Canada General Discussion (2019-)

[OSR stands with Israel]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/international-student-cap-immigration-system-integrity-1.6948733

mmigration Minister Marc Miller says the concern around the skyrocketing number of international students entering Canada is not just about housing, but Canadians' confidence in the "integrity" of the immigration system itself.

Canada is on track to welcome around 900,000 international students this year, Miller said in an interview that aired Saturday on CBC's The House. That's more than at any point in Canada's history and roughly triple the number of students who entered the country a decade ago.

This is insane

[Benjamin Frank]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/international-student-cap-immigration-system-integrity-1.6948733

mmigration Minister Marc Miller says the concern around the skyrocketing number of international students entering Canada is not just about housing, but Canadians' confidence in the "integrity" of the immigration system itself.

Canada is on track to welcome around 900,000 international students this year, Miller said in an interview that aired Saturday on CBC's The House. That's more than at any point in Canada's history and roughly triple the number of students who entered the country a decade ago.

This is insane

It is a very large number, but international students come and go (or are expected to - unless they apply for permanant residence/citizenship.) So, what really matters is the flow and not the stock, that is, the net increase (or decrease) in international students from year to year.

I believe that has increased significantly in the last few years as well though.

[Benjamin Frank]

Canadian polls have been so static since the last election that I'm surprised the housing comment alone would have moved the polls that much. I'll defer to our Canadian posters on that but is there anything else that would have contributed to the big shift recently?

I also think that recent history shows, that Canadians start to get fed up of governments around this time too

- Tories were bounced after 9 years in power and I believe had been polling badly from 1991 onwards

- Liberals were bounced after a little more than 12 years from power but had their backlash happen a little later thanks to the Reform/PC divide for the vast majority of this period

- Tories were bounced after nearly 10 years in power and you could see that by year 8 , Harper was doing pretty badly in the polls

The Brian Mulroney government was unpopular for nearly its entire tenure. (It was a good to very good government, btw, but it did a lot of tough/unpopular things.) Its support had fallen back after the 1988 election well before 1991. By 1991 though it was freqently polling in the mid teens.

It's debatable if they would have gotten reelected in 1988 if that election hadn't have become a referendum on free trade. Support for the P.Cs rose steadily over 1988 prior to finalizing the free trade agreement largely over the government focusing on passing legislation and looking serious. Getting Lucien Bouchard elected to Parliament in a byelection in June 1988 (after making well over $100 million in promises to the riding) seemed to have turned the corner for the P.Cs reelection efforts, but I think their support was still fragile and Brian Mulroney was personally unpopular.

These are different times, much more partisan, but I do think this should be taken seriously by those who think the Liberals/Justin Trudeau can't get reelected because they are trailing at (probably) midterm. It's still actually not all that possible to know what's going to happen two years from now.

[oldtimer]

Canadian polls have been so static since the last election that I'm surprised the housing comment alone would have moved the polls that much. I'll defer to our Canadian posters on that but is there anything else that would have contributed to the big shift recently?

The straw that broke the camel's back.

Although it was already bending for years.

The pattern usually is that voters hate PM X but can't decide on an alternative, then suddenly they decide.

[MaxQue]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/international-student-cap-immigration-system-integrity-1.6948733

mmigration Minister Marc Miller says the concern around the skyrocketing number of international students entering Canada is not just about housing, but Canadians' confidence in the "integrity" of the immigration system itself.

Canada is on track to welcome around 900,000 international students this year, Miller said in an interview that aired Saturday on CBC's The House. That's more than at any point in Canada's history and roughly triple the number of students who entered the country a decade ago.

This is insane

And yet provinces want more (as they pay very large amounts of tuition, they allow provinces to spend less money on higher education).

[Aurelius2]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/international-student-cap-immigration-system-integrity-1.6948733

mmigration Minister Marc Miller says the concern around the skyrocketing number of international students entering Canada is not just about housing, but Canadians' confidence in the "integrity" of the immigration system itself.

Canada is on track to welcome around 900,000 international students this year, Miller said in an interview that aired Saturday on CBC's The House. That's more than at any point in Canada's history and roughly triple the number of students who entered the country a decade ago.

This is insane

And yet provinces want more (as they pay very large amounts of tuition, they allow provinces to spend less money on higher education).

Clear case of the tragedy of the commons then.

[CumbrianLefty]

Ugh. Singh needs to go. He inspires no confidence outside hardcore Dippers and no one believes he could ever be a prime minister.

It’s a huge shame, because the combination of voter fatigue and the affordability crisis has made it so that the Liberals just aren’t going to win next time. With a different NDP leader, we could have been looking at a CPC–NDP race, kind of like what we saw during Doug Ford’s first provincial election. Instead, we’re almost certainly going to have a proto-fascist demagogue as the leader of our country, and there isn’t anything we can do.

The NDP has a responsibility to put forward a potential Prime Minister. I hate the game they are playing instead.

Singh should have been removed from Leadership after the 2019 election and I have no idea why he was not.

I find it almost staggering he has survived not one but two electoral flops, quite frankly.

Do the NDP *really* have nobody better?

[Hatman 🍁]

When an NDP leader makes gains, even small ones, they have historically been kept around. The party is not like the Conservatives who don't care about having a revolving door for their leadership.

Singh may be ineffectual at growing the party's support, but the party's numbers are not bad from an historical standpoint. During the Layton years, the party routinely polled even lower than now, but Layton was always able to increase the numbers during the election campaign. And Singh has done that too (though, to a lesser extent).

He is really missing the ball right now and is being quite ineffectual of course, but he's not going to get turfed until we see a seat loss. 

[Oryxslayer]

When an NDP leader makes gains, even small ones, they have historically been kept around. The party is not like the Conservatives who don't care about having a revolving door for their leadership.

Singh may be ineffectual at growing the party's support, but the party's numbers are not bad from an historical standpoint. During the Layton years, the party routinely polled even lower than now, but Layton was always able to increase the numbers during the election campaign. And Singh has done that too (though, to a lesser extent).

He is really missing the ball right now and is being quite ineffectual of course, but he's not going to get turfed until we see a seat loss.  

The obvious counter to this is that the NDP are a smaller party right now than when Singh took over - even after we exclude Quebec from consideration. And when the government is down in the polls, the NDP isn't really benefiting at all according to most estimates. He's good at making the party faithful feel good, but testimonialism doesn't take parties from being taken for granted to having actual leverage.

I guess you could say I agree with the 338 piece on this from a few weeks ago.

[MaxQue]

When an NDP leader makes gains, even small ones, they have historically been kept around. The party is not like the Conservatives who don't care about having a revolving door for their leadership.

Singh may be ineffectual at growing the party's support, but the party's numbers are not bad from an historical standpoint. During the Layton years, the party routinely polled even lower than now, but Layton was always able to increase the numbers during the election campaign. And Singh has done that too (though, to a lesser extent).

He is really missing the ball right now and is being quite ineffectual of course, but he's not going to get turfed until we see a seat loss. 

He is not going to be turfed ever. Too many party members not caring about policy, but only about their brownies points for having a "racialised" party leader.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/international-student-cap-immigration-system-integrity-1.6948733

mmigration Minister Marc Miller says the concern around the skyrocketing number of international students entering Canada is not just about housing, but Canadians' confidence in the "integrity" of the immigration system itself.

Canada is on track to welcome around 900,000 international students this year, Miller said in an interview that aired Saturday on CBC's The House. That's more than at any point in Canada's history and roughly triple the number of students who entered the country a decade ago.

This is insane

It is a very large number, but international students come and go (or are expected to - unless they apply for permanant residence/citizenship.) So, what really matters is the flow and not the stock, that is, the net increase (or decrease) in international students from year to year.

I believe that has increased significantly in the last few years as well though.

It’s also worth noting that many of them are extremely wealthy, outcompete Canadians for real estate/rentals, and do not work while they are here, using money from the bank of Mom and Dad instead. (I am being radicalized by the housing crisis.)

[oldtimer]

When an NDP leader makes gains, even small ones, they have historically been kept around. The party is not like the Conservatives who don't care about having a revolving door for their leadership.

Singh may be ineffectual at growing the party's support, but the party's numbers are not bad from an historical standpoint. During the Layton years, the party routinely polled even lower than now, but Layton was always able to increase the numbers during the election campaign. And Singh has done that too (though, to a lesser extent).

He is really missing the ball right now and is being quite ineffectual of course, but he's not going to get turfed until we see a seat loss.  

The obvious counter to this is that the NDP are a smaller party right now than when Singh took over - even after we exclude Quebec from consideration. And when the government is down in the polls, the NDP isn't really benefiting at all according to most estimates. He's good at making the party faithful feel good, but testimonialism doesn't take parties from being taken for granted to having actual leverage.

I guess you could say I agree with the 338 piece on this from a few weeks ago.

Since the NDP are defacto a coalition partner of the Liberals under Singh, they both go up and down.

[Benjamin Frank]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/international-student-cap-immigration-system-integrity-1.6948733

mmigration Minister Marc Miller says the concern around the skyrocketing number of international students entering Canada is not just about housing, but Canadians' confidence in the "integrity" of the immigration system itself.

Canada is on track to welcome around 900,000 international students this year, Miller said in an interview that aired Saturday on CBC's The House. That's more than at any point in Canada's history and roughly triple the number of students who entered the country a decade ago.

This is insane

It is a very large number, but international students come and go (or are expected to - unless they apply for permanant residence/citizenship.) So, what really matters is the flow and not the stock, that is, the net increase (or decrease) in international students from year to year.

I believe that has increased significantly in the last few years as well though.

It’s also worth noting that many of them are extremely wealthy, outcompete Canadians for real estate/rentals, and do not work while they are here, using money from the bank of Mom and Dad instead. (I am being radicalized by the housing crisis.)

It also shows how there are constituencies for the status quo. I saw on youtube a segment with Tom Mulcair. 'The Liberals have caused the problem with housing bringing too many in in the last couple years.'

Q: 'So, you agree with Sean Fraser that the government needs to take cap the number of international students?'

A:' International students are very important for Quebec. This proposal needs to be dropped.'

[Benjamin Frank]

Keeping in mind what I just said above, I do think the Liberals might succeed with a 'reset' if they simply apologize for a few things. I don't think anybody expects perfection from government and acknowledging a few mistakes might help them.

Apologize for:
1.Bringing in too many people in the last two years. I believe Canada's population in this time has increased from 38 million to 40 million. Acknowledge that while Canada is not nativist and that immigrants are a good thing, that immigration levels need to be better coordinated with provincial and municipal governments which are responsible for service delivery.
Sean Fraser seems to have acknowledged this but formalize it with an apology.

2.Overspending. Treasury Board President Anita Anand has reiterated the need for $15 billion in savings (about 3% of the budget.)

3.Misplacing the balance between the economy and the environment. Quote Danielle Smith! that rather than getting into a debate on the timeline to get to 'net zero' that the most important thing is to come up with a plan so that governments and industry can get to work  to actually get to 'net zero.' If it takes some time between 2035-2040 to get there, and if some things can't get there until 2050, it's not that big a deal for overall world wide emissions. Also, acknowledge that a greater focus, in part with 'retooling' to a greener economy, is on the need to improve productivity (which is also generally good for the environment since it means more efficient use of resources.)

I think admitting mistakes in these areas might help go some way to reducing the tension that many Canadians feel.

[Hatman 🍁]

When an NDP leader makes gains, even small ones, they have historically been kept around. The party is not like the Conservatives who don't care about having a revolving door for their leadership.

Singh may be ineffectual at growing the party's support, but the party's numbers are not bad from an historical standpoint. During the Layton years, the party routinely polled even lower than now, but Layton was always able to increase the numbers during the election campaign. And Singh has done that too (though, to a lesser extent).

He is really missing the ball right now and is being quite ineffectual of course, but he's not going to get turfed until we see a seat loss. 

He is not going to be turfed ever. Too many party members not caring about policy, but only about their brownies points for having a "racialised" party leader.

The party may not turf him, but he will resign if the party loses seats next election.

[mileslunn]

I think bad polling for Liberals now means in rut, but it is not impossible to recover.  Not easy but I believe UCP in summer of 2021 was further behind, Christy Clark was 20 points behind in 2012 and Mulroney was in third place in 1987, yet won in 1988.  True first involved leader change as possible if Kenney were still leader he would have lost (my guess is worse vote total but similar in seats as splits in rural areas but still won but better performance in Calgary than Smith), second had faulty polls and third was won on a single issue, free trade.  But it is still possible to overcome 12 point deficit but not easy.

I actually think biggest mistake Liberals made was not to roll out attack ads right after Poilievre became leader.  Rule is often define yourself or be defined by opponent and they let Poilievre define himself rather than define him.  There are loads of things you can attack him on.  While people fatigued of Trudeau and probably true median voter somewhat more centrist than Trudeau, I don't believe there is big appetite for strong rightward shift in Canada.  Now Poilievre may very well govern like Harper, who at heart was very right wing but knew public was not thus was cautious.  But some of his past views definitely would place him well to right of median voter.

Changing leaders is somewhat risky.  On one hand, I believe a new leader, especially if like Anand, Carney or Champagne could help on economic front and also be more about making changes and less media attention.  Being in front of media all the time does wear voters out.  One of key's to Horgan's success in BC is he kept a low profile.  So Trudeau resigning might help as number of Canadians who have had enough of him is pretty large and growing.  But also he is big reason party recovered from third to government and with new leader wouldn't have the same core base he has.  As such choosing new leader would improve odds of winning next election, but also increase odds of falling to third place too, which as long as Trudeau is leader I cannot see party falling below 80 seats.  Even 100 seats is probably on low side as he is a very good campaigner so whatever party enters election with, likely rises a few points.  Chrystia Freeland would be horrible choice as same policies but lacks charisma and total turn off on personal level.  She is a lot like Ignatieff in that very smart but terrible at retail politics. 

[mileslunn]

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.

Problem for her is NDP see her as too centrist.  They tried that with Mulcair and general view is that is not way to go.  Now her move to centre was smart as it is Alberta and you cannot win on appealing to left alone.  Fact she went hard to try to get endorsement of former PCs was a simple reflection of electoral math in Alberta.  Federally she would probably be more left wing than was provincially simply due to electoral math.

Liberals much like with Rae reluctant to choose someone with NDP roots.  Also NDP has strong history in Western Canada, while Liberals are largely a Central/Eastern Canadian party so having a leader from Alberta seems very unlikely anytime soon.  More likely she could lead a merged NDP/Liberal party but that is at least a few election cycles away and by then in late 60s so probably not interested.

Still I do think if Liberals and NDP merged, she would be frontrunner but earliest that happens is after 2025 election and even then, more likely after 2029 if Tories win two back to back majorities and are much more ideological than past Tory governments so feeling is that is only way to stop them.

[Aurelius2]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/international-student-cap-immigration-system-integrity-1.6948733

mmigration Minister Marc Miller says the concern around the skyrocketing number of international students entering Canada is not just about housing, but Canadians' confidence in the "integrity" of the immigration system itself.

Canada is on track to welcome around 900,000 international students this year, Miller said in an interview that aired Saturday on CBC's The House. That's more than at any point in Canada's history and roughly triple the number of students who entered the country a decade ago.

This is insane

It is a very large number, but international students come and go (or are expected to - unless they apply for permanant residence/citizenship.) So, what really matters is the flow and not the stock, that is, the net increase (or decrease) in international students from year to year.

I believe that has increased significantly in the last few years as well though.

It’s also worth noting that many of them are extremely wealthy, outcompete Canadians for real estate/rentals, and do not work while they are here, using money from the bank of Mom and Dad instead. (I am being radicalized by the housing crisis.)

I'm not sure how true this is, but I have read that China's government has fairly strict limitations on moving money out of the country, and that living expenses for college students abroad are exempt from these limits, even if the "living expenses" are a luxury penthouse and a Lamborghini. If this is accurate, no surprise that their bigwigs will take full advantage of this loophole and then some, and they're specifically incentivized to drown their kids in as much money as possible for those four years.

[Benjamin Frank]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/international-student-cap-immigration-system-integrity-1.6948733

mmigration Minister Marc Miller says the concern around the skyrocketing number of international students entering Canada is not just about housing, but Canadians' confidence in the "integrity" of the immigration system itself.

Canada is on track to welcome around 900,000 international students this year, Miller said in an interview that aired Saturday on CBC's The House. That's more than at any point in Canada's history and roughly triple the number of students who entered the country a decade ago.

This is insane

It is a very large number, but international students come and go (or are expected to - unless they apply for permanant residence/citizenship.) So, what really matters is the flow and not the stock, that is, the net increase (or decrease) in international students from year to year.

I believe that has increased significantly in the last few years as well though.

It’s also worth noting that many of them are extremely wealthy, outcompete Canadians for real estate/rentals, and do not work while they are here, using money from the bank of Mom and Dad instead. (I am being radicalized by the housing crisis.)

I'm not sure how true this is, but I have read that China's government has fairly strict limitations on moving money out of the country, and that living expenses for college students abroad are exempt from these limits, even if the "living expenses" are a luxury penthouse and a Lamborghini. If this is accurate, no surprise that their bigwigs will take full advantage of this loophole and then some, and they're specifically incentivized to drown their kids in as much money as possible for those four years.

Well, drown their kid.

[CumbrianLefty]

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.

Problem for her is NDP see her as too centrist.  They tried that with Mulcair and general view is that is not way to go. 

Though back then the NDP was blindsided by Trudeau outflanking them to the left - opportunistic but also very effective. Its a trick rather more difficult to pull off after a decade in power, though.

[mileslunn]

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.

Problem for her is NDP see her as too centrist.  They tried that with Mulcair and general view is that is not way to go. 

Though back then the NDP was blindsided by Trudeau outflanking them to the left - opportunistic but also very effective. Its a trick rather more difficult to pull off after a decade in power, though.

Also public opinion shifted a lot in few years leading up to 2015 while NDP not wanting to appear financially reckless tried safe approach which a decade earlier would have been smart.  After Occupy Wall Street, taxing rich more was a vote winner and not seen as anti-business like it was a decade earlier.  And after austerity in Europe inhibited growth, idea of running deficits wasn't seen as taboo as it was earlier too.  Much of opposition to deficit was bad memories of mid 90s when Canada nearly hit a crisis, but as time passed and that faded from people's memory less of an issue.

I guess real question now is are we saying same thing on right.  O'Toole took the safe approach similar to Mulcair for left whereas Poilievre like Trudeau is being a lot bolder and is willing to push conservative ideas mixed with other stuff other leaders have been afraid to do.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

Canadian polls have been so static since the last election that I'm surprised the housing comment alone would have moved the polls that much. I'll defer to our Canadian posters on that but is there anything else that would have contributed to the big shift recently?

Here's the thing - housing is the issue right now for everyone in Canada, except one person it seems. It's especially huge for young people, (sub)-urban people, and immigrants, three groups that propelled Trudeau to victory in the first place. Here in Southern Ontario, it's honestly probably the single most common topic of conversation right now. Renters talk about how they're spending more than half of their income on rent alone, homeowners talk about the severe debt they are in, debt that they likely won't be able to pay off with the new interest rates. It affects everyone, and is the source of a serious society-wide anxiety unlike any we've seen before. Well, Covid topped it, to be fair. But it's one that Canadians haven't gotten many answers on. With Covid, there was at least a widely-accepted "light in the tunnel", of wear your masks, get your vaccines, stay at home, and it'll all be over. There was obviously some very strong opposition to those measures, perhaps the most notable of any country with the Trucker Convoy, but Trudeau represented the majority on Covid-related issues, and the convoy itself. On housing, it often feels like the blind are leading the blind. We all want something to be done, and there's pressure on all levels of government. Liberals will try to deflect blame to lower levels of government, as Trudeau did here, and Conservatives will try to make it all about Trudeau, as Poilievre has been doing, but that's politics. I don't think the public really cares "whose fault" it is, they just want to hear solutions.

The most popular answer in Canada seems to be "build, baby build". I mean, YIMBYism used to be a niche term some academics and urbanists used to throw around, now it's in the political mainstream. This is the one that's least federal, and that's what Trudeau was getting at when he said "housing isn't a primary federal responsibility". But it was also a huge hit to his reputation among those who see YIMBYism as a way out, who think the federal government should be using its funds and bully pulpit to change policy across the country. Immigration is another that's starting to come up more and more, uncharacteristically for Canada, and obviously, increased opposition to immigration doesn't work for a leader as pro-immigration as Trudeau. On the left, blame is largely placed on investors and capitalist greed, but they increasingly see him as the guy who facilitated this greed.

Those are basically the three main ones. The left-wing desire to definancialize housing, the moderate desire to increase supply, and the right-wing desire to reduce immigration. A party like the Liberal Party of Canada is perfectly positioned to capture the middle of Canadian society, that's their strength and the source of their historical dominance. Instead, Trudeau seems more occupied with things like media policy. His position was already weakening due to perceived inaction on this crucial issue, and he went ahead and surrendered his position when he went up to the camera and pretty much just said "yep, not my job". So with that context in mind, I think it makes sense that such a quote would do so much damage to his image.

But I don't think it was just the "not a primary federal responsibility" that shifted the polls. Not enough credit is being given to Pierre Poilievre, who seems to have taken the lessons from the turbulence of his first year as leader. The byelections this spring seem to have been a wake up call, and Poilievre has noticeably changed his image. It's not losing just the glasses, although I do think aesthetic changes make a difference (not just the glasses, also appearing in casual and business-casual outfits instead of always wearing the traditional blue suit and a tie which always seemed a little too tight). I like the guy, but let's be honest, he's an overgrown debate club nerd.

He's also toned down his aggressive and erratic personality, and I think that actually helps him convey his message a little better. He focuses mainly on bread-and-butter issues, because he's found a sweet spot where there's enough overlap between the conservative base and the liberal mainstream, and there's a way he can speak to those issues without alienating either. He tried to get that message out while still maintaining his attack dog persona, but I don't think that was convincing to anyone but the 35ish% who are already predisposed to the Conservative Party. Most of his policies are the same as they were before, or during the leadership, but he conveys his message more like a Prime Minister-in waiting. Polls suggest that he's added an additional 5% of the electorate to his base, 60% of the electorate is mostly unwilling to support him, but 40% is all he really needs.

And back to the housing thing, Poilievre has been speaking very heavily about housing. Cost-of-living in general too, and the carbon tax in particular seems to be shifting Atlantic Canada. On crime/drugs, he's very polarizing, but there's resonance in many metropolitan areas where Trudeau holds most support. But being the "housing guy" is a strong appeal to have in Ontario, and my experience has been that he's become a much more favourable politician than he was just a few months ago.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

Honestly, I think the "shack" incident is an underrated factor that's actually helped Poilievre and the CPC, but maybe I'm overestimating its impact because I live in Niagara Region, where the incident took place. To those who are unfamiliar, here's a video of a House debate that Poilievre posted on his Youtube a few months ago. He later referenced that video when making a speech on housing. The owner of that house was offended that he called her house a "shack", and this became a media story. Poilievre later apologized for calling it a shack, but anecdotally I can think of several people I know, who rarely if ever talk about politics, who defended him on this scandal. Because whatever word he uses, his overall argument is one that resonates, and he got free media to convey that message to people who don't follow politics closely.

[mileslunn]

I think shifts have been happening for following reason.  Note polls are a snapshot and can change.

Atlantic Canada:  Carbon tax and clean fuel standard which makes transportation more expensive.  This region is quite rural so public transit, walking, cycling aren't options.  Seems like a GTA made policy that doesn't recognize challenges in region.  Even some Liberals there asking government to make changes to help soften the blow.  Also demographic wise, Atlantic Canada fits well with demographics parties on right tend to do well with.  Fairly rural, older, whitest part of country, most religious (not like US South but more so than other provinces), fewer with post secondary degrees.  Main reason went Liberal is poorer region so prefers a party that is in favour of more social programs not cuts but nowadays income seems to play less a role on voting patterns than did in past in Anglosphere.

Quebec:  It has been pretty steady there and kind of makes sense as housing less of an issue and things people upset with Liberals haven't been impacting Quebec.  At same time I find Quebecers have shallowest loyalty to any party so they are prone to massive swings, but typically during election campaign, not before.  See 1984 and 2011 as examples of this.

Ontario:  Housing is definitely main reason and just cost of living.  Also Trudeau comes across as arrogant and aloof.  On covid you could at least see he came across as quite empathetic so even if no answers you got impression he shared people's pain and concerns whereas on housing it feels like he has lots that personal connection and that is key in politics even if you cannot change things. 

MB/SK: Polls pretty stable and due to Manitoba election Tories may even be on low side due to confusion.

Alberta: Tories winning big is no big news as always popular here and Guilbeault's attack on energy sector certainly not helping.  Also increase here is more rebound as during election fell to low 50s which is similar to what UCP got so could be same happening in Manitoba.

BC:  Probably housing although unlike Ontario, prices were bad here even in 2015.  Also carbon tax is provincial so even if Poilievre wins that won't change as long as NDP remains in power provincially and right now they are in pretty good shape.  I think here on West Coast it is more just fatigue and also Tories are helped by fact left is equally split between Liberals and NDP so at 40% they could win 30 seats whereas in Ontario at 40% would probably win 70 of 122 seats.  I do get sense BC has moved quite a bit left in last decade.  Sort of like US West Coast states.  California up until early 90s was a solid red state and even George W Bush got in mid 40s both times whereas now GOP languishes in 30s.  Washington & Oregon while blue states for years, Bush had strong second place showing in Washington while Oregon was competitive both times.  Today both are solid blue with 15 point Democrat lead minimum.  So I kind of assumed BC was following same trend just delayed but recent polls suggest maybe not. 

[Bernie Derangement Syndrome Haver]

Is there a thread on here on the reapportionment that will likely be in place for the next election?

If not, is there a general consensus on how reapportionment will affect party standings? Did any incumbents in particular get kind of screwed over? Where is the lost seat in Quebec?