Canada General Discussion (2019-)

[CumbrianLefty]

Vancouver man, Paul Stanley Schmidt, 37, stabbed to death outside Starbucks in Vancouver.

Some moron posted a video of himself on TikTok at the crime scene, with the man's body in the background.  Other people were just filming it on their cameras. I swear to God people are losing touch with reality more and more by the day.  Canada, the "friendly" country.  What a f**king joke.  SMH.

Tbf, rubbernecking existed long before social media or even the internet.

[RFK 2024]

Vancouver man, Paul Stanley Schmidt, 37, stabbed to death outside Starbucks in Vancouver.

Some moron posted a video of himself on TikTok at the crime scene, with the man's body in the background.  Other people were just filming it on their cameras. I swear to God people are losing touch with reality more and more by the day.  Canada, the "friendly" country.  What a f**king joke.  SMH.

Tbf, rubbernecking existed long before social media or even the internet.

That’s true.  Nor is filming horrible crimes and posting them on the internet unique to Canada.  But it is a societal failure and it’s definitely been made worse through social media.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/guilbeault-defends-carbon-price-admits-average-household-will-pay-more-even-after-rebates-1.6338974

Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault told CTV’s Question Period host Vassy Kapelos in an interview airing Sunday that while the “average household will pay more” because of the carbon price increase, even after the rebates, he says the system is designed to be proportional, meaning wealthier Canadians will still foot larger bills.

Well, I guess that's that for the whole "80% of Canadians get more from rebates than pay into it" line of argument. Guilbeault claims that it's designed to be proportional, but it's literally not. It's proportional in the sense that wealthier households also tend to emit more CO2 on average, but poor people also spend a greater proportion of their household income on gas and heating, which makes it regressive.

I stand by my belief that a revenue-neutral Pigouvian carbon tax is a fundamentally good idea. My mistake was believing that it would remain Pigouvian and not just turn into yet another revenue stream

[Meclazine for Israel]

Vancouver man, Paul Stanley Schmidt, 37, stabbed to death outside Starbucks in Vancouver.

Some moron posted a video of himself on TikTok at the crime scene, with the man's body in the background.  Other people were just filming it on their cameras. I swear to God people are losing touch with reality more and more by the day.  Canada, the "friendly" country.  What a f**king joke.  SMH.

Tbf, rubbernecking existed long before social media or even the internet.

That’s true.  Nor is filming horrible crimes and posting them on the internet unique to Canada.  But it is a societal failure and it’s definitely been made worse through social media.

Yeah, the video was disgusting (that's why I never posted it) as most people were just filming the event as opposed to helping the guy.

It was a very different crime for most Canadian's to confront.

[RFK 2024]

Vancouver man, Paul Stanley Schmidt, 37, stabbed to death outside Starbucks in Vancouver.

Some moron posted a video of himself on TikTok at the crime scene, with the man's body in the background.  Other people were just filming it on their cameras. I swear to God people are losing touch with reality more and more by the day.  Canada, the "friendly" country.  What a f**king joke.  SMH.

Tbf, rubbernecking existed long before social media or even the internet.

That’s true.  Nor is filming horrible crimes and posting them on the internet unique to Canada.  But it is a societal failure and it’s definitely been made worse through social media.

Yeah, the video was disgusting (that's why I never posted it) as most people were just filming the event as opposed to helping the guy.

It was a very different crime for most Canadian's to confront.

Tw: mentioned a suicide

Spoiler alert! Click Show to show the content.

Show

I agree, and I'm not saying they needed to confront the attacker or be the hero in the situation or anything.  But there's a big difference between filming a crime scene where someone is DYING and posting it social media for clout versus minding your own business.  I witnessed someone jump off a balcony once and the last thing on my mind was to film it.  A whole bunch of people saw it and there was nothing anyone could do, so I just got the hell out of there.  It seems like social media has given people brain rot.

[Benjamin Frank]

I hate our entire system.  The NDP will break soon and we'll get a no confidence vote, another election, and another liberal minority now with the added uncertainty of Chinese interference.  There's really nothing preventing Trudeau from running indefinitely.  No term limits or way to impeach.  67% of Canadians who voted did not back our PM in 2021. It's frustrating.

A significant proportion of that 67% would prefer Trudeau over Poilievre.

Both come from the wormy, smarmy, disingenuous, pretentious Ted Cruz tradition, so honestly we’re in bad shape either way. I’ll meaninglessly throw my vote to the NDP again, even though they insist on keeping a leader who should’ve got the boot two losses ago.

I remember when Jack Layton was running to be Prime Minister. In 2011, before he got sick, it really did seem like he could finally be our guy in the next cycle. That is not going to happen for Singh.

Jack Layton dying was a tragedy, he was one of the few I genuinely respected and liked.
He made his cane a symbol of strength.

It was also a tragedy because he honestly could have won. There was a real sense that the Liberal Party could die, at least for a bit. It was a nice feeling.

Regarding why he has been allowed to stay on… I can’t say. I guess he “saved the campaign” in 2019, but as far as I can remember, half the reason they were down so embarrassingly low was because his rollout as leader had been a huge flop. He was not in the House of Commons, he was making weird comments about extremists… he had the stink of failure on him before he even started. He’s pretty clearly a lightweight on the policy side and, like it or not, isn’t ever going to receive the votes of a pretty large number of Canadians simply because of his faith. It’s not “nice,” but you sort of have to win to play.

Singh didn't make 'weird comments about extremists.' That sounds more like Poilievre who supported the terrorist occupiers in Ottawa.

What did happen is Singh was blindsided by questions from Terry Milewski who asked him about the Air India bombing that occured when Singh was 6 years old.

Politicians need to be aware of historical events but Milewski's questions were informed by disinformation that came from Indian Prime Minister Modi who is an anti Sikh bigot Hindu Supremicist. If Canadians cared about Terry Milewski, he would have been laughed out of Canada for being shown up as the fool he is.

There is an unfortunate tradition in the Canadian media of believing everything that's anti a politician no matter how lacking in credibility it is, as may also be the case with these (alleged) CSIS documents.

[Upper Canada Tory]

I hate our entire system.  The NDP will break soon and we'll get a no confidence vote, another election, and another liberal minority now with the added uncertainty of Chinese interference.  There's really nothing preventing Trudeau from running indefinitely.  No term limits or way to impeach.  67% of Canadians who voted did not back our PM in 2021. It's frustrating.

A significant proportion of that 67% would prefer Trudeau over Poilievre.

Both come from the wormy, smarmy, disingenuous, pretentious Ted Cruz tradition, so honestly we’re in bad shape either way. I’ll meaninglessly throw my vote to the NDP again, even though they insist on keeping a leader who should’ve got the boot two losses ago.

I remember when Jack Layton was running to be Prime Minister. In 2011, before he got sick, it really did seem like he could finally be our guy in the next cycle. That is not going to happen for Singh.

Jack Layton dying was a tragedy, he was one of the few I genuinely respected and liked.
He made his cane a symbol of strength.

It was also a tragedy because he honestly could have won. There was a real sense that the Liberal Party could die, at least for a bit. It was a nice feeling.

Regarding why he has been allowed to stay on… I can’t say. I guess he “saved the campaign” in 2019, but as far as I can remember, half the reason they were down so embarrassingly low was because his rollout as leader had been a huge flop. He was not in the House of Commons, he was making weird comments about extremists… he had the stink of failure on him before he even started. He’s pretty clearly a lightweight on the policy side and, like it or not, isn’t ever going to receive the votes of a pretty large number of Canadians simply because of his faith. It’s not “nice,” but you sort of have to win to play.

Singh didn't make 'weird comments about extremists.' That sounds more like Poilievre who supported the terrorist occupiers in Ottawa.

What did happen is Singh was blindsided by questions from Terry Milewski who asked him about the Air India bombing that occured when Singh was 6 years old.

Politicians need to be aware of historical events but Milewski's questions were informed by disinformation that came from Indian Prime Minister Modi who is an anti Sikh bigot Hindu Supremicist. If Canadians cared about Terry Milewski, he would have been laughed out of Canada for being shown up as the fool he is.

There is an unfortunate tradition in the Canadian media of believing everything that's anti a politician no matter how lacking in credibility it is, as may also be the case with these (alleged) CSIS documents.

You believe that CSIS documents leaked by whistleblowers which contain detailed allegations about Beijing funding and supporting specific candidates while CSIS itself is openly calling Chinese interference 'Canada's greatest national security threat' have no credibility?

I get that all the accused individuals are innocent until proven guilty, but the allegations seem quite credible to me.

[Benjamin Frank]

I hate our entire system.  The NDP will break soon and we'll get a no confidence vote, another election, and another liberal minority now with the added uncertainty of Chinese interference.  There's really nothing preventing Trudeau from running indefinitely.  No term limits or way to impeach.  67% of Canadians who voted did not back our PM in 2021. It's frustrating.

A significant proportion of that 67% would prefer Trudeau over Poilievre.

Both come from the wormy, smarmy, disingenuous, pretentious Ted Cruz tradition, so honestly we’re in bad shape either way. I’ll meaninglessly throw my vote to the NDP again, even though they insist on keeping a leader who should’ve got the boot two losses ago.

I remember when Jack Layton was running to be Prime Minister. In 2011, before he got sick, it really did seem like he could finally be our guy in the next cycle. That is not going to happen for Singh.

Jack Layton dying was a tragedy, he was one of the few I genuinely respected and liked.
He made his cane a symbol of strength.

It was also a tragedy because he honestly could have won. There was a real sense that the Liberal Party could die, at least for a bit. It was a nice feeling.

Regarding why he has been allowed to stay on… I can’t say. I guess he “saved the campaign” in 2019, but as far as I can remember, half the reason they were down so embarrassingly low was because his rollout as leader had been a huge flop. He was not in the House of Commons, he was making weird comments about extremists… he had the stink of failure on him before he even started. He’s pretty clearly a lightweight on the policy side and, like it or not, isn’t ever going to receive the votes of a pretty large number of Canadians simply because of his faith. It’s not “nice,” but you sort of have to win to play.

Singh didn't make 'weird comments about extremists.' That sounds more like Poilievre who supported the terrorist occupiers in Ottawa.

What did happen is Singh was blindsided by questions from Terry Milewski who asked him about the Air India bombing that occured when Singh was 6 years old.

Politicians need to be aware of historical events but Milewski's questions were informed by disinformation that came from Indian Prime Minister Modi who is an anti Sikh bigot Hindu Supremicist. If Canadians cared about Terry Milewski, he would have been laughed out of Canada for being shown up as the fool he is.

There is an unfortunate tradition in the Canadian media of believing everything that's anti a politician no matter how lacking in credibility it is, as may also be the case with these (alleged) CSIS documents.

You believe that CSIS documents leaked by whistleblowers which contain detailed allegations about Beijing funding and supporting specific candidates while CSIS itself is openly calling Chinese interference 'Canada's greatest national security threat' have no credibility?

I get that all the accused individuals are innocent until proven guilty, but the allegations seem quite credible to me.

It depends what specifically you're referring to. I volunteer for the local Friends of the Library and one of the books at our sale this weekend in the 'Canadiana' section was a book about foreign government interference in Canada and how the Canadian government was ignoring it...published in 2009.

So, there certainly is truth of foreign government interference in Canada, but that especially doesn't mean the allegations in the media against Han Dong or Vincent Ki are true.

Also, since nobody but a handful of journalists have seen these documents, nobody can really know if they're real or not. It is concerning that there was the claim that CSIS told Justin Trudeau to tell Han Dong to step down as a candidate, and CSIS immediately officially responded they would never do any such thing.

I also find it concerning that whenever the issue seems to die down in the media, that a new claim is released, usually more sensational than the last.

[Benjamin Frank]

It occurs me that the CBC through Terry Milewski engaged in assisting in improper foreign government interference of the Canadian political process through being dupes in falling for Modi's disinformation.

[Upper Canada Tory]

I hate our entire system.  The NDP will break soon and we'll get a no confidence vote, another election, and another liberal minority now with the added uncertainty of Chinese interference.  There's really nothing preventing Trudeau from running indefinitely.  No term limits or way to impeach.  67% of Canadians who voted did not back our PM in 2021. It's frustrating.

A significant proportion of that 67% would prefer Trudeau over Poilievre.

Both come from the wormy, smarmy, disingenuous, pretentious Ted Cruz tradition, so honestly we’re in bad shape either way. I’ll meaninglessly throw my vote to the NDP again, even though they insist on keeping a leader who should’ve got the boot two losses ago.

I remember when Jack Layton was running to be Prime Minister. In 2011, before he got sick, it really did seem like he could finally be our guy in the next cycle. That is not going to happen for Singh.

Jack Layton dying was a tragedy, he was one of the few I genuinely respected and liked.
He made his cane a symbol of strength.

It was also a tragedy because he honestly could have won. There was a real sense that the Liberal Party could die, at least for a bit. It was a nice feeling.

Regarding why he has been allowed to stay on… I can’t say. I guess he “saved the campaign” in 2019, but as far as I can remember, half the reason they were down so embarrassingly low was because his rollout as leader had been a huge flop. He was not in the House of Commons, he was making weird comments about extremists… he had the stink of failure on him before he even started. He’s pretty clearly a lightweight on the policy side and, like it or not, isn’t ever going to receive the votes of a pretty large number of Canadians simply because of his faith. It’s not “nice,” but you sort of have to win to play.

Singh didn't make 'weird comments about extremists.' That sounds more like Poilievre who supported the terrorist occupiers in Ottawa.

What did happen is Singh was blindsided by questions from Terry Milewski who asked him about the Air India bombing that occured when Singh was 6 years old.

Politicians need to be aware of historical events but Milewski's questions were informed by disinformation that came from Indian Prime Minister Modi who is an anti Sikh bigot Hindu Supremicist. If Canadians cared about Terry Milewski, he would have been laughed out of Canada for being shown up as the fool he is.

There is an unfortunate tradition in the Canadian media of believing everything that's anti a politician no matter how lacking in credibility it is, as may also be the case with these (alleged) CSIS documents.

You believe that CSIS documents leaked by whistleblowers which contain detailed allegations about Beijing funding and supporting specific candidates while CSIS itself is openly calling Chinese interference 'Canada's greatest national security threat' have no credibility?

I get that all the accused individuals are innocent until proven guilty, but the allegations seem quite credible to me.

It depends what specifically you're referring to. I volunteer for the local Friends of the Library and one of the books at our sale this weekend in the 'Canadiana' section was a book about foreign government interference in Canada and how the Canadian government was ignoring it...published in 2009.

So, there certainly is truth of foreign government interference in Canada, but that especially doesn't mean the allegations in the media against Han Dong or Vincent Ki are true.

Also, since nobody but a handful of journalists have seen these documents, nobody can really know if they're real or not. It is concerning that there was the claim that CSIS told Justin Trudeau to tell Han Dong to step down as a candidate, and CSIS immediately officially responded they would never do any such thing.

I also find it concerning that whenever the issue seems to die down in the media, that a new claim is released, usually more sensational than the last.

I have never heard of CSIS saying they would never do such a thing in response to the claim that they told the PM to rescind Han Dong's candidacy. Can you provide a source/link for that?

Regarding foreign interference, I'm talking about the recent allegations of Beijing's interference into the Canadian election. These allegations aren't exclusive to specifically Han Dong and Vincent Ki (who again, I believe are innocent until proven guilty), but also allege that the Chinese government funded and supported 11 GTA candidates at the federal level and in some cases interfered in local elections (such as Vancouver).

Yes, only a handful of journalists have seen these documents, but they are risking their journalistic credibility and potential defamation lawsuits to do so. CSIS has also not denied the accuracy/authenticity of the documents (as far as I'm concerned). If the claims regarding the documents by Global News were 100% false, you'd think CSIS would say something by now. In fact, the fact that there is an RCMP investigation against whoever leaked these documents proves that these documents are real, even if not everything the journalists claim is in it is true - they wouldn't be investigating someone who is leaking fake documents that don't exist.

Also, Terry Milewski's question toward Jagmeet Singh may have been inappropriate but it wouldn't be accurate to call it foreign interference. He was not helping a foreign government sway the result of our election. It was just a question in poor taste.

[Benjamin Frank]

I hate our entire system.  The NDP will break soon and we'll get a no confidence vote, another election, and another liberal minority now with the added uncertainty of Chinese interference.  There's really nothing preventing Trudeau from running indefinitely.  No term limits or way to impeach.  67% of Canadians who voted did not back our PM in 2021. It's frustrating.

A significant proportion of that 67% would prefer Trudeau over Poilievre.

Both come from the wormy, smarmy, disingenuous, pretentious Ted Cruz tradition, so honestly we’re in bad shape either way. I’ll meaninglessly throw my vote to the NDP again, even though they insist on keeping a leader who should’ve got the boot two losses ago.

I remember when Jack Layton was running to be Prime Minister. In 2011, before he got sick, it really did seem like he could finally be our guy in the next cycle. That is not going to happen for Singh.

Jack Layton dying was a tragedy, he was one of the few I genuinely respected and liked.
He made his cane a symbol of strength.

It was also a tragedy because he honestly could have won. There was a real sense that the Liberal Party could die, at least for a bit. It was a nice feeling.

Regarding why he has been allowed to stay on… I can’t say. I guess he “saved the campaign” in 2019, but as far as I can remember, half the reason they were down so embarrassingly low was because his rollout as leader had been a huge flop. He was not in the House of Commons, he was making weird comments about extremists… he had the stink of failure on him before he even started. He’s pretty clearly a lightweight on the policy side and, like it or not, isn’t ever going to receive the votes of a pretty large number of Canadians simply because of his faith. It’s not “nice,” but you sort of have to win to play.

Singh didn't make 'weird comments about extremists.' That sounds more like Poilievre who supported the terrorist occupiers in Ottawa.

What did happen is Singh was blindsided by questions from Terry Milewski who asked him about the Air India bombing that occured when Singh was 6 years old.

Politicians need to be aware of historical events but Milewski's questions were informed by disinformation that came from Indian Prime Minister Modi who is an anti Sikh bigot Hindu Supremicist. If Canadians cared about Terry Milewski, he would have been laughed out of Canada for being shown up as the fool he is.

There is an unfortunate tradition in the Canadian media of believing everything that's anti a politician no matter how lacking in credibility it is, as may also be the case with these (alleged) CSIS documents.

You believe that CSIS documents leaked by whistleblowers which contain detailed allegations about Beijing funding and supporting specific candidates while CSIS itself is openly calling Chinese interference 'Canada's greatest national security threat' have no credibility?

I get that all the accused individuals are innocent until proven guilty, but the allegations seem quite credible to me.

It depends what specifically you're referring to. I volunteer for the local Friends of the Library and one of the books at our sale this weekend in the 'Canadiana' section was a book about foreign government interference in Canada and how the Canadian government was ignoring it...published in 2009.

So, there certainly is truth of foreign government interference in Canada, but that especially doesn't mean the allegations in the media against Han Dong or Vincent Ki are true.

Also, since nobody but a handful of journalists have seen these documents, nobody can really know if they're real or not. It is concerning that there was the claim that CSIS told Justin Trudeau to tell Han Dong to step down as a candidate, and CSIS immediately officially responded they would never do any such thing.

I also find it concerning that whenever the issue seems to die down in the media, that a new claim is released, usually more sensational than the last.

I have never heard of CSIS saying they would never do such a thing in response to the claim that they told the PM to rescind Han Dong's candidacy. Can you provide a source/link for that?

Regarding foreign interference, I'm talking about the recent allegations of Beijing's interference into the Canadian election. These allegations aren't exclusive to specifically Han Dong and Vincent Ki (who again, I believe are innocent until proven guilty), but also allege that the Chinese government funded and supported 11 GTA candidates at the federal level and in some cases interfered in local elections (such as Vancouver).

Yes, only a handful of journalists have seen these documents, but they are risking their journalistic credibility and potential defamation lawsuits to do so. CSIS has also not denied the accuracy/authenticity of the documents (as far as I'm concerned). If the claims regarding the documents by Global News were 100% false, you'd think CSIS would say something by now. In fact, the fact that there is an RCMP investigation against whoever leaked these documents proves that these documents are real, even if not everything the journalists claim is in it is true - they wouldn't be investigating someone who is leaking fake documents that don't exist.

1.On CSIS, not sure why I can't find a story on it, but on the political talk shows, two former Directors of CSIS, Richard Fadden and one other Director both said that CSIS would never do that. But there is this:

Stephanie Carvin, associate professor of national security at Carleton University, questioned the suggestion that CSIS would ask that a nomination be rescinded.

"CSIS's mandate allows it to report on threats to the security of Canada. I do not think this would extend to 'asking' the [Prime Minister's Office] to rescind a nomination," Carvin wrote in a tweet.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-denies-csis-rescind-nomination-1.6761942

2.There have been so many claims made, I can't keep them all straight. That China would have funded candidates not only for federal office but also for provincial and municipal office would certainly not surprise me, and nor would it surprise me if the funding was done in a way that it would have been very difficult to know where the money was ultimately coming from.

In regards to Vancouver, Kennedy Stewart said that his funding dried up and he thought that intimidation might have been involved. There is no indictation Mayor Ken Sim was even aware of any of this. (Not that you suggested otherwise.)

3.In regards to the allegedly leaked documents, what CSIS has done is provided a general lesson on the value of the intelligence they gather, including that much of what is written is based on rumors. Given this, I don't know if even CSIS could determine if these are legitimate CSIS documents or not (at least not immediately.) I don't doubt that the individuals who have provided these documents to the media are or were CSIS agents, but what their motive is is impossible to know at this time.

Given time, I'm sure CSIS could check to match up these documents to see if they have similar documents that collaborate the intelligence in the alleged leaked documents, but I doubt they could do that in real time.

4.Terry Milewski was asking questions based on disinformation from the Prime Minister of India. It was absolutely deliberate foreign government interference in Canadian politics, if not in Canadian elections. It's the very definition of foreign government interference.

Hindu Supremicist Modi obviously provided the disinformation in an attempt to discredit Sikh Jagmeet Singh, the then newly elected leader of the NDP, and Terry Milewski and the CBC fell for it. The only thing that doesn't make that outright foreign interference in a Canadian election is that there was no Canadian election at the time.

5.Journalistic credibility to me is a contradiction in terms.  

[RFK 2024]

Looks like Twitter is dying even faster than anticipated.  Elon's latest stunt involves Canada so I'll post it here.

https://twitter.com/WatcherGuru/status/1648133618206748672

It's sadly not inspect element. 

[Upper Canada Tory]

Looks like Twitter is dying even faster than anticipated.  Elon's latest stunt involves Canada so I'll post it here.

https://twitter.com/WatcherGuru/status/1648133618206748672
It's sadly not inspect element.  

I've been voting Conservative ever since I was old enough to vote and intend to vote for them in the next election, but stunts like this by Poilievre disappoint me. Regardless of what you think of the CBC and whether or not you think it should be privatized, there is obviously a difference between a public broadcaster with a slight liberal bias and actual state propaganda networks in authoritarian regimes. The designation on Twitter blurs the line between the two and presents them as if they were the same. CBC has its issues with bias, but it is not a state propaganda network with government controlled content like RussiaToday, CGTN, Al Jazeera, etc.

[RFK 2024]

I've been voting Conservative ever since I was old enough to vote and intend to vote for them in the next election, but stunts like this by Poilievre disappoint me. Regardless of what you think of the CBC and whether or not you think it should be privatized, there is obviously a difference between a public broadcaster with a slight liberal bias and actual state propaganda networks in authoritarian regimes. The designation on Twitter blurs the line between the two and presents them as it they were the same. CBC has its issues with bias, but it is not a state propaganda network with government controlled content like RussiaToday, CGTN, Al Jazeera, etc.

I agree with you 100 percent.  I am really losing my faith in Poilievre, and I'm starting to doubt he has what it takes to win. But we shall see..

[Hash]

Elon Musk is like an unfunny edgy teenager, and Pierre Poilievre has managed to turn into an Elon Musk reply guy.

As awful as the current government is (and it really is), the current opposition is somehow even worse. Very high chance I just return to my tried and true 'April Ludgate' ballot scribbling option in the next election, definitely not voting for any of the parties as they stand.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

I've been voting Conservative ever since I was old enough to vote and intend to vote for them in the next election, but stunts like this by Poilievre disappoint me. Regardless of what you think of the CBC and whether or not you think it should be privatized, there is obviously a difference between a public broadcaster with a slight liberal bias and actual state propaganda networks in authoritarian regimes. The designation on Twitter blurs the line between the two and presents them as it they were the same. CBC has its issues with bias, but it is not a state propaganda network with government controlled content like RussiaToday, CGTN, Al Jazeera, etc.

I agree with you 100 percent.  I am really losing my faith in Poilievre, and I'm starting to doubt he has what it takes to win. But we shall see..

I agree with you and Blah, but I don't think this is actually going to hurt the CPC. Most people don't use twitter or even watch the CBC, whose viewership numbers have been declining for a long time. Twitter drama about the CBC isn't the kind of thing that will actually become an election issue. But dunking on the CPC is catnip to the base. So at least strategically, I don't think there's anything wrong with latching onto an issue that will help you boost turnout and donations, without really scaring off other voters who polling suggests are pretty "meh" on the CBC.

[Upper Canada Tory]

I've been voting Conservative ever since I was old enough to vote and intend to vote for them in the next election, but stunts like this by Poilievre disappoint me. Regardless of what you think of the CBC and whether or not you think it should be privatized, there is obviously a difference between a public broadcaster with a slight liberal bias and actual state propaganda networks in authoritarian regimes. The designation on Twitter blurs the line between the two and presents them as it they were the same. CBC has its issues with bias, but it is not a state propaganda network with government controlled content like RussiaToday, CGTN, Al Jazeera, etc.

I agree with you 100 percent.  I am really losing my faith in Poilievre, and I'm starting to doubt he has what it takes to win. But we shall see..

I agree with you and Blah, but I don't think this is actually going to hurt the CPC. Most people don't use twitter or even watch the CBC, whose viewership numbers have been declining for a long time. Twitter drama about the CBC isn't the kind of thing that will actually become an election issue. But dunking on the CPC is catnip to the base. So at least strategically, I don't think there's anything wrong with latching onto an issue that will help you boost turnout and donations, without really scaring off other voters who polling suggests are pretty "meh" on the CBC.

It probably won't significantly hurt Poilievre's chances of being elected but it does hurt his credibility as a leader.

You can criticize the CBC, or even support privatizing it, without engaging in Twitter drama over the issue. Today, political leaders try to engage in publicity stunts on social media in order to get attention in order to rile up their base (similar to Trudeau's 'refugees are welcome tweet' back in 2017 or so when Trump got elected).

While this seems like harmless bone throwing to the base, it hurts our political leaders' credibility and creates a political culture of simplistic social media dialogue. This isn't going to end with Poilievre dunking on the CBC. 5 or 10 years from now when Poilievre is elected PM and has a social media provocateur as his political opponent, the same exact strategy will be used against him and against Conservatives in general.

IMO, politicians should go back to tweeting solely in a professional capacity, like Stephen Harper did.

[Хahar 🤔]

Pierre Poilievre definitely wasn't bullied enough as a child.

[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.

[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.

[MaxQue]

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.

"the region". Only people on the South Shore feel betrayed. People in Quebec City will be delighted to not have cars crossing straight into downtown and people in the northern suburbs don't care.

[Benjamin Frank]

I think it's clear by now that there are three hopelessly incompetent ministers, all of whom got their ministries following the 2021 election:
1.Mona Fortier
2.Omar Alghabra
3.Marco Mendicino

I know there were sincere supporters of Mendicino, a number of whom are not Liberals, during his time as Immigration Minister, even though he seemed totally incompetent to me even then, but it does seem the goodwill with him has run out. On the CBC's At Issue a couple weeks ago, the three panelists (including the highly regarded Chantal Hebert) all agreed they had no confidence in him to reform the RCMP.

For those older, Mendicino is essentially this government's Allan Rock, earnest and apparently nice, but totally incompetent.

There are clearly other poor ministers, but these are the three consistenly horrible.

Correction: Alghabra became Minister in January 2021 following the resignation of Navdeep Bains as Industry Minister.

[Benjamin Frank]

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.

I'll take this on after all. If they can do their job properly at home, why shouldn't they?

[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.

I'll take this on after all. If they can do their job properly at home, why shouldn't they?

To be clear, I'm not saying that remote work shouldn't be a thing. Hell, I work hybrid (well more "on call" more than hybrid, I own a business so I realize I have the luxury of picking my own hours that employees don't, but I digress). But I do agree with Fortier's position that it should be a management decision, rather than a comprehensive "right-to-remote" that PSAC seem to be pushing. No single employee is responsible for making sure that their office runs smoothly, that's management's responsibility - as such, it should also be up to management to decide how best to run the office.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

I think it's clear by now that there are three hopelessly incompetent ministers, all of whom got their ministries following the 2021 election:
1.Mona Fortier
2.Omar Alghabra
3.Marco Mendicino

I know there were sincere supporters of Mendicino, a number of whom are not Liberals, during his time as Immigration Minister, even though he seemed totally incompetent to me even then, but it does seem the goodwill with him has run out. On the CBC's At Issue a couple weeks ago, the three panelists (including the highly regarded Chantal Hebert) all agreed they had no confidence in him to reform the RCMP.

For those older, Mendicino is essentially this government's Allan Rock, earnest and apparently nice, but totally incompetent.

There are clearly other poor ministers, but these are the three consistenly horrible.

Correction: Alghabra became Minister in January 2021 following the resignation of Navdeep Bains as Industry Minister.

I think this is a consequence of over-professionalization of politics. It's hardly any secret that a lot of cabinet ministers are complete duds. Much of the policy making happens in the public service, and staffers play a huge role in what the public sees, so we get ministers who don't seem like they really know what they're doing. But this isn't just a Liberal or federal problem, you basically see the same thing in every government, which is a shame.