Canada General Discussion (2019-)

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

3.Reduce immigration and such to population increases that are sustainable.

I think they've acted on all three of these

They haven't acted on reducing immigration. Their announcement was to cap immigration rates once it reaches 500k/year. That's not reducing, that's increasing until it reaches a hard cap. There's also been no word on limiting or reducing international student applications, who have been a big part of the conversation re: immigration. Particularly here in southern Ontario, this has been probably the single driving factor in now-popular calls to reduce immigration. Marc Miller did announce that the feds would "step in" to crack down on fake diploma mills. Diploma mills are basically an industry in the GTA that profits from selling fake college programs to naive Indian teenagers who end up coming here to do low-skilled labour. That's progress, but undercut by the fact that Marc Miller also suggested that one of the government's motives with the international student program is cheap labour.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

The Marc Miller clip might be even more damaging than the Gudie Huchings clip. Here's what he had to say on CPAC.

Reporter: You mentioned aligning international student numbers better with, I think you said demand? What does that look like? Is that demands from the institutions...or is that demand from industries

Miller: Look, there's a lot of conversations with different competing policy priorities. You have industries in low skill labour, whether it's big box shops or others, looking for cheap labour and wanting to make sure they maintain a 40 hour work week...and that's a competing policy with the labour gap we have in this country.

Again, this is another Gudie Hutchings moment where it just validates the worst assumptions people have about this government. What's worse, this is an immigration-related gaffe that actively contradicts the progressive idealism they got elected on. In 2015, Trudeau was the kind-hearted guy who wanted to bring 50,000 Syrian refugees to a place where they would be safe. That's an immigration debate the Liberals can win. Now we're talking about demand for cheap labour being a driving factor in us massively increasing student visas. Come on guys, we need more international students. I mean, who else is gonna pour your double-double?

The labour gap is another talking point that doesn't make sense. Yes, we do have a labour gap. In construction and skilled trades for example, we simply don't have enough manpower to build the housing and infrastructure we desperately need. But how does having hospitality management students working low-paying service jobs help us get there? We have shortages in healthcare, and of course having more students in medical fields would be a huge help. But most aren't, many are more interested in the "visa" part than the "student" part, and many are so broke that as much as they want to study, they have to put most of their energy into stocking shelves to pay rent - which this government alleviated by allowing them to work as much as full-time. All of this, in isolation, isn't that damning. But put together, and now with the context of what Marc Miller has to say, we're talking about a government that says it's trying to fix the labour gap, but really only delivering on cheap labour for big business.

[Benjamin Frank]

3.Reduce immigration and such to population increases that are sustainable.

I think they've acted on all three of these

They haven't acted on reducing immigration. Their announcement was to cap immigration rates once it reaches 500k/year. That's not reducing, that's increasing until it reaches a hard cap. There's also been no word on limiting or reducing international student applications, who have been a big part of the conversation re: immigration. Particularly here in southern Ontario, this has been probably the single driving factor in now-popular calls to reduce immigration. Marc Miller did announce that the feds would "step in" to crack down on fake diploma mills. Diploma mills are basically an industry in the GTA that profits from selling fake college programs to naive Indian teenagers who end up coming here to do low-skilled labour. That's progress, but undercut by the fact that Marc Miller also suggested that one of the government's motives with the international student program is cheap labour.

You can say that nothing will really change or whatever,  which may be correct, but the government has said that it will target immigrants more and will try to improve coordination better with the provinces and the municipalities. I believe they also announced a program to encourage more immigrants to move to areas other than the big cities.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

Also worth pointing out for the non-Canadians that that Brad Vis guy is a Conservative MP who seems pretty close to Poilievre's inner circle. Immigration is the one major issue where the Conservatives under Poilievre have been reluctant to take a clear position on, because they need to find a way to do it without sounding like racist rednecks. Canadians are increasingly anti-immigration, but they're very much against the kind of anti-immigration politics that we see in the states and Europe, so Conservatives have to walk a tightrope here. Criticizing Liberal immigration policies without seeming heartless and bigoted is probably the best they can do, and the brewing tensions about international students is an opening.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

3.Reduce immigration and such to population increases that are sustainable.

I think they've acted on all three of these

They haven't acted on reducing immigration. Their announcement was to cap immigration rates once it reaches 500k/year. That's not reducing, that's increasing until it reaches a hard cap. There's also been no word on limiting or reducing international student applications, who have been a big part of the conversation re: immigration. Particularly here in southern Ontario, this has been probably the single driving factor in now-popular calls to reduce immigration. Marc Miller did announce that the feds would "step in" to crack down on fake diploma mills. Diploma mills are basically an industry in the GTA that profits from selling fake college programs to naive Indian teenagers who end up coming here to do low-skilled labour. That's progress, but undercut by the fact that Marc Miller also suggested that one of the government's motives with the international student program is cheap labour.

You can say that nothing will really change or whatever,  which may be correct, but the government has said that it will target immigrants more and will try to improve coordination better with the provinces and the municipalities. I believe they also announced a program to encourage more immigrants to move to areas other than the big cities.

I specifically replied to the "reducing immigration" comment, which they categorically haven't, and have specifically said they won't.

[Benjamin Frank]

3.Reduce immigration and such to population increases that are sustainable.

I think they've acted on all three of these

They haven't acted on reducing immigration. Their announcement was to cap immigration rates once it reaches 500k/year. That's not reducing, that's increasing until it reaches a hard cap. There's also been no word on limiting or reducing international student applications, who have been a big part of the conversation re: immigration. Particularly here in southern Ontario, this has been probably the single driving factor in now-popular calls to reduce immigration. Marc Miller did announce that the feds would "step in" to crack down on fake diploma mills. Diploma mills are basically an industry in the GTA that profits from selling fake college programs to naive Indian teenagers who end up coming here to do low-skilled labour. That's progress, but undercut by the fact that Marc Miller also suggested that one of the government's motives with the international student program is cheap labour.

You can say that nothing will really change or whatever,  which may be correct, but the government has said that it will target immigrants more and will try to improve coordination better with the provinces and the municipalities. I believe they also announced a program to encourage more immigrants to move to areas other than the big cities.

I specifically replied to the "reducing immigration" comment, which they categorically haven't, and have specifically said they won't.

Yes, don't disagree. But there are the other non immigrant streams, the worker and student visas. I think they said the immigrant stream would be half of the total population increase, which would mean about 1 million, which I think would actually be a reduction.

[Flyersfan232]

I have confidence Trudeau will win. The campaign has barely even started yet; once Canadians see how much like Trump Poilievre is, they'll reject him. Please, Canada, don't screw it up - you're a much better nation than we are.

Quite a few "Trump-like" premiers have been elected provincially. It won't matter if the Canadian electorate is ready to move on from Trudeau.

Polievre also leads in the category of “who do you trust more to deal with trump”

the only people in canada who believes he is trump canada edition are resist libs level voters

[JohnAMacdonald]

[/quote]

I saw this video a couple of days ago and shared it with some friends to point out how much of a narcissistic smuck Poilievere looks like here. Painfully insufferable. And everyone pretty much agreed he looked horrible here.

Of course you thought it was a good look.
[/quote]

Yet he’s still winning by Mulroney/Reagan esque margins in the polls.  Curious?
[/quote]

I mean, even by the worst polls 60% of Canadians are voting for parties on the "left or center-left" (the liberals clearly have centrist elements)... But yes, FPTP is a terrible system and Trudeau is also pretty 'insufferable' himself, albeit at least he isn't trying to emulate the worst parts of the populist conservatism in my country.
[/quote]


This is misleading, since many "left-leaning" voters' second preferences are actually for the tories : (see "Canadians Remain Open to Changing their Vote as Debates Loom on the Horizon" by Ipsos in 2021 as an example poll)
By this measure, even by the worst polls the country is quite evenly split between the two, as many NDP voters and even more Bloc voters would pick the tories, and many more would likely not show up, this whole "all the left-leaning parties would only vote for one another" thing is silly.  

I fail to see how Poilievre is emulating any part of this agenda, his whole shtick is that of a libertarian "fighting" bureaucracy and the likes, nothing particularly different from those who came before him, and for emulating "the worst parts" of populist conservatives, he has NOT opposed abortion, called gay marriage a success in 2015 after past opposition to it and apologised after members of his party met with an AFD member.

[Neo-Malthusian Misanthrope]

Per Abacus, via the Toronto Star: "A full 77 per cent of people who voted Liberal in 2021 say they are tired of Trudeau, 91 per cent say he’s inauthentic and 82 per cent say he makes promises he can’t keep. Among these former Liberal voters, even more believe Trudeau got Canada into the mess it’s in."

Very bad news for Trudeau if these are the numbers he gets from people who previously voted Liberal.

[Open Source Intelligence]

https://paulwells.substack.com/p/hollow-crown

[lfromnj]

https://bc.ctvnews.ca/100-officers-deployed-after-trudeau-surrounded-at-vancouver-restaurant-1.6646074
Trudeau heckled at restaurant .

After Trudeau and his security team drove off, Addison says officers attempted to "disperse the crowd." A 27-year-old man was arrested for allegedly punching a female police officer and attempting to "gouge" her eyes. A Taser was used during that arrest, along with what Addison described as "other physical control tactics."

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Canadian Truckers surround Trudeau and they make it sound like January 6th. Canadian Palestinian activists surround him and it's just "a protest."

[Poirot]

I don't know if there is a thread for Quebec provincial politics and this one is for federal politics but I wanted to post a Pallas data poll that is showing CAQ continued slippage and now PQ would be first.

PQ 30%
CAQ 24%
Québec Solidaire 16%
Liberal 16%
Conservateur 11%

The poll was done just after the 5 to 7 million dollars subsidy to hold two pre-season games involving the LA Kings in Quebec City next year (against Boston and Florida).  This week there are strike by public sector unions.

[mileslunn]

If anybody cares, I've been having all sorts of computer problems.

I said a couple months or so ago that Trudeau should apologize for not focusing on issues the public considered of primary importance and should do three things:

1.Promise to suspend planned increases in the carbon tax until inflation had returned to normal levels.

2.Promise to reduce the deficit to 'small' levels.

3.Reduce immigration and such to population increases that are sustainable.

I think they've acted on all three of these but without the apology the public hasn't really paid attention, especially on the $15 billion reduction in spending. I'm not sure what they've done with reducing the population increases, but I think they've made a couple moves in that direction, and they've made a complete hash of the carbon tax changes.

Agreed but he strikes me as very stubborn and not willing to admit he is wrong.  A big reason Ford despite all his mess ups and being very buffoonish has done as well as he has is he willing to admit he was wrong.  People like politicians who admit mistakes but Trudeau just doesn't strike me as that type.  Maybe biased but he comes across as someone who thinks he is smartest person in room and I have heard even others who know him say same thing.

[mileslunn]

I had on twitter asked two questions and admit with character length bad place but in light of recent swings to right elsewhere and signs Canada may, how people felt on woke crowd and liberal elites being condescending and got very interesting replies.

First was thoughts on woke crowd?  I agree its a broad definition but I feel like a lot feel your campus social justice types, those focused on intersectionality have gone too far.  Not sure how much backlash is and I agree Canadians being proud of being compassionate and tolerant probably tolerate them more than most countries, but even I think there are limits and we may be hitting those.  Wondering what people's thoughts are.  Still if Tories overplay hand here could backfire.  Lets remember banning niqab at citizenship ceremony had 70% support but Harper overplayed hand and came across as Islamophobic which hurt him so I am sort of view all parties should avoid culture wars.  Yes focus on fixing past injustices but do so in a positive inclusive way and don't try to make people feel bad and ashamed of being from historically advantaged group.

Other is are liberal elites condescending?  Most of my conservative readers said heck yes whereas most progressive either said no such group exists or that is what insulting and example of lack of respect for others.  What are thoughts here?  I think liberal elites is broad term but whether exists as a coherent group or just a made up right wing term, a lot feel they do exist and are detached from ordinary people and look down on them. 

I think many progressives are quite condescending but I don't think it is intentional and I think many on right get upset at it too easily.  I think for a lot of progressives, they cannot understand why people think differently so its more frustration and lack of understanding than trying to deliberately be rude.  For conservatives, I think at least in Canada where right nowadays has a libertarian streak they get upset as see it as people who want to control them thus get testy.  When in reality progressives just want a better and fairer society and while tough to do without a more activist government.  So I think that is more a means to get there than simple goal.  Whereas I think for many conservatives, being left alone matters a lot and view is results should be wherever chips fall not socially engineered.  Social Conservatives believe family and church should determine this not state while libertarian types believe it should be up to individual.

In terms of politics, I think backlash against liberal elites is very real and I think it has less to do with one being at fault and more diverging life experiences and two have just such different experiences that don't understand each other.  In past before social media, politicians could say different things in different parts of the country to appeal to local sensibilities whereas with modern media campaigns more nationalized so cannot do that anymore thus why divide growing.

[CumbrianLefty]

If anybody cares, I've been having all sorts of computer problems.

I said a couple months or so ago that Trudeau should apologize for not focusing on issues the public considered of primary importance and should do three things:

1.Promise to suspend planned increases in the carbon tax until inflation had returned to normal levels.

2.Promise to reduce the deficit to 'small' levels.

3.Reduce immigration and such to population increases that are sustainable.

I think they've acted on all three of these but without the apology the public hasn't really paid attention, especially on the $15 billion reduction in spending. I'm not sure what they've done with reducing the population increases, but I think they've made a couple moves in that direction, and they've made a complete hash of the carbon tax changes.

Agreed but he strikes me as very stubborn and not willing to admit he is wrong.  A big reason Ford despite all his mess ups and being very buffoonish has done as well as he has is he willing to admit he was wrong.  People like politicians who admit mistakes but Trudeau just doesn't strike me as that type.  Maybe biased but he comes across as someone who thinks he is smartest person in room and I have heard even others who know him say same thing.

He is the sort of politician who is very good when things are going well for him (think BoJo) but lacks the ability to change his mindset to deal with adversity, so his assets become liabilities.

[mileslunn]

If anybody cares, I've been having all sorts of computer problems.

I said a couple months or so ago that Trudeau should apologize for not focusing on issues the public considered of primary importance and should do three things:

1.Promise to suspend planned increases in the carbon tax until inflation had returned to normal levels.

2.Promise to reduce the deficit to 'small' levels.

3.Reduce immigration and such to population increases that are sustainable.

I think they've acted on all three of these but without the apology the public hasn't really paid attention, especially on the $15 billion reduction in spending. I'm not sure what they've done with reducing the population increases, but I think they've made a couple moves in that direction, and they've made a complete hash of the carbon tax changes.

Agreed but he strikes me as very stubborn and not willing to admit he is wrong.  A big reason Ford despite all his mess ups and being very buffoonish has done as well as he has is he willing to admit he was wrong.  People like politicians who admit mistakes but Trudeau just doesn't strike me as that type.  Maybe biased but he comes across as someone who thinks he is smartest person in room and I have heard even others who know him say same thing.

He is the sort of politician who is very good when things are going well for him (think BoJo) but lacks the ability to change his mindset to deal with adversity, so his assets become liabilities.

Exactly, he is quite stubborn and tends to be unwilling to pivot when circumstances change.  Sort of opposite of Ford who doesn't have a lot of the positives that helped Trudeau win in 2015, but has survived as long as he does as whenever screws up, he is willing to back off and even say he was wrong.  Ford has multiple times said I made mistake whereas I don't recall Trudeau once every saying this was a mistake.  Lots compare Trudeau to Obama, but big difference is Obama was a great listener and he valued diverse advice and went on that while I get impression Trudeau thinks he is smartest person in room and only accepts advice if it jives with his preconceived view.

Harper was too very stubborn and big thing that costs him.  Only difference is he did back off a few times but it was obvious each case was based on bad polling not principles or realizing made a mistake and would have continued if didn't put party in jeopardy.  Chretien was opposite as very much a pragmatist and he was more about what works and didn't really care about its ideology or philosophy attached.  Its why ideologues on both sides hated him as on some issues leaned right, others left and wasn't consistent like Trudeau or Harper were.  Those two while maybe moderate, more because Canada is and you cannot win if stray too far from centre so more moderate out of necessity but both tried to push boundaries but not go beyond Overton Window while Chretien never went anywhere near edges of Overton Window.

[Upper Canada Tory]

If anybody cares, I've been having all sorts of computer problems.

I said a couple months or so ago that Trudeau should apologize for not focusing on issues the public considered of primary importance and should do three things:

1.Promise to suspend planned increases in the carbon tax until inflation had returned to normal levels.

2.Promise to reduce the deficit to 'small' levels.

3.Reduce immigration and such to population increases that are sustainable.

I think they've acted on all three of these but without the apology the public hasn't really paid attention, especially on the $15 billion reduction in spending. I'm not sure what they've done with reducing the population increases, but I think they've made a couple moves in that direction, and they've made a complete hash of the carbon tax changes.

Agreed but he strikes me as very stubborn and not willing to admit he is wrong.  A big reason Ford despite all his mess ups and being very buffoonish has done as well as he has is he willing to admit he was wrong.  People like politicians who admit mistakes but Trudeau just doesn't strike me as that type.  Maybe biased but he comes across as someone who thinks he is smartest person in room and I have heard even others who know him say same thing.

I think you're spot on here. Trudeau's main problem is that he is unwilling to adapt to changing circumstances - he is very set in his own ways. That results in him often refusing to admit mistakes or being unwilling to change his approach even if it is necessary to do so.

[OuterCoat100]

In my opinion, I think that's because Trudeau doesn't need to adapt to changing circumstances yet. If the polls are still bad in 2024, I think he could possibly be forced to adapt, but who knows.

[PSOL]

Does anyone believe that Trudeau has more competency than Pedro Sanchez or even Chris Hipkins?

[Flyersfan232]

why is singh caving alot when he has a lot of leverage right now?

[CumbrianLefty]

why is singh caving alot when he has a lot of leverage right now?

Because its Singh?

[Open Source Intelligence]

For conservatives, I think at least in Canada where right nowadays has a libertarian streak they get upset as see it as people who want to control them thus get testy.  When in reality progressives just want a better and fairer society...

That's giant eye of the beholder stuff and always will be. Define "better and fairer" in a way that gets universal approval among progressives, let alone your entire country.

[mileslunn]

Does anyone believe that Trudeau has more competency than Pedro Sanchez or even Chris Hipkins?

Less than Sanchez who despite losing popular vote is still PM.  Hipkins hard to say.  If Trudeau does win less because of him and more Poilievre does something.  And considering his willingness to pander to more extreme types and number of crazies in party not out of the realm of possibility. 

[mileslunn]

With lots of talk of re-alignment, I went on statscan website to check about urban vs. rural and what it would mean.  It seems in Atlantic Canada and Quebec is where Tories still have many rural they could gain and in former polls seem to suggest are gaining while latter most are going BQ.  By contrast Alberta is only provinces with loads of urban seats voting Conservative which says to me if Liberals or NDP were less hostile to province and energy sector they might have a chance there.  After all Notley won majority of those, but not all (thus why came up short).

Anyways using 400 people per sq. km which is what Statscan uses to define urban I got following

Atlantic Canada

27 rural (19 Liberal, 8 Conservative)
5 urban  (All Liberal)

Quebec

40 Urban (27 Liberal, 10 BQ, 2 Conservative, 1 NDP)
38 Rural  (22 BQ, 8 Liberal, 8 Conservative)

Ontario

72 Urban (66 Liberal, 3 NDP, 2 Conservative, 1 Green)
49 Rural (35 Conservative, 14 Liberal)

Manitoba

8 Urban (4 Liberal, 2 NDP, 2 Conservative)
6 Rural (5 Conservative, 1 NDP)

Saskatchewan

10 Rural (All Conservative)
4 Urban (All Conservative)

Alberta

18 Urban (14 Conservative, 2 NDP, 2 Liberal)
16 Rural (All Conservative)

BC

22 Rural (11 Conservative, 7 NDP, 3 Liberal, 1 Green)
20 Urban (12 Liberal, 6 NDP, 2 Conservative)

Territories

3 Rural (2 Liberal, 1 NDP)

Total:

173 Rural (93 Conservative, 46 Liberal, 22 BQ, 11 NDP, 1 Green)
165 Urban (114 Liberal, 26 Conservative, 14 NDP, 10 BQ, 1 Green)

If you use 200 people per square km you get following so similar

Atlantic

Rural 25 (17 Liberal, 8 Conservative)
Urban 7 (All Liberal)

Quebec

Urban 43 (28 Liberal, 12 BQ, 2 Conservative, 1 NDP)
Rural 35  (20 BQ, 8 Conservative, 7 Liberal)

Ontario

Urban 79 (70 Liberal, 5 Conservative, 3 NDP, 1 Green)
Rural 42 (32 Conservative, 8 Liberal, 2 NDP)

Manitoba

No change

Saskatchewan

Rural 9
Urban 5

Alberta

No change

BC

Urban 25 (14 Liberal, 7 NDP, 3 Conservative, 1 Green)
Rural  17  (10 Conservative, 6 NDP, 1 Liberal)

Territories same

Totals

Urban 185 (125 Liberal, 31 Conservative, 15 NDP, 12 BQ, 2 Green)
Rural 153 (88 Conservative, 35 Liberal, 20 BQ, 10 NDP)

So in summary, Conservatives have lots of rurals available in Atlantic Canada which if polls are accurate are swinging towards them.  Quebec still have lots available too, but BQ is mostly rural thus challenge there.  Ontario, most they don't have are either in Northern Ontario, which polls suggest swinging towards them or Southern ones that are predominately urban/suburban with only a bit of rural on the edge and most of those are over 200 but under 400 people per square km.  Glengarry-Prescott-Russell only true rural in Southern Ontario and going Liberal as predominately Francophone.  Kitchener-Conestoga is mixed while Kanata-Carleton mostly suburban but has sizeable rural while Pickering-Uxbridge is about 90% suburban, 10% rural while in land 80% rural, 20% suburban and off course in latter three, Tories dominated the rural polls but lost due to urban/suburban ones.

In BC also have a few, particularly Vancouver Island and two Interior.  In Lower Mainland, there are a few ridings that fall below such as North Vancouver as extends back into the mountains, but is pretty much 100% suburban as no one lives there.

For NDP, they are more urban and certainly the rural ones they hold are more vulnerable but still have some legacy blue collar ones in BC and Northern Ontario but whether they can hold those or not remains to be seen.

Asides from odd one here and there, most urban Tory ridings are located in Alberta and indeed if Edmonton and especially Calgary started voting like other cities their size, Tories would have a far more difficult path.

So in summary, Tory path on rurals only is very narrow and each census gets harder and harder.  Liberals can win minority easily on urban only, but to get a majority they need at least some rural ridings or at least in mixed ones win the urban parts by large enough margins to offset rural parts.