Canada General Discussion (2019-)

[mileslunn]

Liberals going hard on abortion issue and some say sign of desperation.  No question they tend to do this when behind in polls but I think after Roe vs. Wade it just might work.  Do I believe a Poilievre led government would restrict abortion? No off course not.  But will some fear they would, yes I believe Roe vs. Wade has actually thrown a huge wrench into Conservatives winning.  They cannot make it a whipped vote like Liberals have otherwise risk another split like 90s.  But as long as include some pro-life MPs that will scare a fair number of women.  Many for a long time were told it would never happen in US yet has.  We are not US but often issues that happen there have strong spillover even if shouldn't.

[Benjamin Frank]

Liberals going hard on abortion issue and some say sign of desperation.  No question they tend to do this when behind in polls but I think after Roe vs. Wade it just might work.  Do I believe a Poilievre led government would restrict abortion? No off course not.  But will some fear they would, yes I believe Roe vs. Wade has actually thrown a huge wrench into Conservatives winning.  They cannot make it a whipped vote like Liberals have otherwise risk another split like 90s.  But as long as include some pro-life MPs that will scare a fair number of women.  Many for a long time were told it would never happen in US yet has.  We are not US but often issues that happen there have strong spillover even if shouldn't.

The Conservatives brought the issue up through the 'free vote' of Cathay Wagantall's bill which every Conservative present voted for, not the Liberals. All I've read about it was a Guardian (U.K) article. I don't know if the Liberals promoted this to the media, but it probably wasn't necessary for the Liberals to do so.

[mileslunn]

Liberals going hard on abortion issue and some say sign of desperation.  No question they tend to do this when behind in polls but I think after Roe vs. Wade it just might work.  Do I believe a Poilievre led government would restrict abortion? No off course not.  But will some fear they would, yes I believe Roe vs. Wade has actually thrown a huge wrench into Conservatives winning.  They cannot make it a whipped vote like Liberals have otherwise risk another split like 90s.  But as long as include some pro-life MPs that will scare a fair number of women.  Many for a long time were told it would never happen in US yet has.  We are not US but often issues that happen there have strong spillover even if shouldn't.

The Conservatives brought the issue up through the 'free vote' of Cathay Wagantall's bill which every Conservative present voted for, not the Liberals. All I've read about it was a Guardian (U.K) article. I don't know if the Liberals promoted this to the media, but it probably wasn't necessary for the Liberals to do so.

I just know abortion is an issue Liberals are great at winning on.  Health care and guns are other two.  I suspect Liberals will go negative big time and unlike many I actually think it will work.  I think people may be tired of Liberals but general fear of Tories that has pretty much existed since party was created still remains and hasn't dissipated.  I think also fact GOP has become more extreme makes some assume Conservatives have too so just because Harper didn't do it won't necessarily work either.

[Benjamin Frank]

Liberals going hard on abortion issue and some say sign of desperation.  No question they tend to do this when behind in polls but I think after Roe vs. Wade it just might work.  Do I believe a Poilievre led government would restrict abortion? No off course not.  But will some fear they would, yes I believe Roe vs. Wade has actually thrown a huge wrench into Conservatives winning.  They cannot make it a whipped vote like Liberals have otherwise risk another split like 90s.  But as long as include some pro-life MPs that will scare a fair number of women.  Many for a long time were told it would never happen in US yet has.  We are not US but often issues that happen there have strong spillover even if shouldn't.

The Conservatives brought the issue up through the 'free vote' of Cathay Wagantall's bill which every Conservative present voted for, not the Liberals. All I've read about it was a Guardian (U.K) article. I don't know if the Liberals promoted this to the media, but it probably wasn't necessary for the Liberals to do so.

I just know abortion is an issue Liberals are great at winning on.  Health care and guns are other two.  I suspect Liberals will go negative big time and unlike many I actually think it will work.  I think people may be tired of Liberals but general fear of Tories that has pretty much existed since party was created still remains and hasn't dissipated.  I think also fact GOP has become more extreme makes some assume Conservatives have too so just because Harper didn't do it won't necessarily work either.

The next election is up to 2 years away so this is all speculation, but I think a lot depends on the economy. If the Liberals try to bring up these social issues though and the public is interested in other things, it could backfire on the Liberals as, for instance, being Mr 'anti woke' seems to be backfiring on Ron DeSantis.

I think there is an enormous amount of material to use against Pierre Poilievre (and the Conservative Party since about 70% voted for Poilievre) but he has a base of support and it doesn't take a lot more voters, especially if they voted Liberal in 2021, for the Conservatives to win another 50 or so seats (you went through the close ridings) to eke out a majority, or close to it.

I also disagree with Paul Wells and whoever else that it's 'majority or bust' for Poilievre. I thimk all he needs is for the Conservatives to win more seats than the Liberals and NDP combined. I think the Conservatives can neutralize the Bloc who are nowhere near as left wing as they are mistakenly assumed to be by many. First, Quebec isn't uniformly left, in my opinion it really is a 'unique society', second the Bloc sees its role in Ottawa as the defender of the CAQ government which is generally centre right, and finally the Bloc also sees its role as 'supporting Quebec' which I think the Conservatives can do by throwing the odd bone.

The Conservatives may have to water down their policies on the environment to appease the Bloc, but listening to Danielle Smith on The House last week for instance, there does seem to be a recognition that climate change denial is done even with Conservatives and that 'net carbon neutrality' by 2050 is necessary.

[Benjamin Frank]

Doug Ford's got some 'splaining to do.

From the Auditor General's report into the Greenbelt.

— The AG's topline finding: "The lands removed from the Greenbelt in December 2022 were not chosen using an objective and transparent selection process. Although the government communicated that it was removing land from the Greenbelt to support its goal of building 1.5 million housing units over the next 10 years, there is no evidence this land is needed to reach that goal."

— Key stat: "Direct access to the housing minister’s chief of staff resulted in certain prominent developers receiving preferential treatment. At least 92 percent of the acreage removed from the Greenbelt was from five land sites passed on from two developers (which included a land site associated with a third developer) who had direct access to the housing minister’s chief of staff."

[Benjamin Frank]

Interesting article on the Canadian political situation. When I say 'interesting' I mean that I largely agree with it.

The author of the article, Michael Harris, used to be a conservative pundit on the CTV weekly political show, or one of those other shows.

https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2023/08/15/Justin-Trudeau-Is-Not-Done/
Don’t Believe the Spin. Trudeau Isn’t Done

I especially agree with this and have been making the same point:
"For all their missteps, the Liberals have passed a lot of legislation that enhanced Canada’s social safety net and directly impacted the lives of its citizens. More importantly, a lot of the legislation dealt with the pressing issues of our time."

I'm not sure that I agree that they deal with the issues the public thinks of as the most pressing, but I have pointed out several times that while the media tends to focus on the mostly minor scandals and other incompetencies, that there was a similar focus on the Pearson government, but looking back many pundits now regard the Pearson government as one of the most significant in Canadian history.

[Upper Canada Tory]

Interesting article on the Canadian political situation. When I say 'interesting' I mean that I largely agree with it.

The author of the article, Michael Harris, used to be a conservative pundit on the CTV weekly political show, or one of those other shows.

https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2023/08/15/Justin-Trudeau-Is-Not-Done/
Don’t Believe the Spin. Trudeau Isn’t Done

I especially agree with this and have been making the same point:
"For all their missteps, the Liberals have passed a lot of legislation that enhanced Canada’s social safety net and directly impacted the lives of its citizens. More importantly, a lot of the legislation dealt with the pressing issues of our time."

I'm not sure that I agree that they deal with the issues the public thinks of as the most pressing, but I have pointed out several times that while the media tends to focus on the mostly minor scandals and other incompetencies, that there was a similar focus on the Pearson government, but looking back many pundits now regard the Pearson government as one of the most significant in Canadian history.

I disagree with the article that Harper's scandals were worse than Trudeau's. In the scandals with the overspending and violation of campaign finance laws, everyone who was involved was held accountable by the law. The Trudeau government has been found to be in violation of the Conflict of Interest Act thrice, more times than the Harper government, two of those being Trudeau himself and there has been very little accountability other than the ethics commissioner's findings themselves.

Also, this is a strange line: 'His government specialized in defence spending rather than social spending, and cut expenditures on First Nations.'

Actually, Trudeau has increased defence spending by a higher percentage of GDP than Harper did - this isn't a bad thing, I think Canada spending on defence is good. But the claim that Harper prioritized defence spending more than Trudeau is definitely untrue in my opinion. Trudeau also cancelled the F-35 deal made under Harper and purchased those same F-35s again 8 years later for a much more expensive price, and it'll be years until they are delivered.

With regards to social spending, Harper mostly kept the same policies as his Liberal predecessors, such as spending 6% of GDP on health transfers per year, although he did reduce future increases in order to spend more on economic stimulus during the recession. However, it's worth noting Trudeau has also kept this formula. I will concede Trudeau has done somewhat better than Harper on First Nations issues since many reserves are finally receiving access to clean water.

https://canadians.org/analysis/trudeau-keeps-harpers-health-care-funding-formula/

Harper was also definitely more fiscally responsible than Trudeau, COVID notwithstanding. The former Parliamentary Budget Officer himself said that Trudeau's budgets were less transparent than Harper's.
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thehouse/preston-manning-s-prescription-to-recharge-the-right-1.3463742/liberal-fiscal-plans-less-transparent-than-under-harper-kevin-page-says-1.3464078

Additionally, Harper ran small deficits during the recession with a goal to reach a balanced budget. Trudeau ran large deficits during good economic times from 2016 to 2019. Canada's triple A credit rating with Fitch was downgraded in 2020. Yes it was during the COVID economic crisis which makes it somewhat understandable, but this didn't happen during the two recessions under Harper (2008 and 2015).
https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/canada-loses-aaa-rating-fitch-downgrades-amid-virus-costs-1.1455645

To add to this point, many G7 countries like the US and France lost their triple AAA credit rating with S&P after the 2008 recession, so Harper compares favourably in comparison, as Canada did not lose its triple AAA credit rating with any credit agency while he was in power.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-debt-downgrade-idUSTRE7746VF20110807
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-rating-idUSTRE80C2GO20120113

I also disagree with comparing the current Trudeau government to the Pearson government, for many reasons, but that would be a long explanation that I don't feel like writing now and I'm not sure anyone will care to read it.

[CumbrianLefty]

I would be interested in seeing that comparison at some point, if you have the time.

[Benjamin Frank]

Interesting article on the Canadian political situation. When I say 'interesting' I mean that I largely agree with it.

The author of the article, Michael Harris, used to be a conservative pundit on the CTV weekly political show, or one of those other shows.

https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2023/08/15/Justin-Trudeau-Is-Not-Done/
Don’t Believe the Spin. Trudeau Isn’t Done

I especially agree with this and have been making the same point:
"For all their missteps, the Liberals have passed a lot of legislation that enhanced Canada’s social safety net and directly impacted the lives of its citizens. More importantly, a lot of the legislation dealt with the pressing issues of our time."

I'm not sure that I agree that they deal with the issues the public thinks of as the most pressing, but I have pointed out several times that while the media tends to focus on the mostly minor scandals and other incompetencies, that there was a similar focus on the Pearson government, but looking back many pundits now regard the Pearson government as one of the most significant in Canadian history.

I disagree with the article that Harper's scandals were worse than Trudeau's. In the scandals with the overspending and violation of campaign finance laws, everyone who was involved was held accountable by the law. The Trudeau government has been found to be in violation of the Conflict of Interest Act thrice, more times than the Harper government, two of those being Trudeau himself and there has been very little accountability other than the ethics commissioner's findings themselves.

Also, this is a strange line: 'His government specialized in defence spending rather than social spending, and cut expenditures on First Nations.'

Actually, Trudeau has increased defence spending at a higher percentage of GDP than Harper did - this isn't a bad thing, I think Canada spending on defence is good. But the claim that Harper prioritized defence spending more than Trudeau is definitely untrue in my opinion. Trudeau also cancelled the F-35 deal made under Harper and purchased those same F-35s again 8 years later for a much more expensive price, and it'll be years until they are delivered.

With regards to social spending, Harper mostly kept the same policies as his Liberal predecessors, such as spending 6% of GDP on health transfers per year, although he did reduce future increases in order to spend more on economic stimulus during the recession. However, it's worth noting Trudeau has also kept this formula. I will concede Trudeau has done somewhat better than Harper on First Nations issues since many reserves are finally receiving access to clean water.

https://canadians.org/analysis/trudeau-keeps-harpers-health-care-funding-formula/

Harper was also definitely more fiscally responsible than Trudeau, COVID notwithstanding. The former Parliamentary Budget Officer himself said that Trudeau's budgets were less transparent than Harper's.
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thehouse/preston-manning-s-prescription-to-recharge-the-right-1.3463742/liberal-fiscal-plans-less-transparent-than-under-harper-kevin-page-says-1.3464078

Additionally, Harper ran small deficits during the recession with a goal to reach a balanced budget. Trudeau ran large deficits during good economic times from 2016 to 2019. Canada's triple A credit rating with Fitch was downgraded in 2020. Yes it was during the COVID economic crisis which makes it somewhat understandable, but this didn't happen during the two recessions under Harper (2008 and 2015).
https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/canada-loses-aaa-rating-fitch-downgrades-amid-virus-costs-1.1455645

To add to this point, many G7 countries like the US and France lost their triple AAA credit rating with S&P after the 2008 recession, so Harper compares favourably in comparison, as Canada did not lose its triple AAA credit rating with any credit agency while he was in power.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-debt-downgrade-idUSTRE7746VF20110807
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-rating-idUSTRE80C2GO20120113

I also disagree with comparing the current Trudeau government to the Pearson government, for many reasons, but that would be a long explanation that I don't feel like writing now and I'm not sure anyone will care to read it.

1.The Harper government passed the Conflict of Interest Act and they left the Ethics Commissioner without the power to punish but only to release their findings. I'm sure the logic was, as those who argue in favor of Trump, 'it should be up to the voters to decide what punishment, if any, based on the information, is appropriate.'  

2.I found the claim of the Harper military spending to be strange as well. I didn't agree with all of the article, as I said. I also agree that mentioning Covid under Trudeau but not mentioning the Great Recession under Harper was dishonest, and I don't disagree that if the focus for the voter is on balanced budgets, that Harper was the better Prime Minister.

The other areas I disagreed with were that Trudeau is 'likely' to win a fourth term whereas I think it's completely uncertain at this point, and that Trudeau is 'likeable.'

I would also be interested in your response on Trudeau/Pearson.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I would be interested in seeing that comparison at some point, if you have the time.

Me as well.

[Agafin]

Can a nationwide election even be held in canada right now? If the governement collapses for some reason and elections are called, how will the citizens of NWT even vote when over half of them have been evacuated? VBM?

[MaxQue]

Can a nationwide election even be held in canada right now? If the governement collapses for some reason and elections are called, how will the citizens of NWT even vote when over half of them have been evacuated? VBM?

The 1997 election was held despite massive floods in Manitoba.

[CumbrianLefty]

Sorry for my ignorance, but what is happening in NWT?

[Sol]

Sorry for my ignorance, but what is happening in NWT?

Massive wildfires, they had to evacuate Yellowknife.

[MaxQue]

Sorry for my ignorance, but what is happening in NWT?

65% of the population has been evacuated outside the territory, including the capital Yellowknife, due to wildfires. The town of Entreprise has already been destroyed.

[CumbrianLefty]

Ah, that does not sound too great.

[No War, but the War on Christmas]

Canada has 'game plan' if U.S. takes far-right, authoritarian shift, Joly says

Definitely don't blame them, and it's scary to consider what the next decade could bring in my country. Sad that this is something our allies and friends even need to consider.

[lfromnj]

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada-international-students-food-banks
International Indian students using food banks despite the fact they are required to be self sufficient and not leech of welfare/support systems.

[Benjamin Frank]

I'm not sure if this is coordinated or how coordinated this is, but the Prairie/Western provincial New Democratic Parties all seem to have adopted vaguely populist centre/centre slightly right policy focuses.

The Alberta NDP ran as a centrist party in the last election, and, I think, could move even slightly more right leaning, though I don't think populist, if Rachel Notley steps down and is replaced by Calgary MLA and former Attorney General Kathleen Ganley (though I gather Edmonton MLA Rachi Pancholi would be the frontrunner.)

In Saskathcewan, last October, Carla Beck demoted Energy and Resources critic Erika Ritchie and replaced her with Aleana Young announcing that the NDP was more concerned with resources for economic development than over environmental concerns.

In Manitoba in the upcoming election, Wab Kinew is using Bill Clinton's line of 'being tough on crime and the causes of crime' while channeling New York City mayor Eric Adams on how communities often victimized by police are more concerned with being victimized by crime, and has also promised tax cuts on gasoline.

[Oryxslayer]

I'm not sure if this is coordinated or how coordinated this is, but the Prairie/Western provincial New Democratic Parties all seem to have adopted vaguely populist centre/centre slightly right policy focuses.

All three are provinces more Conservative-favoring than the nation, sometimes very much so. This pushes the center of gravity towards their policies.

Then there is the fact that in all four Western provinces there presently exists more or less a two-party duopoly. This is in contrast to the provinces east of Kenora where there have mostly been 3+ party systems for a while now. The western NDP therefore is the catch all big-tent party for those left of conservative-inclined center of gravity. This obviously catches most of the Federal Lib and NDP voters, but also some Cons. On the other side is a variously-named party either in line with or even more committed to national Conservative policies, since their electorate is almost entirely federal CPC and now PPC voters.

[Hatman 🍁]

I wonder if, considering Kinew's background, a "tough on crime" approach is more necessary to assuage concerns of having an Indigenous man in charge. Manitobans can be quite racist of course.

[Benjamin Frank]

I don't know how seriously this is meant to be taken, but long time left wing Alberta journalist David Climenhaga is contemplating a Prime Minister Rachel Notley.
https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2023/08/22/How-Prime-Minister-Rachel-Notley-Sound/

The question I ask is would she be a New Democratic Party Prime Minister or a Liberal Party Prime Minister?

[Hatman 🍁]

Notley bleeds orange. No way she runs as a Liberal.

Nowhere mentioned in the article is if she speaks French though.

Anyway, she probably would do very well in a general election, though one wonders if the NDP would actually pick her. She may be too right wing for the base. FTR though, I would support her in a heartbeat despite me being quite a bit to her left.

[Benjamin Frank]

Notley bleeds orange. No way she runs as a Liberal.

Nowhere mentioned in the article is if she speaks French though.

Anyway, she probably would do very well in a general election, though one wonders if the NDP would actually pick her. She may be too right wing for the base. FTR though, I would support her in a heartbeat despite me being quite a bit to her left.

I can't imagine Notley winning the federal NDP leadership given her support for the fossil fuel sector (even if it isn't supportive enough for enough people in Alberta.)

Don't forget though of former NDP Premiers who later ran Federally, it's two to zero for the Federal Liberal Party (Ujjal Dosanjh and Bob Rae.)

[Oryxslayer]

Notley bleeds orange. No way she runs as a Liberal.

Nowhere mentioned in the article is if she speaks French though.

Anyway, she probably would do very well in a general election, though one wonders if the NDP would actually pick her. She may be too right wing for the base. FTR though, I would support her in a heartbeat despite me being quite a bit to her left.

I can't imagine Notley winning the federal NDP leadership given her support for the fossil fuel sector (even if it isn't supportive enough for enough people in Alberta.)

Don't forget though of former NDP Premiers who later ran Federally, it's two to zero for the Federal Liberal Party (Ujjal Dosanjh and Bob Rae.)

On the other side of the coin, she would be coming into the Liberals as an outsider of potentially dubious loyalty, at a time when they seemingly are full of prominent party loyalists who will win reelection even if PP comes to power. And if he doesn't, then Trudeau's successor will be internally selected and appointed. The Liberals aren't at the point or in the mindset where they need a unconventional hero to save the day.

The piece's hypothetical is seemingly that after whatever election may come, the ground will be fertile for a parliamentary NDP career. Which of course is a huge hypothetical on top of many what-ifs. Singh would need to step down of his own volition, at a time when the federal NDP is seemingly looking more and more like his 'American Progressivism.' 79% of 2021 NDP voters approval of him according to Angus Reid last week. Despite his past lackluster electoral performances, the NDP would probably still have to lose seats in a GE for him to go, which is not immediately apparent. That's an unknown no matter who wins. If it's PP, like the present polls say, then the NDP still make net Gains off urban (mostly) Liberal seats to counter losses to the CPC in Northern Ontario and BC. That would give the party even more of an urban progressive identity, making it harder for Notely to step in. If it's the Libs winning, then things could potentially just remain stagnant, like in 2021.

The next big hypothetical would require outmaneuvering the Libs while in opposition to reverse the 2.5 duopoly in their favor, like 2011. This is obviously all but impossible in the Libs win reelection. And results would still be expected in time when the following election comes, which would probably elect the Conservatives in a Time-for-Change moment. It's possible if PP is in charge, but then you face another issue. Where it matters electorally, voters tend to instinctively go for the Conservative option in Blue vs Orange elections, and need a reason to look at the NDP. Mabey Notely is the person who can convince voters in the York and Durham regions to give them a chance, but thats just one more hurdle on top of a mountain of them.