Canada General Discussion (2019-)

[MaxQue]

The Emergencies Act specifically mentions a war emergency. Further, some of Ukraine's neighbours who aren't at war have invoked their own   versions of the Emergencies Act to deal with a potential threat and/or the flood of Ukranian refugees fleeing the fighting.

Which proves that not all emergencies are war-related.

[MaxQue]

https://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/politique/2022-02-25/loi-sur-les-mesures-d-urgence/desaccords-a-propos-de-la-creation-du-comite.php

The parlimentary inquiry on the Emercengies Act is currently blocked, as the Liberals and the Conservatives cannot agree on the committee's composition.

It seems the Conservatives want a majority on the committee, both co-chairs positions and no senators from any caucus but theirs.

The Liberals and NDP are in agreement, they have a committee with 3 co-chairs, including an NDP one.

[MaxQue]

I don't dispute that the center can always shift and that sustained large government budget deficits are a major potential cause for political shifts, especially if inflation isn't sufficiently addressed, however, I think the generally right wing punditocracy in Canada is simply too right wing to understand that it's them not in the center at present, and not the majority of Canadians.

More evidence of punditocracy centrism:

"The Liberal Party formed a minority government based on only 33 per cent of the people who voted in the last election. Our government just recently moved even further left with a formal confidence-and-supply agreement with the NDP.

Where does that leave the majority of us in the middle? Not in a place that is sustainable for Canada, nor close to the future we deserve if we built it from the sensible centre."

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-canada-can-do-great-things-but-the-sensible-centre-mustnt-be/#_=_

50.44% voted Liberal or NDP, yet the "majority of us in the middle" are left out?

Also, if you are writing in the Globe and Mail, you are simply not in the middle.

[MaxQue]

I don't dispute that the center can always shift and that sustained large government budget deficits are a major potential cause for political shifts, especially if inflation isn't sufficiently addressed, however, I think the generally right wing punditocracy in Canada is simply too right wing to understand that it's them not in the center at present, and not the majority of Canadians.

More evidence of punditocracy centrism:

"The Liberal Party formed a minority government based on only 33 per cent of the people who voted in the last election. Our government just recently moved even further left with a formal confidence-and-supply agreement with the NDP.

Where does that leave the majority of us in the middle? Not in a place that is sustainable for Canada, nor close to the future we deserve if we built it from the sensible centre."

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-canada-can-do-great-things-but-the-sensible-centre-mustnt-be/#_=_

50.44% voted Liberal or NDP, yet the "majority of us in the middle" are left out?

This argument fails to address that there will be some Lib to PC voters in this election.  Moderates do not want a coalition government, radicals do.

The left is pulling similar tactics in the Ontario provincial election, and needless to say, this is rallying the base behind Ford more than anything.  I was going to vote minor party or sit out, but not any more.  A Liberal or NDP government will bring a return of masks, lockdowns, and communism.

But, you're honest enough to admit you are not a centrist, unlike right-wing pundits pretending to be centrists. Of course the deal offends people on the right. Does it offend centrists, through?

[MaxQue]

Rift between corporate Canada and Trudeau (for Globe subscribers):

"Finance Department veterans say the Prime Minister and his key advisers seem to talk more often to consultants and academics than to business leaders.
Some senior executives – a constituency that is, admittedly, not accustomed to being ignored – find this government aloof and indifferent to their advice and concerns. And while none were oblivious to the ethical risks governments face when appearing to accommodate corporate or private interests unduly, their overwhelming impression was that their interests – as leaders, as employers, as institutions – were treated as lesser priorities.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-the-big-rift-corporate-canada-wants-ottawa-to-focus-on-real-growth-not/#_=_

Oh, no, the poor snowflakes are hurt by being treated like everyone else.

[MaxQue]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/horgan-health-care-funding-dental-1.6422149

John Horgan continues to have my respect, and honestly, the federal NDP (hell, even the federal Liberals!) should really learn a thing or two from the NDP's western counterparts about sensible progressivism.

The latter stages of the pandemic were defined by how, despite having one of the world's highest vaccination rates and some of the strictest measures, Canadian healthcare systems kept dealing with awful capacity shortfalls. It should have been a bigger public discussion that the healthcare system we so cherish was underperforming most western countries, even most American states, in terms of being able to deliver urgent care to people who needed it. And yet the focus of the federal Liberals and NDP seems to be on expanding the scope of a healthcare system that, by their own admissions, is struggling to deliver.

Expanding the scope of healthcare systems and other social welfare mechanisms by adding to an existing structural deficit is a risky game to play, and Canadians felt the consequences of this in the 1990s. Federal health transfers dropped, provincial healthcare systems struggled to deliver on their mandate consistently, and the pandemic exposed a serious program. So now we are...expanding the scope of healthcare systems by adding to an existing structural deficit. What good is pharmacare and dental care when we are struggling to deliver even more basic forms of healthcare? Are we not just adding fuel to the fire?

Honestly, I just think this is a consequence of governing by polling. Obviously, adding dental care, pharmacare, and whatever else to our free healthcare system makes a better soundbite than a promise to increase health transfers by so and so billion dollars. It's also harder to reverse, so I take those points. But I'm not sure Canadians are so well-served by increasing funding for new forms of public healthcare when the existing services aren't being covered properly.

The main counterpoint that you don't touch is that most provinces don't deserve the money, as they will just waste in higher pay for doctors, tax cuts or useless car tunnels.

[MaxQue]

I love the last name of the author, too: Richler. Say what you will about the Globe and Mail but it certainly knows its audience. I'm reminded of the article demanding that the Women's World Cup open in Toronto and not Edmonton.

He's the son of Mordechai Richter.

[MaxQue]

The previous tweet is in reference to the resignation of Jason Kenney, who resigned due to only getting 51.4% in his leadership review vote.

[MaxQue]

I see the conditions for the NDP sweeping Calgary/Edmonton as present no matter what happens in the UCP leadership race since, whoever wins, be it Jean, Danielle Smith, etc., is guaranteed to be to Kenney's right, a fact which is just gonna give Notley even more room to appeal to swing voters in general &, really, 2008 Alberta Liberal-2012 PC-2015 NDP-2019 non-NDP voters in particular; polling already shows the NDP leading in Calgary, the Kingmaker of Alberta, no matter the UCP leader.

The urban/rural gap is growing in Alberta.  Calgary isn't really the "Cowtown" or bastion of reactionary suburban conservatism it was a generation ago.

And both Jean (Fort McMurray) and Smith (High River) are from ''rural'' areas.

[MaxQue]

Seems the Greens have a new leadership candidate. Elizabeth May.

https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal/2022/07/28/elizabeth-may-set-to-join-green-party-leadership-race-sources-say.html

[MaxQue]

Seems the Greens have a new leadership candidate. Elizabeth May.

https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal/2022/07/28/elizabeth-may-set-to-join-green-party-leadership-race-sources-say.html

Isn't she just basically Canadian Jill Stein?

I still think the Greens would be well-suited by figuring out a way to cooperate with the NDP.

I'm not a huge fan of Elizabeth May but I don't think that's a fair comparison at all. She has, if nothing else, made a concerted effort to be seen as a serious politician.

Historically, the Green Party has been closer ideologically to the Liberal Party than to the NDP. (This was certainly the case during May's leadership of the party.) The Liberal Party has in the past been curiously interested in helping the Green Party to establish its credibility, most notably in 2008 when no Liberal candidate was nominated against May in exchange for the purely symbolic gesture of the Greens not nominating a candidate in Stéphane Dion's extremely safe riding. On Vancouver Island, probably the federal Green Party's strongest region in the country, the interests of the NDP and Green Party are directly at odds, since the NDP vote comes in large part from workers in extractive industries.

Under her leadership, on most fiscal policies votes, it was Liberals/Bloc/NDP on one side, and Conservative/Greens on the other.

[MaxQue]

What about Barrie?

That's under Simcoe.

[MaxQue]

.....Myles Sanderson, is indeed a meth user, as well as a cocaine addict. You can read more about his... interesting, to say the least, history here.

Reading that article highlighted a key point. He should still be in jail for bashing a Police Officer.

Imagine the geniuses on the parole board trying to explain why they set him free with 30% remaining on his sentence.

Not much to explain. The law pretty much frees people on probation when they did 2/3 of their jail term, except in very rare cases.

[MaxQue]

BC Liberals propose renaming themselves BC United. Membership vote to happen later this year.

[MaxQue]

Newfoundland and Labrador joined Quebec, Ontario, and Nova Scotia in withholding league dues from Hockey Canada in light of the sexual abuse scandal.

If you play(ed )junior hockey, are a parent whose child is currently enrolled, or have a sibling who does/did, your league dues went towards this. I implore posters from the Prairie provinces and points west to contact their MPP and voice their displeasure, as well as Canucks far and wide to tell their MP/other relevant federal officials of their support for the ongoing audit into Hockey Canada's misuse of public funds. It's going to take a lot more to uproot the misogynistic culture rampant in Canada (and mine's) favorite sport, but this seems a good starting point for action.

Also, Eastern and Northwestern Ontario, as they are seperate federations.

[MaxQue]

Quebec news: Grit crisis escalates as Marie-Claude Nichols, expelled from caucus last week for declining to shadow Transport after being denied a deputy Speaker slot, refused to rejoin caucus after Anglade flip-flopped and asked her to return. Nichols said she wouldn't be used to save Anglade. Several members of the party executive had said Nichols' readmission was required for them to support Anglade at the review. As for QS and PQ, the Speaker ruled that no MNA can be seated without the oath and anyone who tries will be removed by the sergeant-at-arms. Both parties have not committed to that spectacle but keep insisting they won't take the oath. Negotiations on party status have started.

There is an important part omitted there. Anglade insisted to put Franz Benjamin, city council chair under Coderre (mainly known for expelling an opposition council from the chamber for not wearing a suit despite his injury preventing him from doing so) and former Liberal caucus leader (reportedly fired for incompetence). By all reports, he's probably the most useless member of the caucus, but he's Haitian like Anglade, hence why she keeps promoting him.

[MaxQue]

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and the Canadian Liberal Party are under attack by NHL player Carey Price over Trudeau's gun laws.....Price is a staunch pro-gun activist as well and says that the laws "encroach on Canadians' freedoms"

The Montreal Canadiens organization and goalie Carey Price have issued apologies after Price posted a message on social media in support of a gun lobby group that recently used "POLY" as a promotional discount code.

The team issued a statement on Monday that Price didn't know about the 1989 Polytechnique Massacre or its upcoming anniversary.

However, Price said Tuesday said he did know about the massacre and regretted the timing of his post.

Price published his initial Instagram post on Saturday, just days ahead of the massacre's Dec. 6 anniversary. In it, Price shared his support for a lobby group, the Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights (CCFR), following amendments to the federal government's gun control legislation, Bill C-21, last week.

The amendments appeared to push the bill further by including a number of firearms used for hunting, a move that was swiftly condemned by firearm advocates and that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said the government is looking into rectifying.

Price, 35, has spoken in the past about the importance of hunting to him. He is a member of Ulkatcho First Nation — his mother is a former chief — and grew up in the small remote community of Anahim Lake in British Columbia.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/carey-price-gun-control-polytechnique-1.6674809

Also, the gun he posed with is not going to be banning, despite the confusion caused by Poilievre's lies and fearmongering that all guns are going to be banned.

[MaxQue]

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and the Canadian Liberal Party are under attack by NHL player Carey Price over Trudeau's gun laws.....Price is a staunch pro-gun activist as well and says that the laws "encroach on Canadians' freedoms"

The Montreal Canadiens organization and goalie Carey Price have issued apologies after Price posted a message on social media in support of a gun lobby group that recently used "POLY" as a promotional discount code.

The team issued a statement on Monday that Price didn't know about the 1989 Polytechnique Massacre or its upcoming anniversary.

However, Price said Tuesday said he did know about the massacre and regretted the timing of his post.

Price published his initial Instagram post on Saturday, just days ahead of the massacre's Dec. 6 anniversary. In it, Price shared his support for a lobby group, the Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights (CCFR), following amendments to the federal government's gun control legislation, Bill C-21, last week.

The amendments appeared to push the bill further by including a number of firearms used for hunting, a move that was swiftly condemned by firearm advocates and that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said the government is looking into rectifying.

Price, 35, has spoken in the past about the importance of hunting to him. He is a member of Ulkatcho First Nation — his mother is a former chief — and grew up in the small remote community of Anahim Lake in British Columbia.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/carey-price-gun-control-polytechnique-1.6674809

Also, the gun he posed with is not going to be banning, despite the confusion caused by Poilievre's lies and fearmongering that all guns are going to be banned.

Trudeau should abandon this topic....Price is pretty influential, the last thing Trudeau needs is a hockey star mobilizing apathetic or apolitical people.

The general reaction here has been, OMG, Price is an idiot.

[MaxQue]

I don't think Canadian Tories are enthralled by the monarchy, they are now in the Carey Price route.....Canada should dump the monarchy and dump the King's residence, etc.

Trudeau says he is a man of the common Canadian, get rid of the monarchy.....

It would require the opening of the Constitution (where some provinces will try to impose other changes and veto everything else if they don't get what they want), approval of all 10 provinces after that and probably a nationwide referendum.

Not happening.

[MaxQue]

https://twitter.com/duchess_elle/status/1618418266036396033?s=20

People are undoubtedly going to say that I'm too obsessed with this stuff or that I am somehow "transphobic."

In reality, what I have increasingly realized in recent years is that I simply think it is a huge mistake for the vast majority of people to make dramatic, irreversible changes to their bodies which render them sterile and impotent and which massively reduce their quality of life. It will inevitably lead to tragic cases like this.

Furthermore, I hate Canada now for its evil, f--ked up euthanasia program. I would vote strongly Conservative, undoubtedly, if I was Canadian over this single issue. It's not enough that they literally kill mentally ill people (in the current year now opening it up to even underage youth!), basically writing them off as lost causes with no better chance at making it than terminally ill people who literally can't physically survive much longer. This is extremely sick, insulting, and dehumanizing to me and many others in the world who have struggled with mental illness and strived our hardest to overcome it; according to Justin Trudeau, our lives are just worthless apparently, and there is no hope for us.

Now they are also allowing totally lucid, thoughtful, intelligent people who can contribute much to the world yet to kill themselves legally over mental pain and trauma. I can't even imagine how Canadian psychologists and psychiatrists are allowing this; you would think they would be strongly opposed to their patients simply giving up and offing themselves at the hands of the Canadian Government, yet it seems like the process to off yourself in Canada legally is as of 2023 about as simple as transferring ownership of a car.

While I still am strongly pro-choice when it comes to abortion, I cannot deny that I now more than ever understand the "slippery slope" argument behind certain pro-life stances. Human life is sacred and Canada is treating it in a horrific, dystopian, downright evil way. I would support the US placing international pressure on Canada to end this barbarism ASAP. Our so-called closest ally and neighbor should simply not be allowed to engage in such horrific, inhumane practices under any circumstances. Period.

Shows a very poor understnading of Canadian politics, as Trudeau isn't responsible for it, neither the Conservatives could do anything about it, it's merely the consequence of a Supreme Court decision, saying that keeping alive people who want to die is a violation of their rights.

[MaxQue]

Tyndale University? Anyone ever heard of it?

[MaxQue]

Man, the NDP would double its seat totals if it ran a campaign primarily focused on breaking up the telecoms.

It wouldn't because it would torn apart by TV channels (who are owned by said telecoms).

[MaxQue]

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

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

"the region". Only people on the South Shore feel betrayed. People in Quebec City will be delighted to not have cars crossing straight into downtown and people in the northern suburbs don't care.

[MaxQue]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Social Credit was also dominated by hardcore religious conservatives, which wasn't a problem when the party was in power under a popular leader, but was a problem when the more business/urban wing kept losing leadership elections.

[MaxQue]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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