Canada General Discussion (2019-)

[Upper Canada Tory]

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 they are unreasonably high.

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

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

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.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

Doesn’t seem to have been mentioned on forum, but a couple weeks ago the BC Liberals finalised their renaming and new identity.

[Upper Canada Tory]

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.

[Хahar 🤔]

Doesn’t seem to have been mentioned on forum, but a couple weeks ago the BC Liberals finalised their renaming and new identity.

Very curious to see whether Wayne Rooney can turn them around!

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

Doesn’t seem to have been mentioned on forum, but a couple weeks ago the BC Liberals finalised their renaming and new identity.

Very curious to see whether Wayne Rooney can turn them around!

Lol "BC United" now holds the title of "most incompetent major right-wing party in Canada", and these days that's a very competitive list to top.

The name sounds like an English football club, the logo looks like an insurance company, and the polling is atrocious. After one year as leader Falcon has made zero impression.

Exhibit A: Top Issues in BC


Exhibit B: Approval of NDP government's handling of top issues


Exhibit C: Vote intent


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.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

What kind of leader would make BC United competitive?

[Hatman 🍁]

What kind of leader would make BC United competitive?

Someone who runs a campaign similar to Ken Sim's mayoral run.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

What kind of leader would make BC United competitive?

Someone who runs a campaign similar to Ken Sim's mayoral run.

Possibly, but tbf Sim had the luxury of running against Kennedy Stewart.

[JimJamUK]

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?

[Upper Canada Tory]

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?

I get the impression it's to avoid being associated with the federal Liberals.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

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.

[Benjamin Frank]

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.

An additional factor is the provincial Conservative Party is attempting a comeback with MLA and former Liberal John Rustad as leader. 

The name change was being voted on by party members before Rustad did this, but the Liberals were increasingly concerned of a provincial Conservative party come back, especially, I think, in the Interior.

The provincial Conservatives have been around for a number of years, and were expected to be a factor in the 2013 election when they were led by former Conservative M.P John Cummins, but in that election, infighting within the Conservative Party hurt their chances. The party had the infighting problem until a couple years ago or so.

So, the 'United' is also meant to send a signal that this is the party 'united' against the NDP.

Given that Kevin Falcon has gone 'woke' on a number of social issues, it might be remotely possible that the Federal Conservative Party under Poilievre will provide some subtle support to the B.C Conservative Party.

[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.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

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.

An additional factor is the provincial Conservative Party is attempting a comeback with MLA and former Liberal John Rustad as leader. 

The name change was being voted on by party members before Rustad did this, but the Liberals were increasingly concerned of a provincial Conservative party come back, especially, I think, in the Interior.

The provincial Conservatives have been around for a number of years, and were expected to be a factor in the 2013 election when they were led by former Conservative M.P John Cummins, but in that election, infighting within the Conservative Party hurt their chances. The party had the infighting problem until a couple years ago or so.

So, the 'United' is also meant to send a signal that this is the party 'united' against the NDP.

Given that Kevin Falcon has gone 'woke' on a number of social issues, it might be remotely possible that the Federal Conservative Party under Poilievre will provide some subtle support to the B.C Conservative Party.

Poilievre has mostly avoided getting mixed up with provincial stuff. "Woke" or not, BCUP is the provincial party of most federal conservatives. It would be very risky for Poilievre to gamble on the BC Conservatives

[Upper Canada Tory]

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.

An additional factor is the provincial Conservative Party is attempting a comeback with MLA and former Liberal John Rustad as leader. 

The name change was being voted on by party members before Rustad did this, but the Liberals were increasingly concerned of a provincial Conservative party come back, especially, I think, in the Interior.

The provincial Conservatives have been around for a number of years, and were expected to be a factor in the 2013 election when they were led by former Conservative M.P John Cummins, but in that election, infighting within the Conservative Party hurt their chances. The party had the infighting problem until a couple years ago or so.

So, the 'United' is also meant to send a signal that this is the party 'united' against the NDP.

Given that Kevin Falcon has gone 'woke' on a number of social issues, it might be remotely possible that the Federal Conservative Party under Poilievre will provide some subtle support to the B.C Conservative Party.

Poilievre has mostly avoided getting mixed up with provincial stuff. "Woke" or not, BCUP is the provincial party of most federal conservatives. It would be very risky for Poilievre to gamble on the BC Conservatives

Regarding Poilievre, I'm not even sure how much he agrees with BC Liberals/BC United ideologically to the extent that he would enthusiastically campaign for them.

Even though BC United is on the centre-right of the BC political spectrum and has been independent of the federal Liberal Party for a long time, they still have passed policies Poilievre disapproves of, such as the carbon tax. He would likely also be critical of the BC Liberals' management of housing affordability issues and certain crown corporations.

Additionally, if you'll remember who Poilievre's main opponent was in the CPC leadership, it was Jean Charest - former leader of the Quebec Liberal Party, which is also independent from the federal Liberals and seen as centre to centre-right in provincial politics, but Poilievre still criticized many aspects of Charest's record such as implementing carbon pricing.

So, is Poilievre so ideologically aligned with BC Liberals/BC United? I'm not so sure.

[Upper Canada Tory]

Doesn’t seem to have been mentioned on forum, but a couple weeks ago the BC Liberals finalised their renaming and new identity.

Very curious to see whether Wayne Rooney can turn them around!

Lol "BC United" now holds the title of "most incompetent major right-wing party in Canada", and these days that's a very competitive list to top.

The name sounds like an English football club, the logo looks like an insurance company, and the polling is atrocious. After one year as leader Falcon has made zero impression.

Exhibit A: Top Issues in BC


Exhibit B: Approval of NDP government's handling of top issues


Exhibit C: Vote intent


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.

Also, to be fair, part of BCUP's current incompetence is simply the fact that they haven't released a platform or any policy commitments. If they did that they'd probably get far more support.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

Regarding Poilievre, I'm not even sure how much he agrees with BC Liberals/BC United ideologically to the extent that he would enthusiastically campaign for them.

Even though BC United is on the centre-right of the BC political spectrum and has been independent of the federal Liberal Party for a long time, they still have passed policies Poilievre disapproves of, such as the carbon tax. He would likely also be critical of the BC Liberals' management of housing affordability issues and certain crown corporations.

Additionally, if you'll remember who Poilievre's main opponent was in the CPC leadership, it was Jean Charest - former leader of the Quebec Liberal Party, which is also independent from the federal Liberals and seen as centre to centre-right in provincial politics, but Poilievre still criticized many aspects of Charest's record such as implementing carbon pricing.

So, is Poilievre so ideologically aligned with BC Liberals/BC United? I'm not so sure.

It's not about ideological alignment, it's about politicking. If by the time of the next election, BC NDP has plummeted in the polls and BCU are on the up, most federal Conservatives will happily hitch their wagons to them, even if they personally would prefer the BC Conservatives. But yeah I don't think Poilievre is bursting at the seams to be best buddies with Kevin Falcon. He's stayed out of provincial politics for the most part, and keeping the focus squarely on his role as opposition leader seems to be working.

Honestly, there are some areas where Poilievre might actually find more common ground with Eby's NDP than Falcon's United. YIMBY politics is growing in popularity both on the left and right, and both Eby and Poilievre are trying to jump on this bandwagon, while BC United are one of, if not the most NIMBY major party in Canada.

Here's the thing, it is quite likely that if the Conservatives form a government, it will be a minority government. In fact I think a strong CPC minority is the most likely outcome. But with a centre-left majority in the house, firebreathing conservatism will have to wait, and Poilievre will have to do what Harper did in his minorities and focus on more pragmatic policies with a broad appeal. For Harper it was the Accountability Act and other measures to reform government, and for Poilievre, it's likely to be his promises to boost housing construction, speed up work permits for immigrants, etc. These things require provincial cooperation, and the BC NDP has shown a willingness to support similar things as Poilievre is proposing. Of course, some of his other views like on crime and drugs go against the BC NDP, but those things are unlikely to pass in a minority parliament anyway.

So while I have no doubt that Poilievre would prefer either one of BCU or the BC Tories if he were a BC resident, realpolitik dictates that he's better off staying out of provincial politics and potentially burning bridges with provincial governments, and I think he understands that.

[Upper Canada Tory]

Regarding Poilievre, I'm not even sure how much he agrees with BC Liberals/BC United ideologically to the extent that he would enthusiastically campaign for them.

Even though BC United is on the centre-right of the BC political spectrum and has been independent of the federal Liberal Party for a long time, they still have passed policies Poilievre disapproves of, such as the carbon tax. He would likely also be critical of the BC Liberals' management of housing affordability issues and certain crown corporations.

Additionally, if you'll remember who Poilievre's main opponent was in the CPC leadership, it was Jean Charest - former leader of the Quebec Liberal Party, which is also independent from the federal Liberals and seen as centre to centre-right in provincial politics, but Poilievre still criticized many aspects of Charest's record such as implementing carbon pricing.

So, is Poilievre so ideologically aligned with BC Liberals/BC United? I'm not so sure.

It's not about ideological alignment, it's about politicking. If by the time of the next election, BC NDP has plummeted in the polls and BCU are on the up, most federal Conservatives will happily hitch their wagons to them, even if they personally would prefer the BC Conservatives. But yeah I don't think Poilievre is bursting at the seams to be best buddies with Kevin Falcon. He's stayed out of provincial politics for the most part, and keeping the focus squarely on his role as opposition leader seems to be working.

Honestly, there are some areas where Poilievre might actually find more common ground with Eby's NDP than Falcon's United. YIMBY politics is growing in popularity both on the left and right, and both Eby and Poilievre are trying to jump on this bandwagon, while BC United are one of, if not the most NIMBY major party in Canada.

Here's the thing, it is quite likely that if the Conservatives form a government, it will be a minority government. In fact I think a strong CPC minority is the most likely outcome. But with a centre-left majority in the house, firebreathing conservatism will have to wait, and Poilievre will have to do what Harper did in his minorities and focus on more pragmatic policies with a broad appeal. For Harper it was the Accountability Act and other measures to reform government, and for Poilievre, it's likely to be his promises to boost housing construction, speed up work permits for immigrants, etc. These things require provincial cooperation, and the BC NDP has shown a willingness to support similar things as Poilievre is proposing. Of course, some of his other views like on crime and drugs go against the BC NDP, but those things are unlikely to pass in a minority parliament anyway.

So while I have no doubt that Poilievre would prefer either one of BCU or the BC Tories if he were a BC resident, realpolitik dictates that he's better off staying out of provincial politics and potentially burning bridges with provincial governments, and I think he understands that.

Oh, to clarify, I wasn't saying Poilievre was going to intervene in provincial politics to support one or the other, I expect him to remain neutral and stay out as well. It's moreso that if he were going to intervene in BC politics I'm not sure he'd be entirely on the same page as BCUP/BC Liberals ideologically.

[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).

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

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).

12.6% raise over four years (as opposed to PSAC's demand for 13.5% over three) and a lump-sum payment of $2500, and a "review" for telework. Overall, seems like a pretty clear-cut "meet in the middle" situation. I guess neither PSAC nor the government wanted to prolong this strike too long. On PSAC's end, it can be hard to keep up worker morale past the point where they're still getting paid - strike pay is 60% of regular pay. As for the government, even though opinion polls were all over the place re: who the public sided with, the Liberals can't really afford to lose any more public support, so playing the long game and potentially invoking back-to-work would have been a risky move.

Idk how (or if) this will affect generic ballot polling. The CPC stood to benefit from a prolonged strike, but they didn't do anything to lose support either, so no net effect for them, apart from a missed opportunity had the strike gone on longer. For Liberals, if they want to unite a strong anti-Poilievre coalition for 2025, they can't afford to alienate public sector labour. This won't boost their polling right now, but could pay off when they most need it. As for the NDP, I'm sure Singh will claim victory over this, and perhaps rightly so, question is whether voters reward him for his role (I doubt it).

[Upper Canada Tory]

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).

12.6% raise over four years (as opposed to PSAC's demand for 13.5% over three) and a lump-sum payment of $2500, and a "review" for telework. Overall, seems like a pretty clear-cut "meet in the middle" situation. I guess neither PSAC nor the government wanted to prolong this strike too long. On PSAC's end, it can be hard to keep up worker morale past the point where they're still getting paid - strike pay is 60% of regular pay. As for the government, even though opinion polls were all over the place re: who the public sided with, the Liberals can't really afford to lose any more public support, so playing the long game and potentially invoking back-to-work would have been a risky move.

Idk how (or if) this will affect generic ballot polling. The CPC stood to benefit from a prolonged strike, but they didn't do anything to lose support either, so no net effect for them, apart from a missed opportunity had the strike gone on longer. For Liberals, if they want to unite a strong anti-Poilievre coalition for 2025, they can't afford to alienate public sector labour. This won't boost their polling right now, but could pay off when they most need it. As for the NDP, I'm sure Singh will claim victory over this, and perhaps rightly so, question is whether voters reward him for his role (I doubt it).

The issue is that if the NDP/Singh claims victory over this, it won't be very convincing to voters. This is clearly a middle of the ground situation, so the government didn't have to sacrifice much and the union didn't gain much. The most important thing the labour union wanted, the right to telework, ended up not happening.

[Poirot]

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.

It is public. Normal federal vote intentions from Léger:
CPC 36%
LIB 30%
NDP 19%
Bloc 7%
Green 4%
PPC 2%

If there is an alliance between LIB and NDP, with only one of the two parties running a candidate in a riding:
LIB-NDP 41%
CPC 39%
Bloc 8%
Green 6%
PPC 3%

For Quebec provincial voting intentions, CAQ drops 4% since February:

CAQ 36%
PQ 22%
QS 16%
LPQ 14%
PCQ 10%

In the Quebec City region, CAQ has declined by 14%, PQ and PCQ benefit. It's PQ 28, CAQ 26. PCQ 23.

Quebec City is split on the decision to abandon building a tunnel for cars between Québec and Lévis.  46% agree with the decision, 45% disagree. The whole province number is 47% agree, 29% disagree.

[Upper Canada Tory]

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.

It is public. Normal federal vote intentions from Léger:
CPC 36%
LIB 30%
NDP 19%
Bloc 7%
Green 4%
PPC 2%

If there is an alliance between LIB and NDP, with only one of the two parties running a candidate in a riding:
LIB-NDP 41%
CPC 39%
Bloc 8%
Green 6%
PPC 3%

For Quebec provincial voting intentions, CAQ drops 4% since February:

CAQ 36%
PQ 22%
QS 16%
LPQ 14%
PCQ 10%

In the Quebec City region, CAQ has declined by 14%, PQ and PCQ benefit. It's PQ 28, CAQ 26. PCQ 23.

Quebec City is split on the decision to abandon building a tunnel for cars between Québec and Lévis.  46% agree with the decision, 45% disagree. The whole province number is 47% agree, 29% disagree.

Is this a poll that has already been released? I can't seem to find it online.

[Poirot]

For provincial politics the full results are on the French side of their website.

For the federal vote intentions / possible alliance, the result was in a son of Léger column (result at the bottom). It doesn't give regional numbers which could be interesting (does the race in the prairies get more competitive? what happens in Ontario?) He says the Bloc would gain 4% with a Lib-NDP alliance.

https://www.journaldemontreal.com/2023/04/29/sondage-lalliance-entre-les-liberaux-et-le-npd-pourrait-etre-la-voie-de-sortie-de-trudeau