould is no longer a Liberal and is 'hated' by many in the party and Jane Philpott has a great current job and isn't really all that high profile.) And, this person also seems to be being promoted by the national media, at least a little and given the benefit of some positive revisionist history: Bill Morneau.

For instance (this is not from the CBC but from BNNBloomberg -which is Canadian)
https://twitter.com/cbcwatcher/status/1780652321292144740

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

The B.C NDP History group (obviously partisan), which I donated a whole bunch of materials to before moving, now has a website:

https://bcndphistory.ca/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR1c-G0epWYIMoUW1D4hk1jqYr6VhHqdl6lSNp03-x4iKCNOP_z9_p_GlMQ_aem_Adqmeg51as3hImtjxcX8slO_UOUVqoF4lcpsAjzEKK7so3aXyazHu7XnN3nUaRrj0PRvfhUCkrPvxBz2aB8HdKvz

I'm not sure if the material I donated is there or not yet.

The main materials I donated were related to:
Before the 1991 election, the B.C NDP put out a number of press releases stating/detailing legislation they would pass if they were in the government, culminating in their booklet of 48 promises for the 1991 election. It definitely isn't the case now, but up until the early 1980s, at the federal level anyway the official opposition put out an alternative budget. Can anybody imagine the Pierre Poilievre Conservatives doing that?

2.My parents were alternate delegates for David Vickers at the 1984 provincial convention unfortunately won in the end by Bob Skelly. They told me it was actually kind of boring because they ended up not being needed and were not allowed on the convention floor. Anyway, they had a bunch of material from both David Vickers and the 1984 convention. This included a David Vickers placard which my brother threw out on me.

3.Federally, I had a large booklet from the, I believe, 1984 Federal NDP when the B.C wing ran something of a separate campaign. I believe this booklet was put out as part of that.

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

One other point on the 'how times have changed' (AKA back in my day the kids would stay of the lawn!)

A more general point looking back at this whole supposed 'Speaker controversy' and then it emerging that Conservative M.P/Deputy Speaker Chris D'Entremont had the same thing done to him by his party as the Liberals did to Greg Fergus (D'Entremont strikes me as being a very decent person.)

Looking back at what started this was Pierre Poilievre getting tossed out of the House of Commons and then claiming to be the 'real victim.' This can be seen from a broader context where obstructive protesters on the left and the right claim to be the 'real victim' but they still invoke Martin Luther King Jr as inspiration in their protests.

As generally with the protesters now, like Martin Luther King Jr, they don't engage in violence, however, while King was peaceful, it's also the case that he deliberately tried to provoke his opponents. This is what was referred to as 'good trouble.' The difference is that King accepted that he would face consequences and likely go to jail for doing this. Going to jail was part of his message. I don't know that he was happy to go to jail, but he was proud to do it for his cause. The modern protesters have conveniently forgotten that. They not only don't believe they should have to be responsible for the consequences of their actions, they believe that they are the real victims.

I don't have a broader point here because I'm not sure what this means, but I don't like it.

At a much smaller level than protesters, bringing this back to Poilievre, it was similarly the case that M.Ps, especially party leaders have, for a long time, deliberately gotten themselves thrown out of the legislature, but they would admit they did it intentionally and did not play the victim. Pierre Poilievre here is just the modern whiner pretending to be the 'real victim.'

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

MPs 'wittingly' took part in foreign interference: national security committee

Oh boy. Heads are about to roll.

The indications are that it's related to India which would suggest Conservative M.Ps.

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

MPs 'wittingly' took part in foreign interference: national security committee

Oh boy. Heads are about to roll.

The indications are that it's related to India which would suggest Conservative M.Ps.

I read that it was related to both China and India which could implicate MPs from a variety of political parties including both Conservatives and Liberals.

Anyway, the fact that there is so much foreign interference in Canadian politics with no consequences or accountability is unacceptable. A lot of this is due to our intel agencies not being prepared for dealing with foreign threats and government officials being unwilling to accept information from CSIS, not to mention the fact that spy agencies appear to be failing to properly communicate threats to the executive.

I really hope more information comes out though. The Canadian public deserves to know who it was regardless of the political party.

1.I heard about it on News1130 and they specifically mentioned only India. However, this might remind me of the book version of Yes, Minister with the story about 'MetaDioxin' where it showed how BBC presented the news item with a negative slant, and then showed what would have been said if it had given a positive slant.

So, for instance, News1130 recently reported on the Israel/Palestinian protesters referring to the protesters as 'pro Palestinian' who were concerned about the harm being done to the civilians of Gaza by Israel, and made no mention of them being either 'anti Semitic' or 'pro Hamas.' I don't think that's the norm in most of this reporting.

Of course, News1130 also now has right wing talk show host Rob Snow(job) airing, so maybe they're trying to balance things.

2.On the broader point. I think we need to know specifically what happened, the implications are potentially disturbing given India's (and China's) intimidation (at a minimum) of the diaspora community, if M.Ps and/or Senators assist in that, but nobody should get ahead of themselves.

A. Where is this acceptable and where isn't it with foreign government interference? For instance, Liberal M.P Anthony Housefather has basically stated that in regards to Israel, he essentially runs interference for Israel (that may be a little hyperbolic, but he certainly places Israeli ahead of Canada when it comes to the issues in that area of the world.)

B.I don't agree with this separation of 'foreign government' interference from foreign non state actors, unless the issue is one of literal 'fifth columns' trying to overthrow the Canadian government on behalf of the foreign nation. We obviously allow lies by global warming deniers who are at least partly funded by U.S transnationals, and Susan Delacourt wrote an article that the Ottawa occupiers received significant funding from the U.S based 'tech bros.'

In that case, a literal stated aim was the overthrow of the legitimately elected federal government, although it was, of course, so ridiculous in its demands that it wasn't taken seriously. I'm not sure why when a foreign non state entity (partly?) funds an illegal occupation of a city, ostensibly for the purpose of spreading/trying to force its quasi libertarian views and with the support of the Conservative Party, that that's really in any way different than a foreign government trying to influence Canadians, depending on what the foreign government is trying to do.

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

I read a bit while on the bus of the 1986 book 'One Eyed Kings' about the governing of Canada from 1980 to 1985. (I'm still reading Civilization and Capitalism: 1500-1800), it pointed out the narrow choices that were available at the time suggesting based on public opinion itself.

Of course, this shortly after led to the rise of the Reform Party and maybe the Bloc Quebecois (Quebec nationalism obviously long preceded the Bloc, but there had been at least one prior attempt at a Federal nationalist/separatist Party for Quebec I believed named the Parti Nationale and it went nowhere.) Of course, preceding this dogging Joe Clark, occasionally Brian Mulroney and Kim Clark were the 'Dinosaur Caucus.' For the Reform Party anyway, I recall a great deal of the discussion in Western Canada was the dissatisfaction with the narrowness of federal political debate and discussion. Some referred to this as 'Frum Speak' for the lead anchor at the time on CBC Barbara Frum.

However, that the public generally at that time in the mid 1980s did not accept broadly conservative positions confirms what Bill English said in his biography of Pierre Trudeau, that Canadians did not want the Liberals to be in government anymore, but they still wanted Liberal policy.

This was clearly true when Stephen Harper was elected as well, as he was elected due to the Sponsorship Scandal and probably due to disappointment with the promised brilliant tenure of Prime Minister Paul Martin (although he was not anywhere near the 'ditherer' right wingers in the media claimed him to be.) Other than trying to govern on behalf of the fossil fuel sector and passing deliberately unconstitutional legislation to be struck down in the courts for fundraising purposes and genuinely reducing the deficit after the Great Recession, the Harper government mostly marked time in the false belief that 'every day the Liberals don't govern Canada, Canada becomes a little less liberal.'

As One Eyed Kings mentions, the most active governments are during periods of genuine (manufactured as well?) crises when things that were previously unacceptable become necessary, and this was the case with the Chretien government that privatized things even the Mulroney P.Cs did not, cut spending and gave powers to the provinces that under normal times would never have been accepted. There on those on the left who B.S that the deficit/debt were made up crises, but, for instance, both the provinces of Saskatchewan and, I believe, New Foundland, were saved from having to declare bankruptcy by the Federal government guaranteeing their interest payments. This was kept quiet at the time.

So, the concern for liberals like me, is that everything has come together for Pierre Poilievre. First, it seems what made Canada become less liberal was for Canada to be governed by the Justin Trudeau Liberals (especially with this term) there are genuine crises related to cost of living the related housing and productivity (which, like the deficit in the 1990s is at least 20 years in the making), and Pierre Poilievre, unlike Brian Mulroney, is a genuine reactionary. For Pierre Poilievre, this is clearly a case of opportunity meeting crises. Obviously, I think he'll use this opportunity to implement a right wing agenda that has little to do with the genuine issues Canada is facing, but that obviously won't matter for at least a couple years.

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

Canadians probably have a higher view of nationalism because nationalism in this country is not as toxic as in other countries.

Underrated point about Canadian nationalism. Some of my views are pretty far into the nationalistic end of the spectrum as far as Canada is concerned, and even I cringe at the kind of stuff you hear from self-described nationalists in other countries.

I think this is largely because nobody has a monopoly on Canadian nationalism, which I think prevents the extreme polarization on nationalistic lines that we see in many other countries. Both Liberals and Tories have their own way of playing into nationalism. The Liberals' preferred strategy is to identify an out-group (Americans), turn them into a bogeyman, and associate your opponents with the bogeyman. This is a classic nationalist tactic, and Liberals use it very effectively. And yet they're a very cosmopolitan party that's not really nationalistic when you get down to brass tacks, it's mostly just performative.

The Tories for their part also do this performative nationalism stuff, but in their own way. Their bogeyman isn't any specific country (China to some extent, but definitely not the US), but they play into a kind of populist disdain for the "international community" (Poilievre's hard line on the WEF is a good example). But again, this isn't really reflected in most of their policy. Based on the strong populist streak within the CPC, especially under Poilievre's leadership, you'd think it would be a hardline nationalistic, maybe even nativist party - yet they're about as nationalistic as Keir Starmer when it really comes down to it. CPC is very much an ideological successor of the Reform Party, which was a very rare example of a right-wing populist party that's not nationalistic. Decentralizing political power remains in the DNA of Canadian conservatives, which clashes with nationalism.

And I think these internal contradictions over nationalism within both major parties in Canada prevents the kind of hardline nationalism that we see elsewhere.

I think that is a small amount of liberals/Liberals, mostly in Ontario, people who would likely be New Democrats if they were out west.

I think Liberal/liberal nationalism is wrapped up with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 'diversity is out strength' and all that.

Pierre Trudeau has been criticized as an 'anywhere' (by me, just a few days ago)  who didn't appreciate that deep attachment many Canadians feel to their communities, but I think his overall sentiment on the difficulty of a homogeneous nationalism has on a nation as large as Canada is correct.

Uniformity is neither desirable nor possible in a country the size of Canada. We
should not even be able to agree upon the kind of Canadian to choose as a model, let
alone persuade most people to emulate it. There are few policies potentially more
disastrous for Canada than to tell all Canadians that they must be alike. There is no
such thing as a model or ideal Canadian. What could be more absurd than the
concept of an “all-Canadian” boy or girl? A society which emphasizes uniformity is
one which creates intolerance and hate. A society which eulogizes the average
citizen is one which breeds mediocrity. What the world should be seeking, and what
in Canada we must continue to cherish, are not concepts of uniformity but human
values: compassion, love, and understanding.

~ Pierre Elliott Trudeau, Remarks at the Ukrainian-Canadian Congress,
October 9, 1971.

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

https://twitter.com/MercedesGlobal/status/1798696379587633256
I'm convinced my six year old nephew would do a better job than whoever is handling LPC comms.

Jennifer O'Connell says her quote was taken out of context and I'm inclined to believe her given my lack of trust with the media.

She says she was referring to the specific thing the Conservatives were trying to do in the House at the time that the Speaker had said they could not do, and not on the general question involved.

I obviously haven't looked into this in detail, but it's clear McConnell's quote is also consistent with that. So, almost certainly McConnell may be guilty of cheap partisan behaviour in the House of Commons, but that's sadly expected of M.Ps and it's unlikely she's saying to people who want the names of the M.Ps and Senators made public to 'get over it.'

In this case, I don't think the media narrative here goes anything beyond sensationalism but I wouldn't rank Mercedes Stephenson/Global News as policy wonks.

https://twitter.com/JenOConnell_/status/1798738352453345529

This isn't politically related, but I think I've just seen the worst possible example of a false media narrative. It was related to this whole debate over 'are the Edmonton Oilers Canada's team now?"

There's no real 'debate' any individual can root for whoever they want. As far as I know, no city/province outside of Edmonton has spent any public money to support the Oilers. This isn't like Danielle Smith winning a bet with the Governor of Texas by 'making' him eat Alberta beef paid for entirely by the people of Alberta (including the shipping apparently.)

The Vancouver sports media especially (Sportsnet 650) is all in on rooting for the Florida Panthers, as are a number of hardcore hockey fans and they've all been saying that real fans of Canadian hockey teams would never root for the Edmonton Oilers.

So, it must have been a shock for them when an Ipsos poll came out showing 57% of Canadians are rooting for the Edmonton Oilers and only 9% for the Florida Panthers. From what I've heard about this, the numbers are slightly closer in British Columbia and slightly closer yet for Vancouver Canucks fans, but still by about a 3 or 4 to one margin even Vancouver Canucks fans are rooting for the Edmonton Oilers and not the Florida Panthers.

Yet, the local Global News ran a story after this that said how 'most Vancouver Canucks fans don't want the Oilers to win' (which I suppose is correct when counting those who don't have a preference, but that's also an example of a narrative being pushed by a half truth) and only quoted fans 'on the street' who were rooting for the Florida Panthers.

I assume in this case what happened is the local Global News reporter had this story done waiting only to add the results of the poll, maybe relying on the Sportsnet 650 hosts who would have assured him that 'of course most Canucks fans are rooting for Florida' and then, after the actual poll came out, Global News said 'run it anyway, this is the narrative we're promoting.'

The great thing about the internet is that many source documents are actually available. I really don't know why anybody looks to the mainstream media anymore.

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

This isn't like Danielle Smith winning a bet with the Governor of Texas by 'making' him eat Alberta beef paid for entirely by the people of Alberta (including the shipping apparently

Now that's one that I had never heard before!

https://twitter.com/GiantBlueRing/status/1799467879336952081

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

Hannah Hodson (transgendered Conservative Party candidate in Victoria British Columbia in 2021) on Melissa Lantsman
https://twitter.com/HannahHodson28/status/1800984768848253187
Hodson has apparently previously said that she is 'conservative but not right wing' which is a fairly important distinction here, and not 'very conservative' which I guess is how Hodson characterizes 'conservatives.'

I make a similar distinction since I don't see regard this modern populist right wing Trumpian stuff as conservative. I don't agree with everything Conservative but it does have an honorable tradition from Disraeli until the more recent times. This is why I refer to Republicans and Conservatives as right wing and not 'conservative.'

I'd say the first break was with the 'Reagan Revolution' but, Mulroney was an old line conservative and I think was the second best Prime Minister in Canada from Pearson on. I think of conservatism as favoring incremental change to allow society to adjust as much as possible and recognizing the need for government but for efficient government, and a government that is concerned about unintended consequences, or, i.e what a government legislates and how things actually work out can be two entirely different things.

This wasn't Ronald Reagan and it certainly isn't Trump.

This isn't to say that Reagan and Trump are the same. Reagan at least had a coherent agenda.

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

This is my ranking of Prime Ministers from Pearson on, for what it's worth (not including Clark, Turner or Campbell) Interestingly, 4 of these Prime Ministers had tenures of around 10 years:

1.Lester Pearson
2.Brian Mulroney
3.Jean Chretien
4.Pierre Trudeau
5.Justin Trudeau
6.Paul Martin
7.Stephen Harper

Chretien was effective but overstayed his welcome and allowed the Sponsorship Scandal. I've said previously that people who decry his spending cuts live in a fantasy world and don't appreciate that Canada was, in fact, in terrible financial condition with Saskatchewan and New Foundland only being saved from having to declare bankruptcy by the Federal government assuring payment of their debt. This was kept from the public at the time.

Despite that, I still have Mulroney ahead of Chretien, because Mulroney provided a necessary course correction, but not an economic right wing 'revolution' as Prime Minister. If it hadn't have been for the 1990s recession that was far worse in Canada than in the U.S (as turnabout the Canadian economy performed better than the U.S economy in 2000/2001) the 'slow and steady' real reduction in the deficit under Mulroney probably would have been sufficient (a reduction of the deficit/debt as a share of GDP similar to what Justin Trudeau is suggesting.) 

Pierre Trudeau was a nearly complete failure as Prime Minister from 1968-1979 but patriating the Constitution with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was a crowning achievement, even with the Notwithstanding Clause.

Justin Trudeau would be ahead of his father if he had lost in 2021 and, as I've said before would have had a similar tenure to Lester Pearson in terms of accomplishments. I don't think he'll be known as the 'Prime Minister who broke Canada' as Poilievre says in his hyperbolic way, but certainly as the Prime Minister who set back liberalism not appreciating that there can be too much of a good thing with immigration. (And not appreciating the consequences of too much immigration is, at best, stunningly incompetent.)

Paul Martin's government was mostly focused on survival. While Paul Martin was not the ditherer his opponents painted him as, he also had too many priorities and a too hands on managerial style. As I've said previously as well, he likely would have been a great mayor of Montreal. Brian Tobin should have succeeded John Chretien.

Stephen Harper. Nasty and brutish. Deserves credit for reducing the deficit again after the 2008 financial meltdown, but, like Justin Trudeau as well, failed to improve Canada's productivity.

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

The measure cited is productivity growth in aggregate and not productivity growth per worker, which is the measure now being frequently cited.

In other words, Canada's productivity/GDP increases even under Harper were a reflection of greater % immigration in Canada than in the U.S. I believe these numbers were around a 1% increase in the population per year in Canada versus about a 0.7% a year increase in the U.S.

So, Canada could continue to increase productivity as it has done so for the last four years or so under Trudeau by bringing in a million or so people a year, but that obviously won't increase per capita income or productivity.

https://www.queensu.ca/gazette/stories/canada-s-lagging-productivity-affects-us-all-and-will-take-years-remedy

Compared to the United States, Canadian productivity has diminished by nine per cent between 2000 and 2022, falling to roughly 72 per cent of that of the U.S.

The reasons for Canada’s diminished productivity? While the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and labour shortages have had an impact, this issue pre-dates the pandemic. In 2019, Canada ranked 18th as well.

More relevant is the greater number of small business in Canada as a percentage of overall employment. OECD data suggest large companies invest more in productivity-improving technology and training.

But even then, many of Canada’s largest organizations are comfortably part of stable oligopolies (banking and telecommunications companies, for example), with less industry pressure to be more competitive.

Canada’s trades and apprenticeship programs, where many of the people who implement productivity-enhancing measures would come from, are also less developed, especially in comparison to European countries.

As to the Harper government
During the period of the Harper government (2006-15), real GDP growth was markedly slower than during the preceding 22 years (table 1, row 1), a result of the sharp recession that occurred from the fourth quarter of 2008 to the second quarter of 2009, and of the period of sluggish recovery that followed.

Labour productivity growth, on the other hand, was significantly slower in Canada than in the US, which suggests that the comparatively strong gains in Canadian employment may have been achieved partly at the cost of slower productivity growth.

This is what the article says on oil:
Harper government policies, by favouring the development of the oil sands and neglecting environmental regulations, likely contributed indirectly to Canada’s loss of overall cost competitiveness.

So, to that extent the Harper government followed the typical right wing policy of 'short term gain for long term pain.'

Of course, the Liberal immigration policy is the ultimate in 'short term gain for long term pain', (or short term gain for medium term pain for hoped for long term gain) so this doesn't have to be partisan.

As I've stated previously, this isn't my argument but common among political scientists that most change occurs in governing during times of (genuine) crises, whether it was Chretien (or Chretien/Martin) doing previously unacceptable things in the early 1990s do to the debt crisis, or, presently at least in British Columbia, the NDP government's changes to housing policies reducing the power of municipal governments.

I would not be surprised given this productivity crisis if the next government, whether they want to or not, opens up telecommunications, airlines and whatever else to foreign competition and finally gets rid of the monopoly dairy and poultry cartel known as 'supply management.'