Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Locke

I gotta say...I know Canada doesnt have Nuclear weapons and neither does Japan, but Italy does? Italy? Really?

Do they use them in their Cafes as coasters?

Italy? Seriously?

The US, France, and UK have their own nuclear weapons.



The US has nuclear bombs at their bases in Italy and Germany.

[transplant99]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1712209522625019967

[Jacks]

Canada's defence strategy has been to make friends with the biggest kid on the playground. Been that way for quite awhile.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Canada's defence strategy has been to make friends with the biggest kid on the playground. Been that way for quite awhile.

Has it ever not been that way?

[#-3]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Canada's defence strategy has been to make friends with the biggest kid on the playground. Been that way for quite awhile.

Are there actually other options?

[Fuzz]

The parliamentary budget officer says a single-payer universal drug plan would cost federal and provincial governments $11.2 billion in the first year, and $13.4 billion in five years.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/pha...993741?cmp=rss

This is really a no-brainer. And you know how I know that?

In a statement Thursday, the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association said shifting from private to public coverage for pharmaceuticals is a bad move.

"A single-payer program will spend unnecessary billions to disrupt existing workplace health benefit plans that are already making a larger number of prescription drugs more affordable for millions," said Stephen Frank, president and CEO of the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association.

Ya, the people who hate it have a vested interest in not losing their profits.

One thing I haven't seen in this discussion(and it may be there, I didn't read the report) is that if we save costs on company funded drug plans, those vacated dollars should be recaptured(increase payroll tax?) to pay for pharmacare. The end result is workers wouldn't notice a difference on their paycheck, but coverage would be expanded to be universal, since many people do not have employer plans.

Sadly, I'm sure Danielle Smith will immediately fight this and Albertans will be left behind.

[Firebot]

https://www.thestar.com/politics/fed...f1e7584e3.html

Very interesting story / poll from Toronto Star, that Singh's and NDP's numbers fluctuating around 18-19% are not so much because they are staying stagnant, but they are gaining Liberal voters while losing NDP voters to the CPC and Liberals.

That seems to be quite a different picture than normally occurs. While the ABC mentality is in fact still occurring, if the NDP is losing a good part of their base to the CPC of all parties, it clearly means that their policies or lack of policies is alienating what should traditionally be part of their core.

Champagne socialism can only go so far before it falls flat, so too does Twitter politics when Singh is supposed to be part of a coalition and could demand meaningful changes from the government today if Liberals are not willing to do so.

Will the NDP take this as a wake up call, and provide viable solutions to Canada's issues in 2023 and make themselves a viable alternative voting option to voters who feel disenfranchised? Their NDP convention is coming up soon.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ndp...2023-1.6993038

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by #-3

Are there actually other options?

We could try meeting our NATO obligations on defence spending. We could try not being the laughing-stock of the Western world when it comes to domestic security and intelligence.

Australia isn’t in NATO but it has the confidence of the U.S., UK, and other allies. It’s trusted in intelligence and military planning.

Canada has come to be regarded as a freeloader. We enjoy all of the benefits of belonging to the Western power bloc, but we won’t shoulder our share of the costs. What we mainly bring to the table is the ‘soft power’ of high-minded rhetoric.

So when a Canadian citizen is assassinated on our soil and we go to our allies about it, why should we expect them to offer anything more than “Yeah, that sucks… but whaddaya gonna do?”

[Red Slinger]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

We could try meeting our NATO obligations on defence spending. We could try not being the laughing-stock of the Western world when it comes to domestic security and intelligence.

Australia isn’t in NATO but it has the confidence of the U.S., UK, and other allies. It’s trusted in intelligence and military planning.

Australia also doesn't share a border with the US and has China just around the corner.

Canada has come to be regarded as a freeloader. We enjoy all of the benefits of belonging to the Western power bloc, but we won’t shoulder our share of the costs. What we mainly bring to the table is the ‘soft power’ of high-minded rhetoric.

So when a Canadian citizen is assassinated on our soil and we go to our allies about it, why should we expect them to offer anything more than “Yeah, that sucks… but whaddaya gonna do?”

So, Canada is a friendly neighbor to the largest, most advanced military in the history of the planet and we need to spend more taxpayer money on defense which will likely mean less social services because...?

I'm okay with spending little on our domestic military for now while providing reasonable support to allies around the world like Ukraine.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/pha...993741?cmp=rss

This is really a no-brainer. And you know how I know that?


Ya, the people who hate it have a vested interest in not losing their profits.

One thing I haven't seen in this discussion(and it may be there, I didn't read the report) is that if we save costs on company funded drug plans, those vacated dollars should be recaptured(increase payroll tax?) to pay for pharmacare. The end result is workers wouldn't notice a difference on their paycheck, but coverage would be expanded to be universal, since many people do not have employer plans.

Sadly, I'm sure Danielle Smith will immediately fight this and Albertans will be left behind.

I don't think this is as clear as the picture you're painting. Lots and lots of variables.

A national pharmacare based on BC's model may work, but the idea you could just have the same cost as employer funded plans isn't based on reality. The biggest users of medicine aren't in employer funded plans

[#-3]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

Australia also doesn't share a border with the US and has China just around the corner.



So, Canada is a friendly neighbor to the largest, most advanced military in the history of the planet and we need to spend more taxpayer money on defense which will likely mean less social services because...?

I'm okay with spending little on our domestic military for now while providing reasonable support to allies around the world like Ukraine.

I'll add if the past 60 years should have taught us anything, it's that having a large standing force is not the solution to security. It's having robust social safety nets (so you have a healthy and happy population), and educated and informed society (that doesn't buy into the BS of mindless demagogue), and the ability to mobilize / tool up quickly.

What doesn't work is a large force of peace time military personal or aged weapons stashes or traditional armies vs guerrilla forces.

So rather focusing on spending commitments, would prefer NATO report on their readiness to produce weapons, their readiness to recruit and train, the social cohesion. Every NATO country should have an action plan setup to mobilize national industry to produce X number of armourments within x period of time. Not sure Canada would be meeting that either, but at least it would be something, instead of a meaningless spending target plucked out of the Military Industrial Complex just cause.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Firebot

https://www.thestar.com/politics/fed...f1e7584e3.html

Very interesting story / poll from Toronto Star, that Singh's and NDP's numbers fluctuating around 18-19% are not so much because they are staying stagnant, but they are gaining Liberal voters while losing NDP voters to the CPC and Liberals.

That seems to be quite a different picture than normally occurs. While the ABC mentality is in fact still occurring, if the NDP is losing a good part of their base to the CPC of all parties, it clearly means that their policies or lack of policies is alienating what should traditionally be part of their core.

Champagne socialism can only go so far before it falls flat, so too does Twitter politics when Singh is supposed to be part of a coalition and could demand meaningful changes from the government today if Liberals are not willing to do so.

Will the NDP take this as a wake up call, and provide viable solutions to Canada's issues in 2023 and make themselves a viable alternative voting option to voters who feel disenfranchised? Their NDP convention is coming up soon.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ndp...2023-1.6993038

I'm interested to see what happens with the mandatory leadership review, last time Singh received 87% support, it will be interesting to see what the trend is.


As well the Israel Palastine war is not on the itinerary because it happened too late. I expect that it will manage to rear its head.



In other news (typewriter sound in the background)


https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...-act-1.6993720

Canada's top court has delivered a highly anticipated judgment, writing in a majority opinion that Ottawa's Impact Assessment Act (IAA) is largely unconstitutional.
The IAA, previously known as Bill C-69, allows federal regulators to consider the potential environmental and social impacts of various resource and infrastructure projects. It was enacted in 2019.
The IAA has long been controversial among conservative politicians in Alberta, including former premier Jason Kenney, who frequently referred to it as the "no more pipelines act."
Writing for the majority in a 5-2 decision, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada Richard Wagner said the process set forth in Sections 81 to 91 of the IAA were constitutional and could be separated out.

Those sections involve projects carried out or financed by federal authorities on federal lands, or outside Canada, and therefore fall under federal jurisdiction. Those provisions were not challenged as unconstitutional.
However, Wagner wrote that the balance of the scheme, involving "designated projects," was unconstitutional.
Under the IAA, designated projects are those projects that are set out in the regulations or are subject to a ministerial order.
"In my view, Parliament has plainly overstepped its constitutional competence in enacting this designated projects scheme," Wagner wrote.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

Australia also doesn't share a border with the US and has China just around the corner.



So, Canada is a friendly neighbor to the largest, most advanced military in the history of the planet and we need to spend more taxpayer money on defense which will likely mean less social services because...?

I'm okay with spending little on our domestic military for now while providing reasonable support to allies around the world like Ukraine.

So you're ok with soldiers having to ask for donations just to cover their food and housing expenses?

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/cana...od-costs-memo/

The way our government treats our soldiers is embarrassing. Maybe if we increase our military budget to NATO minimums then they wouldn't have to start a GoFundMe just to pay rent

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

So you're ok with soldiers having to ask for donations just to cover their food and housing expenses?

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/cana...od-costs-memo/

The way our government treats our soldiers is embarrassing. Maybe if we increase our military budget to NATO minimums then they wouldn't have to start a GoFundMe just to pay rent

How would that make a difference? The US spends a massive amounts on it’s military, and soldiers with families still have to resort to food stamps.

[Red Slinger]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

So you're ok with soldiers having to ask for donations just to cover their food and housing expenses?

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/cana...od-costs-memo/

The way our government treats our soldiers is embarrassing. Maybe if we increase our military budget to NATO minimums then they wouldn't have to start a GoFundMe just to pay rent

No. What I intended to say is I'm okay spending only a little more on our military. I don't know what the living conditions of Canadian soldiers are. Hopefully, they're not relying on handouts. But it's nice of you to put words in my mouth.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

I'm okay with spending little on our domestic military .

errrrr, what?

We already are rusted out, under staffed and exhausted.

If Canada doesn't address the personnel and equipment issues in the Forces then it might just implode removing any ability for Canada to have a say on International issues.

Also, I want to be clear, this isn't a Liberals v Conservatives issue. A My experience is that all Governments of Canada under value, under finance and under appreciate Canadians in uniform.

[chemgear]

https://nationalpost.com/news/politi...constitutional

The Supreme Court has found the Trudeau government’s Impact Assessment Act, dubbed the no more pipelines act by Conservatives, is unconstitutional and goes beyond the federal government’s powers.

The bill, passed in 2019, overhauls the federal government’s role in major projects, allowing it to consider the broader impact of climate change when assessing major natural resources projects like mines and pipelines.

In a 5-2 decision, the Supreme Court found that the law could apply to projects on federal land or those receiving federal financing, but said the federal government was acting outside of its jurisdiction if it used the law more broadly.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

No. What I intended to say is I'm okay spending only a little more on our military. I don't know what the living conditions of Canadian soldiers are. Hopefully, they're not relying on handouts. But it's nice of you to put words in my mouth.

Sorry I read it as he did, which was a reduction in spending.

All I'll say is "a little more" isn't enough.

Thank you for clarifying

[Yoho]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1712898547774116022

https://twitter.com/user/status/1712904611638522298

[Ironhorse]

Originally Posted by Yoho

https://twitter.com/user/status/1712904611638522298

Pretty much.