Canada General Discussion (2019-)

[Benjamin Frank]

The Canadian left, in my personal experience, IS anti-American, because the Canadian left is anti right wing and America is full of Republicans and Republican ideologies.

I should have been more clear; my operative word wasn't meant to be anti-American, it was hysteria. Like he was going on about how the media was playing up Canadians as compliant and communitarian and Americans as selfish, it's not appropriate to flip that on its head, and I find it unfair to frame the broad Canadian agreement with madates as us being good little sheeple who do what we're told instead of as mild sacrifice and inconvenience for a greater good - basically a lot of words to say "we live in a society", which may be anathema to anyone who says "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety".

The interesting thing about that quote is that it's totally misused here.  

According to Wittes, the words appear in a letter widely presumed to be written by Franklin in 1755 on behalf of the Pennsylvania Assembly to the colonial governor. “The letter was a salvo in a power struggle between the governor and the assembly over funding for security on the frontier, one in which the assembly wished to tax the lands of the Penn family,” he explains.

The letter wasn’t about liberty but about taxes and the ability to “raise money for defense against French and Indian attacks. The governor kept vetoing the assembly’s efforts at the behest of the family, which had appointed him.”

https://techcrunch.com/2014/02/14/how-the-world-butchered-benjamin-franklins-quote-on-liberty-vs-security/

One problem I think is that Americans frequently don't learn their own history as they do the myths of their own history.  For instance, the Boston Tea Party was actually a protest of a tax cut (that would have aided the British East India Company) not a tax increase, and the reality of the Paul Revere story is actually far stranger than what is taught.

Of course, these don't even come close to touching the importance of America's founding myths: the rugged individualists and the Calvinist/Puritan morality, which sort of combine into Manifest Destiny/American Exceptionalism.

In that regard, JJ McCullough is just another in a long line of ignoramuses spouting Johnny Walker wisdom.  (Ignoramus is probably a bit over the top.)

[Benjamin Frank]

One interesting thing I just realized with Jean Charest running for Conservative leader is Quebec's electoral results from 1970-2003.  Quebec had results during that time of two term governments and out that, some people anyway, think is the most ideal.  

Two term governments usually give that governing party time to implement their initial agenda and to make adjustments to them and to overturn any excesses of the previous government without intentionally implementing a lot of excessive policy themselves. (In theory anyway.)

The problem with this in Quebec was the government alternated between the Liberals and the separatist Parti Quebecois which resulted in an existential crisis whenever the P.Q returned to government.

Of course, during this time there weren't fixed election dates which resulted in the two term governments lasting anywhere from 6-9 years.

In 1970, the Liberals were elected under Robert Bourassa.  They were reelected in 1973 with a landslide majority due, in part, to the separatists losing some credibility short term as a result of the FLQ crisis.  They won 102 of the then 110 ridings. I believe this is the biggest majority government in Canada to lose the next election that was called by Bourassa in 1976.

In 1976, the P.Q took power under Rene Levesque.  Despite losing the 1980 referendum handily, the P.Q government itself was fairly popular (they passed a good deal of semi socialist legislation especially in regards to consumer rights which was very popular) and they were reelected in 1981.  Rene Levesque stepped down in 1985 and was succeeded for a few months by P.Q Premier Pierre Marc Johnson.

In 1985, the Liberals returned to power again under Robert Bourassa.  Although he's known in most of Canada as primarily the co-architect with Prime Minister Brian Mulroney for the Meech Lake Accord and for Quebec's five Constitutional demands, Bourassa always struck me as the ultimate pragmatist who was far more interested in hydro-electric projects than in the Constitution.  Although he was actually a lawyer and an economist, I had always assumed until looking this up that he was an engineer.  

I believe part of his hope with the Meech Lake Accord was that it would reduce federal environmental oversight to ease the construction of a hydro electric project he wanted built that would have rivalled the James Bay hydroelectric project built during Bourassa's first tenure from 1970-1976.  

Bourassa was reelected in 1989 with a reduced but still comfortable majority that he basically engineered, trying to show to the rest of Canada that without passage of the Meech Lake Accord that the P.Q would get back into government.  In early 1994, Bourassa stepped down as Premier and was replaced by Daniel Johnson who governed until defeated in the late 1994 election by P.Q leader Jacques Parizeau.  

If you assume that 'Johnson' is a common last name in Quebec, that may be true, but, in fact, brief Liberal Quebec Premier Daniel Johnson is the brother of even briefer P.Q Premier Pierre Marc Johnson. Even more than that, they are both the sons of Union Nationale Premier Daniel Johnson Sr. who was Premier from 1966-1968.

Jacques Parizeau remained Premier until the narrow failure of the 1995 referendum, when clearly drunk, he blamed the referendum loss on 'money and the ethnic vote.' (Although there is a lot of competition, Parizeau is one of the nastiest scum to ever become a Canadian Premier.)

He was replaced by former P.C Cabinet Minister and then leader of the B.Q, Lucien Bouchard. In 1998 Bouchard was reelected Quebec Premier over Jean Charest.  The 1994 election had been surprisingly relatively close in terms of seats won by the Liberals and the
P.Q and there was virtually no net change in seats in the 1998 election, but this was a major psychological victory for Jean Charest and the Liberals as, in addition to not being badly defeated by Lucien Bouchard as was widely expected, the Liberals narrowly won the popular vote.

The most interesting thing though in this for me was the rather sickening transparent campaign by right wingers in Canada, especially in Western Canada, to pressure Charest to seek the Quebec Liberal leadership under the guise of 'saving Canada.'  Of course, what they really wanted was for Charest to be forced by this pressure to step down as leader of the federal Progressive Conservatives so as to force a merger (or really a hostile takeover) with/by the Canadian Alliance.

I remember, for instance, when Jean Charest as P.C Leader appeared on the Dave Rutherford radio show in Alberta, one of the many right wing radio talk show hosts in Canada at that time, that Rutherford presented Charest with a Canadian flag, telling him that he was needed in Quebec City and not in Ottawa.

Jean Charest and the Liberals won the 2003 election in Quebec(with Bernard Landry having replaced Lucien Bouchard as Premier) and then were reelected with a minority government before winning a third and final term with a majority about a year later.

[DC Al Fine]

Nova Scotia dropped their mask mandate today (except for schools and medical facilities).

I went around to a few stores to get a feel for things. I'd guess maybe half of customers were wearing masks. Very strong correlation between age and mask wearing. Guessing ~80% of seniors were wearing masks vs well under half of under 40's.

[7,052,770]

Thoughts on this video, one from a guy I've previously always found to be pretty level headed and informative (though lately more openly right-wing):

[Benjamin Frank]

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/1506092181727195140

I don't disagree with Coyne, but it's a little ironic given that he's also been arguing that Canada needs to spend at least $14 billion more every year on the military.

[IAMCANADIAN]

Centrism in action from the Liberal Party.

[Benjamin Frank]

Thoughts on this video, one from a guy I've previously always found to be pretty level headed and informative (though lately more openly right-wing):

I've stopped watching so far at the 12 minute or so mark.  The first five minutes or so is decent, though I would think that since I've made the same argument for years that Canadian provinces have more in common with adjacent U.S states than with each other (though I think Alberta is generally more like the more libertarian Mountain West states than like Texas) but after that it was just a litany of moronic right wing talking points filled with simplistic half truths.  

I think it went close to self parody when, after telling us in those first five minutes how Canada has no national identity, it then criticized Justin Trudeau and the 'liberal elites' for saying that Canada has 'no national identity.'

When I hear illogical nonsense like that, I tend to lose interest, but I might get back to it.

[King of Kensington]

This is going to drive the right crazy.  It's an anti-democratic power grab by Trudeau and Singh, an end to freedom in Canada, there will be lockdowns for 3 more years etc. 

[IAMCANADIAN]

This is going to drive the right crazy.  It's an anti-democratic power grab by Trudeau and Singh, an end to freedom in Canada, there will be lockdowns for 3 more years etc. 

I am not sure this does anything at all of practical value that the right cares about. Singh was giving support to everything that Trudeau did before this agreement.

[7,052,770]

Thoughts on this video, one from a guy I've previously always found to be pretty level headed and informative (though lately more openly right-wing):

I've stopped watching so far at the 12 minute or so mark.  The first five minutes or so is decent, though I would think that since I've made the same argument for years that Canadian provinces have more in common with adjacent U.S states than with each other (though I think Alberta is generally more like the more libertarian Mountain West states than like Texas) but after that it was just a litany of moronic right wing talking points filled with simplistic half truths.  

I think it went close to self parody when, after telling us in those first five minutes how Canada has no national identity, it then criticized Justin Trudeau and the 'liberal elites' for saying that Canada has 'no national identity.'

When I hear illogical nonsense like that, I tend to lose interest, but I might get back to it.

Yeah, it seemed like it was just wishcasting that Canada would join the United States in the near future. Which I get (I love Canadians and would love to have all of you join us), but it seemed wildly unrealistic, especially for a guy who's had some good videos on history.

[T'Chenka]

In case it isn't extremely clear already, most Canadians have no desire to see Canada become part of the USA. No desire at all.

[RogueBeaver]

Radio-Canada reports that Trudeau wants a full decade as PM and might run a final campaign.

[CumbrianLefty]

In case it isn't extremely clear already, most Canadians have no desire to see Canada become part of the USA. No desire at all.

I'm totally sure this is true, but has there ever been polling on the issue?

[Secretary of State Liberal Hack]

I found it suprising just how Uber liberal Doug fords riding was federally, one of their safest seats. Wonder what would happen if he ran federally ?

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

[7,052,770]

In case it isn't extremely clear already, most Canadians have no desire to see Canada become part of the USA. No desire at all.

I'm totally sure this is true, but has there ever been polling on the issue?

I'd be interested in the breakdown by province, party, and Trump approval.

[Benjamin Frank]

Thoughts on this video, one from a guy I've previously always found to be pretty level headed and informative (though lately more openly right-wing):

I've stopped watching so far at the 12 minute or so mark.  The first five minutes or so is decent, though I would think that since I've made the same argument for years that Canadian provinces have more in common with adjacent U.S states than with each other (though I think Alberta is generally more like the more libertarian Mountain West states than like Texas) but after that it was just a litany of moronic right wing talking points filled with simplistic half truths.  

I think it went close to self parody when, after telling us in those first five minutes how Canada has no national identity, it then criticized Justin Trudeau and the 'liberal elites' for saying that Canada has 'no national identity.'

When I hear illogical nonsense like that, I tend to lose interest, but I might get back to it.

Yeah, it seemed like it was just wishcasting that Canada would join the United States in the near future. Which I get (I love Canadians and would love to have all of you join us), but it seemed wildly unrealistic, especially for a guy who's had some good videos on history.

As per referenced in the video with Canadian provinces having more in common with adjacent states than with each other, if the United States were to divide into several nations, I could see provinces joining with those nations on a north-south basis.  

There have long been some on the west coast who desire to to see British Columbia join with Washington, Oregon and Northern California to form a nation named 'Cascadia.'  Those are a loose idea of the boundaries, there are others who want to see it more expansive including Alberta and Idaho and maybe all of California, and there are others who want to see it be less expansive.

In regards to U.S states seceedng being illegal, that has never been litigated in the U.S. The argument is that 'the Civil War litigated it', but it should be remembered that that was before all the areas to the west had been joined into the United States.  When Lincoln was referring to the 'experiment' there are many historians who believe he was also referring to the notion of 'Manifest Destiny' which had not yet been completed, but which has now been completed for around 130 years.

Had the Confederacy simply been allowed to secede at that time, it would have resulted in war in the territories as both the Confederacy and the Union had their eyes on expansion. There had already been 'bleeding Kansas' prior to the Civil War.  That would not be an issue now.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

I found it suprising just how Uber liberal Doug fords riding was federally, one of their safest seats. Wonder what would happen if he ran federally ?

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

Not just federally, Etobicoke North was uber safe Liberal provincially before Ford ran there too. There's literally nothing about that riding that indicates any level of Tory support there, other than it being the Fords' stomping grounds.

I think Doug Ford is the favourite to win Etobicoke North if he's on the ballot under any circumstances really. But federally it would be more of a challenge. Ridings like Etobicoke North are the base of LPC support, who are more popular in ON than their provincial counterparts have been in over a decade.

[mileslunn]

I found it suprising just how Uber liberal Doug fords riding was federally, one of their safest seats. Wonder what would happen if he ran federally ?

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

Not just federally, Etobicoke North was uber safe Liberal provincially before Ford ran there too. There's literally nothing about that riding that indicates any level of Tory support there, other than it being the Fords' stomping grounds.

I think Doug Ford is the favourite to win Etobicoke North if he's on the ballot under any circumstances really. But federally it would be more of a challenge. Ridings like Etobicoke North are the base of LPC support, who are more popular in ON than their provincial counterparts have been in over a decade.

Etobicoke North is full of Ford Liberals.  Essentially it always goes Liberal unless there is a Ford on the ballot in which Tories win.

[King of Kensington]

How does Patrick Brown do in Brampton if he runs there federally?

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

How does Patrick Brown do in Brampton if he runs there federally?

Depends on what the national picture looks like, and how the Brampton ridings get redistributed. To the latter point, there might be a Brampton-Caledon type riding, and that one would be competitive under any circumstances, almost certainly Conservative with Brown as the candidate.

Brampton as it stands is not favourable turf to the Tories, Brown got elected mayor there on a non-partisan basis. I'd think he could win something like Brampton Centre or South. Brampton East probably wouldn't vote Tory even with Brown as candidate.

[King of Kensington]

Yup, and now the next election will definitely take place under a new map.

[King of Kensington]

More from the punditocracy on the end of the centrism.  But there's little place for a boutique party a party of managerial Liberals and managerial Conservatives under FPTP.

https://twitter.com/TheAgenda/status/1507431252374306832

[Benjamin Frank]

More from the punditocracy on the end of the centrism.  But there's little place for a boutique party a party of managerial Liberals and managerial Conservatives under FPTP.

https://twitter.com/TheAgenda/status/1507431252374306832

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.

As evidence on this, all a person has to do is check out the Canadian media narrative on the war in Ukraine which is solely under the lens of the right wing neoconservative talking points: The West is not doing enough unless it provides Ukraine with a no-fly zone and that Canada must increase defence spending in light of this new threat from Russia.

This is the media narrative on this: Russian has resorted to a missile bombardment of Ukraine because their military is bogged down and their army is steadily being degraded...and this is why Canada must increase defense spending!

That Canada must spend 2% of GDP on the military to match the 'NATO committment' (it's more of a goal with 2% being an arbitrary figure)  is taken by the media as a given, but they seem careful to not state the $ figure even though it's an easy calculation.

At present, Canada spends 1.3-1.4% of GDP on the military and we have approximately a $2 trillion GDP.  So, to increase defense spending to 2%, is simply (2-1.35) *$2 trillion, which is approx $13 billion per annum.  

This is stated as a necessity and with no mention of it contributing to either deficits or inflation.  However, when both the dental care and the pharmacare programs are mentioned, the media is quick to report, thanks to the PBO, that they would cost a combined roughly $13-14 billion a year, and this same media is quick to ask 'how can this be paid for?'

I'm not a shill for anybody.  I don't know given the already existing budget deficits if any of this can be paid for and I don't necessarily have an opinion of what should be the priority (though certainly increasing military spending due to this 'threat' from Russia is nonsense), but I do know media bias when I see it.

And, for those who might think otherwise, this bias exists at the CBC as much as at the private networks and major print media outlets.  

For evidence of this, I direct you to the CBC radio program 'As it Happens' the Friday show where the lead-off was an interview between CBC interviewer Gillan Findlay and Defence Minister Anita Anand:
https://www.cbc.ca/listen/live-radio/1-2-as-it-happens/clip/15903032-out-alignment

[DC Al Fine]

More from the punditocracy on the end of the centrism.  But there's little place for a boutique party a party of managerial Liberals and managerial Conservatives under FPTP.

https://twitter.com/TheAgenda/status/1507431252374306832

Even outside FPTP it's pretty iffy. I forget the exact quote but Chris Selley said something like "I would believe that a centrist party would do well under PR if it weren't for other countries and their politics." Managerial centrists aren't exactly running up the score in Italy or Denmark.

[Cassius]

More from the punditocracy on the end of the centrism.  But there's little place for a boutique party a party of managerial Liberals and managerial Conservatives under FPTP.

https://twitter.com/TheAgenda/status/1507431252374306832

Even outside FPTP it's pretty iffy. I forget the exact quote but Chris Selley said something like "I would believe that a centrist party would do well under PR if it weren't for other countries and their politics." Managerial centrists aren't exactly running up the score in Italy or Denmark.

In all fairness, managerial centrists have basically been running the show in Italy for most of the period since 2011, in spite of election results. The secret is not necessarily to do well, but for the parties either side of you that oppose each other to do sufficiently well that you end up as the necessary pivot for any government formation.