Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[rubecube]

Is there any evidence in recent history of the concerns the left have regarding right-wing populists proving to be unfounded? Usually it's been everything they've warned about and worse.

[Izzle]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Is there any evidence in recent history of the concerns the left have regarding right-wing populists proving to be unfounded? Usually it's been everything they've warned about and worse.

I guess the world isn't a toxic wasteland since Trump was elected.

/S

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Is there any evidence in recent history of the concerns the left have regarding right-wing populists proving to be unfounded? Usually it's been everything they've warned about and worse.

Harper didn't ban gay marriage..

Of course he did make a mess of the project approvals process, destroyed many many environmental protections, tried to get people to rat on their neighbors and completely Dutch Disease the Ontario manufacturing industry... but he left gay marriage alone.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by belsarius

Harper didn't ban gay marriage..

Of course he did make a mess of the project approvals process, destroyed many many environmental protections, tried to get people to rat on their neighbors and completely Dutch Disease the Ontario manufacturing industry... but he left gay marriage alone.

Also tried to criminalize listed pro-Palestine advocacy groups as terrorist organizations, tried to restrict protest rights, lost numerous Charter challenges, cut funding to women's shelters that were pro-choice, did everything in his power to restrict the opening of abortion clinics in remote areas for FN, sold off GM shares for pennies on the dollar to make his budget appear balanced for an election.

You know, just a really decent, standup guy.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by belsarius

Harper didn't ban gay marriage..

Not for lack of trying, though. Less than a year after Harper first became PM in 2006, Harper's Conservatives introduced a bill to re-ban gay marriage. The CPC had a minority government at the time, and the motion was defeated by the opposition parties and a small number of defecting Red Tories (among them Jim Prentice and Peter Mackay). Harper himself voted in favour of re-banning gay marriage.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Not for lack of trying, though. Less than a year after Harper first became PM in 2006, Harper's Conservatives introduced a bill to re-ban gay marriage. The CPC had a minority government at the time, and the motion was defeated by the opposition parties and a small number of defecting Red Tories (among them Jim Prentice and Peter Mackay). Harper himself voted in favour of re-banning gay marriage.

Interestingly 12 conservatives voted against the bill and 13 liberals voted for it. Did they count the votes wrong?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Calgary '89

Cuz people like me know that Canada is 63% left-leaning and hard RW simply won’t work here. Erin O’Toole knew that and tried to ride the middle ground but failed. Poilievre gets painted as Javier Milei type RW radical and it’s fine if people like you believe that, but rest assured that the ocean of LW comrades you have here won’t ever let him or anyone be that type of leader.

I have my doubts about Poilievre and about any politician really, I wouldn’t call him softer, just more centrist.
What I don’t understand is why the left NEVER doubts their leaders. Such blind orthodox following.

Also very frustrating.

You don't understand it because it isn't actually happening. Many people here have said Trudeau is done and it's time to go. Have you missed all those posts or is it willful ignorance? I'm not sure their is a solid Trudeau supporter left on CP. And most who think Jagmeet is fine have no attachment and would welcome an alternative. many here call for Notley to move on. What I don't understand is where you are getting that viewpoint from.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

Interestingly 12 conservatives voted against the bill and 13 liberals voted for it. Did they count the votes wrong?

An equal number of Liberals (13) voted for the motion as Conservatives (13) voted against it. As a percentage of their elected caucuses at the time, the parties voted as follows (not counting absences or pairings) on the 2006 motion to ban gay marriage:

Conservatives: 110 For, 13 Against (89.4% For)
Liberals: 13 For, 85 Against (86.7% Against)
NDP: 0 For, 29 Against (100% Against)
Bloc: 0 For, 47 Against (100% Against)
Independent: 0 For, 1 Against (100% Against)

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Not for lack of trying, though. Less than a year after Harper first became PM in 2006, Harper's Conservatives introduced a bill to re-ban gay marriage. The CPC had a minority government at the time, and the motion was defeated by the opposition parties and a small number of defecting Red Tories (among them Jim Prentice and Peter Mackay). Harper himself voted in favour of re-banning gay marriage.

Well shoot.. I shoulda done some research cause whenever I talk about Harper, his supporters always tell me the rhetoric was overblown cause he never banned it

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

O'Toole didn't try to 'ride the middle', he tried to play both sides and came off as a flip-flopper. Pick a subject, and you can probably find O'Toole answering in support and in opposition to it.

PP, to his credit, is telling everyone who he is, and what he stands for. It just doesn't happen to be something people actually want.

I'm not sure that's true.
He's trying to distance himself for Trump type politics now and pretend he's not that; just a common sense guy.
See the Kelowna interview for example.

I think the more accurate concern is he's not telling everyone who he really is & is trying to soften his image to win the election, then show his true colors after.

[Ironhorse]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

I think the more accurate concern is he's not telling everyone who he really is & is trying to soften his image to win the election, then show his true colors after.

The good old “boogeyman” argument.

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

I'm not sure that's true.
He's trying to distance himself for Trump type politics now and pretend he's not that; just a common sense guy.
See the Kelowna interview for example.

I think the more accurate concern is he's not telling everyone who he really is & is trying to soften his image to win the election, then show his true colors after.

Originally Posted by Ironhorse

The good old “boogeyman” argument.

I think he's shown well enough already the boogeyman that lies beneath. He's just banking on Canadians having the memory of goldfish.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Federal Court overturns the Government's Cabinet Order on Single use plastics.



https://globalnews.ca/news/10096664/...medium=Twitter

Good. That was another example of shallow policy to make people feel good about a complex problem.

Those bloody blue "re-usable" Walmart bags proliferating the country are just single use bags that take way more energy to produce, I'm pretty convinced the ban was a net-negative.

I've got a trunk of 20 year old reusable bags, so it's not like I'm on Team Plastic Bag here, but that wasn't the way to solve the problem.

[Calgary '89]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

You don't understand it because it isn't actually happening. Many people here have said Trudeau is done and it's time to go. Have you missed all those posts or is it willful ignorance? I'm not sure their is a solid Trudeau supporter left on CP. And most who think Jagmeet is fine have no attachment and would welcome an alternative. many here call for Notley to move on. What I don't understand is where you are getting that viewpoint from.

Yeah well Fuzz I don’t get my viewpoints from CP so let’s get back on track here. I’m not critiquing you or the CP posters but the Canadian left in general.

Trudeau has been pooping the bed for years and just now, when everything is falling apart for the liberal brand are people starting to talk about him being removed.
The NDP just had a convention where they really could’ve challenged Singh but instead he got an approval rating in the 80’s and then back to that stupid deal Trudeau convinced him to take.

Do you understand the viewpoint now?

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by Ironhorse

The good old “boogeyman” argument.

I think it applies to PP more than most.
If you look at him around the Trucker rally times vs what he's saying lately, there's a heavy toning down and moderation to the middle.

That's why I say the old "he's telling us what he is and we're not listening" doesn't really apply here.
What he's telling us now is pretty palatable to most centrist Canadians. What he was saying 1-2 years ago was less so.

With people like Trump, you never got that toning down to the middle so that's not a good comparison to what PP is doing now.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

Interestingly 12 conservatives voted against the bill and 13 liberals voted for it. Did they count the votes wrong?

Originally Posted by MarchHare

An equal number of Liberals (13) voted for the motion as Conservatives (13) voted against it. As a percentage of their elected caucuses at the time, the parties voted as follows (not counting absences or pairings) on the 2006 motion to ban gay marriage:

Conservatives: 110 For, 13 Against (89.4% For)
Liberals: 13 For, 85 Against (86.7% Against)
NDP: 0 For, 29 Against (100% Against)
Bloc: 0 For, 47 Against (100% Against)
Independent: 0 For, 1 Against (100% Against)

Wow, interesting…

[opendoor]

Interesting updates about the Spavor and Kovrig story. Spavor is claiming that Kovrig was an intelligence asset who passed on information he provided without his knowledge, which eventually resulted in both of their detentions:

One of the two Canadians jailed by China for nearly three years in a case that was at the heart of a diplomatic crisis is seeking a multimillion-dollar settlement from Ottawa, two sources say, alleging he was detained because he unwittingly provided intelligence on North Korea to Canada and allied spy services.

Michael Spavor alleges that the deception was conducted by fellow Canadian prisoner Michael Kovrig, and it was intelligence work by the latter that led to both men’s incarceration by Chinese authorities, according to the sources.
...
A third highly placed source told The Globe that Mr. Kovrig was considered an intelligence asset, as a diplomatic officer at the Global Security Reporting Program (GSRP) within the Canadian embassy in Beijing, and later when based in Hong Kong at International Crisis Group.

The source said Mr. Kovrig was not an employee of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service but that information he gathered in China was viewed as valuable by the spy agency. The Globe is not identifying the source because they could face prosecution under the Security of Information Act.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/cana...ce-background/

Can't say I'm particularly surprised. Though of the two, I would have thought Spavor was the asset, given his ties to Kim Jong Un and North Korea.

[Firebot]

This means the Michaels were actual spies, what I am gathering from this article, and they weren't just detained in a vacuum?

Definitely puts the whole thing in perspective.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Modern day international spies are a crazy thing.
I sometimes wonder how many people I've randomly walked past in life that are spies or hitmen or crazy things like that.

[Yoho]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

Modern day international spies are a crazy thing.
I sometimes wonder how many people I've randomly walked past in life that are spies or hitmen or crazy things like that.