Canada General Discussion (2019-)

[King of Kensington]

If you go back to the Chretien era, the Annex and Riverdale were NDP strongholds.  In part it's because Toronto's inner city was less wealthy and gentrified back then.  But Chretien was much more "neutral" on cultural issues, and the gap between the NDP and Liberals on the left/right spectrum was much bigger than today (due to the leftward shift of the Liberals).  Also Trinity-Spadina and Danforth were represented by old-school conservative machine Liberals who did better with the ethnic working classes (a much larger group then than now) and didn't appeal much to culturally liberal professionals.

[Benjamin Frank]

It's funny when people talk about the "good old days" of those thoughtful, reasonable, lovable Red Tories like Diefenbaker and Stanfield.  Dief hated Stanfield with a passion, was very different in temperament and style, represented a very different wing of the party etc.  And Stanfield represented the Bay Street wing, sort of like the Rockefeller Republicans in the US.

I find that it's mostly Liberals who praise the good old days of Red Tories, kind of like how Candice Bergen has suddenly become Paul Martin's biggest fan. I guarantee you Bergen never voted for Paul Martin, and most of the latter-day Stanfield nostalgists probably would have voted for Pierre Trudeau.

I think yes and no to both. I agree that it's a common thing for politicians of one party (and some in the media) to look back to a former leader of another party and argue 'look how our opponents have descended from what they used to be.'  The stupidest example of this was Democrats arguing in favor of George W Bush in contrast to Donald Trump.  In reality, both were criminal administrations.

However, it's also important to remember that a lot of the day to day criticism of any government by the opposition is hyperbolic and should not be taken all that seriously.  

In regards to Prime Minister Diefenbaker and Stanfield, that occurred after Diefenbaker was Prime Minister. Diefenbaker became increasingly paranoid and vindictive as leader of the opposition and then as the deposed Progressive Conservative Party leader.

As Prime Minister, his record was one of not only the Bill of Rights but of removing discrimination as part of immigration in 1962.  "In 1962, Diefenbaker's government eliminated race discrimination clauses in immigration laws."

This has probably been the single most profound change in Canadian law in the last now 60 years.  I'm not sure about the U.K, but it also preceeded similar changes in The United States and Australia.  

Diefenbaker lost support after winning his landslide majority in 1958 due to persuing austerity policies to deal with the recession that started in 1959, but any Prime Minister that passes into law a Bill of Rights and removes discrimination in immigration is a Prime Minister that liberals and progressives should absolutely embrace.

[King of Kensington]

In the 60s, Dief was the archetypal "Red Tory": culturally conservative and communitarian.  It only later became associated with "socially liberal, fiscally conservative" business types or whatever.

[Benjamin Frank]

In the 60s, Dief was the archetypal "Red Tory": culturally conservative and communitarian.  It only later became associated with "socially liberal, fiscally conservative" business types or whatever.

He was a genuine anti racist at home and abroad. In addition to the two things I mentioned above, he also successfully pushed to get South Africa out of the Commonwealth.

https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/1771019570

And he extended the vote to all indigenous Canadians:
https://diefenbaker.usask.ca/exhibits/online-exhibits-content/the-enfranchisement-of-aboriginal-peoples-in-canada-en.php

[King of Kensington]

Yes, he had a strong progressive streak as well.

In the 1950s, Bay Street was "the right" and Dief was the populist-"left" within the PC Party.

https://archive.macleans.ca/article/1953/12/1/will-diefenbaker-lead-the-tories

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

Yes, he had a strong progressive streak as well.

In the 1950s, Bay Street was "the right" and Dief was the populist-"left" within the PC Party.

https://archive.macleans.ca/article/1953/12/1/will-diefenbaker-lead-the-tories

Thanks for sharing this, it was a very interesting read and opened my eyes to the fact that Macleans has an archive going that far back!

[DC Al Fine]

Yes, he had a strong progressive streak as well.

In the 1950s, Bay Street was "the right" and Dief was the populist-"left" within the PC Party.

https://archive.macleans.ca/article/1953/12/1/will-diefenbaker-lead-the-tories

That was a good read. Thanks.

[jaymichaud]

Much to think about here

https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal/2022/04/12/patrick-brown-vows-in-video-to-end-canadas-terrorist-designation-for-tamil-tigers.html

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

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.

[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.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

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.

I don't touch that counterpoint, because I don't see it as a valid argument. Provinces have the mandate to deliver healthcare, provincial governments are in power with a democratic mandate, and residents of provinces have the power to vote out governments that they see as misusing their funds. If you don't trust some provincial governments or even the provincial voters, that's fine, it's your opinion. But that can't be the modus operandi of a democratic country.

[Poirot]

Singh has said today the dental care program is not interfering in jurisdiction. If Quebec can opt out with compensation, I think it shows it is interfering in jurisdiction.

On the introduction of a national dental care program - another commitment the Liberals made to win NDP support - it can be done without the provinces, Singh said.

The initial component of the plan would apply for its first year to children under 12 before expanding to other categories of the population, and would aim to reimburse dental bills for families without coverage, he explained.

"We're not hiring dentists, we're not interfering in jurisdictions," said Singh. "We already have a system that pays for natives and people in the Canadian Armed Forces. We are increasing this payment system."

He said Quebec will be allowed to opt out with full compensation, but he hopes the province will participate in the program. Quebec's health insurance plan provides free services for children under 10 years of age and those receiving last-resort financial assistance.

As for universal implementation, Ottawa and the provinces will have to work together, the NDP leader agreed.

The promise of a drug insurance plan is always nebulous to me. Quebec has some public drug insurance plan so what would change. Would the price of drugs we buy change, the premium, or what is covered. Or it could end up Quebec keeping its plan and Ottawa transfering money in compensation.

It looks like there will be more private delivery of health care because the public system can't do it. I hope the federal government doesn't mind because they keep pushing back negotiations on an increase health funding.

[DC Al Fine]

In which a Toronto based Boomer writing in the Globe and Mail says that Nova Scotia raising property taxes on his 2nd home threatens national unity.

This is why everyone not from Toronto resents Toronto.

FTR I know the village where the author says his 2nd home is, and it's within easy commuting distance of Halifax. Yet he's making it out like he's saving the economy of some isolated hamlet.

https://twitter.com/joneisener/status/1517622237611843586?t=_2oE6xVD9kny4R-x-65Y...

For context Eastern Passage is a working class neighbourhood maybe 30 minutes from downtown Halifax in rush hour. Author is saying the rough equivalent of "it's hard to find a job in isolated Mississauga"

[Хahar 🤔]

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.

[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.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

Jagmeet Singh's angle on inflation is so bizarre. His argument seems to boil down to "inflation is happening because big corporations are being greedy". So did corporations discover greed just in the past year or so? Why were corporations content with raising prices by only 1-2% per year for a couple decades, and have now suddenly decided to jack it up to 7-8% per year? And his solution is just as ridiculous - just tax them more. If these corporations are so consumed with greed, won't they just make up for their increased tax bill by raising prices further?

Now I don't mean to concern-troll here - I am not a social democrat or socialist and have never voted NDP. From an electoral perspective, what people like me think doesn't really matter to the NDP. But there's something quite sad about this being the caliber of Canada's leftist party. Singh seems to occupy a zone of ambiguity to the left of third-way SocDems and to the right of old-school Fabian socialists, lacking the pragmatic politicking of the former and the boldness of the latter. It's kinda just limited to a vague sense of idealism that manifests itself in run-of-the-mill tax and spend policies - something that perhaps made sense during the height of the pandemic, but offers nothing during the current inflation crisis.

[Хahar 🤔]

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.

Well, as Duddy Kravitz's uncle told him, a man is nothing without land. Perhaps that explains his attachment to his property.

[King of Kensington]

In which a Toronto based Boomer writing in the Globe and Mail says that Nova Scotia raising property taxes on his 2nd home threatens national unity.

This is why everyone not from Toronto resents Toronto.

FTR I know the village where the author says his 2nd home is, and it's within easy commuting distance of Halifax. Yet he's making it out like he's saving the economy of some isolated hamlet.

https://twitter.com/joneisener/status/1517622237611843586?t=_2oE6xVD9kny4R-x-65Y...

For context Eastern Passage is a working class neighbourhood maybe 30 minutes from downtown Halifax in rush hour. Author is saying the rough equivalent of "it's hard to find a job in isolated Mississauga"

Noah Richler ran for the NDP in 2015 (I guess it's in line with Mulcairism though?)

[CascadianIndy]

In some other news, Elections Canada has finally released the shapefiles and related data for the boundaries of both advance polls and polling districts.

2021 Canadian Riding Boundaries Resources Link: https://open.canada.ca/data/en/dataset/47a0f098-7445-41bb-a147-41686b692887


2021 Canadian Advanced Poll Boundaries Resources Link: https://open.canada.ca/data/en/dataset/34a8484d-5a00-4e34-a235-75881141385e

2021 Canadian Polling Districts Resources Link: https://open.canada.ca/data/en/dataset/0ed37cd6-d831-4183-bf43-b05e29570298

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

Since leaving Macleans, Paul Wells has started writing independently through Substack. Some of his content is subscriber-only (and it's more expensive than what newspapers usually charge for their paywall, so no thanks), but he also posts some free content. Check it out if you're interested: https://paulwells.substack.com/

[Badger]

I thought it anything, the NDP's support was less polarized by income than in the past when it was seen as more of a "socialist" party. I wonder if this is due to the increase in support among younger people?

The bulk of NDP support in those days probably came from union workers, who aren't necessarily "poor". Working-class =/= poor, particularly in heavily-unionized sectors. A solidly middle-class auto factory worker in Oshawa who negotiated his wages through UAW would have a much more direct link to the NDP than, say, a lobster fisher in rural New Brunswick who made less money, but made a living based on the market price of his lobsters.

As for now, yeah it's probably the age thing. Most polls show that NDP support is heavily skewed to the 18-34 age group. And on average, young people also have smaller incomes and definitely less wealth and property. And even then, my experience with urban 20-somethings in southern Ontario is that yuppies are more likely to vote Liberal, and to a lesser extent Tory, while the NDP is more popular with "creative class" types, social workers, etc who obviously make less than the former.

I'm going to ask a question which I really admit to powers of Canadian politics is probably laughably naive. But go ahead and laugh.

What are the cultural, economic, political, or other barriers that keep a United left versus it being split between the NDP and the Liberals. To phrase it even more basically and with even greater naivete, how fundamentally different are the policies of the NDP and the Liberals that they couldn't, at least on a very theoretical and ignoring all the mini personal grudges and rivalries, merge?

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

I thought it anything, the NDP's support was less polarized by income than in the past when it was seen as more of a "socialist" party. I wonder if this is due to the increase in support among younger people?

The bulk of NDP support in those days probably came from union workers, who aren't necessarily "poor". Working-class =/= poor, particularly in heavily-unionized sectors. A solidly middle-class auto factory worker in Oshawa who negotiated his wages through UAW would have a much more direct link to the NDP than, say, a lobster fisher in rural New Brunswick who made less money, but made a living based on the market price of his lobsters.

As for now, yeah it's probably the age thing. Most polls show that NDP support is heavily skewed to the 18-34 age group. And on average, young people also have smaller incomes and definitely less wealth and property. And even then, my experience with urban 20-somethings in southern Ontario is that yuppies are more likely to vote Liberal, and to a lesser extent Tory, while the NDP is more popular with "creative class" types, social workers, etc who obviously make less than the former.

I'm going to ask a question which I really admit to powers of Canadian politics is probably laughably naive. But go ahead and laugh.

What are the cultural, economic, political, or other barriers that keep a United left versus it being split between the NDP and the Liberals. To phrase it even more basically and with even greater naivete, how fundamentally different are the policies of the NDP and the Liberals that they couldn't, at least on a very theoretical and ignoring all the mini personal grudges and rivalries, merge?

The NDP and Liberals have very different origin stories. The Liberals started as a movement of typical 19th century classical liberals, which is to say secular, capitalist, and "bourgeois". As for the NDP, you can think of it like a fusion of UK Labour and American agrarian populists. It had a more working-class base and started out as an explicitly socialist party.

It's fair to say that over time these lines have been blurred a lot. Since the 1920s, the Liberals have steadily adopted more left-wing ideas, effectively transitioning from classical liberals like the German FDP to social liberals like the US Democrats. It helped that the Liberals were traditionally a big-tent brokerage party, so they could co-opt parts of the left without necessarily giving up their more centre-right support. The NDP has a certain built-in ideological rigidity that makes it harder for them to broaden the base - they have tried in recent years, like Tom Mulcair's attempt to out-Liberal the Liberals in 2015, and that didn't go super well. In any case, I think the Liberals and NDP have had pretty similar priorities for a long time, and with the business wing of the Liberals steadily losing support, this is more true than ever.

So why do they remain separate? Man, it's complicated. There was talk of a merger after Harper won a majority in 2011, and clearly the Liberals are more opposed to the Tories than they are to the NDP. Most of today's Liberal Party establishment is pretty clearly on the "social liberal" wing, and while they would never call themselves social democrats or use "socialist" language, I don't think they're really that different on policy from Keir Starmer or Olaf Scholz. But there are problems with a merger from many sides.

Liberal establishment: They largely see the NDP as a nuisance that tries to get votes by sullying the Liberals' progressive reputation. There is evidence to suggest that when the NDP gets in power or close to power, they embrace a more Liberal-like stance anyway. So there's a lot of bad blood.

NDP establishment: They have largely formed their political identity and message around the idea that the Liberals are corrupt sellouts who ultimately serve corporate interests. There is evidence to suggest this too. So there's a lot of bad blood, and it would look mad hypocritical on their part.

Liberal voters: Many Liberal voters are just strategic progressives whose main goal is to keep out the Tories, and these voters would probably be happy about a merger. But there are still "business liberals" in the base, the kind of voters who culturally don't identify with the Conservatives but lean right on many pocketbook issues, and would prefer the Tories over the NDP. They might not come over to a left-unity party.

NDP voters: Think about it - why is it that 15-20% of Canadians regularly vote for the NDP when they know the NDP won't form government? What keeps this cohort of progressive voters from just switching over to the Liberals? There are many reasons, but it comes down to the same reason as the NDP establishment. The Liberals in their eyes are faux-progressives who ultimately sell out to big business. I don't think the NDP base would come over to a left-unity party that would ultimately be dominated by Liberals, they're more likely to overtake the Greens or form a new left-wing party.

And finally, even with the left vote split, the Conservatives just don't form that many governments in Canada. It's not obvious that there is a major strategic advantage to a merger, and it's not obvious that it's even needed, since even a divided centre-left can defeat a united centre-right in this country.

[Poirot]

The Bloc proposed a motion to replace the daily religious prayer in the House of Commons with a secular moment of reflection. The President of Catholics bishopsagrees with this.

The motion was defeated by Conservatives and Liberals. Only Nathaniel Erskine-Smith didn't vote like his party.

Bloc and Greens voted for the motion and most of the NDP. Charlie Angus, Daniel Blaikie, Rachel Blaney and Lori Idlout were the NDP Mps voting against.

[RogueBeaver]

https://twitter.com/markusoff/status/1527092327491280896

[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.