Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Slava

That's the part I don't like (the incentivizing). Like, if you want to cross the floor, I guess that's fine. Not something that I love, but you will have to face the electorate, and it can cost you your job. But, personal benefit like a cabinet position is just greasy.

Clearly against the spirit of the idea.

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by ThePrince

Huh, interesting - I can distinctly remember how many people here like to gaslight that Canada's over-regulation was a figment of people's imaginations.

That's a hot take pointed at all of the posters here you disagree with. I guess it depends on whether your priority is the people of Canada or businesses?

If you prioritize business then any regulations is "over-regulation" because regulations get in the way of profits. Why value safety when you can make more money? Why value the environment when you can make more money? Why value the health of the population when you can make more money?

On the other hand, if you value the people, regulations are necessary to ensure that everyone comes home safe and the environment is not destroyed in the pursuit of profit.

There may be need to streamline regulations and/or processes to ensure that you have effective regulations that provide the protections that are required without making it impossible to navigate, but that problem is not "over-regulation".

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by Slava

That's the part I don't like (the incentivizing). Like, if you want to cross the floor, I guess that's fine. Not something that I love, but you will have to face the electorate, and it can cost you your job. But, personal benefit like a cabinet position is just greasy.

If you have been paying attention, PP has been wielding his power as party leader to force obedience through incentivization. There have been many accusations and news stories that PP would not allow the MPs in his party to talk to members of other parties or speak their mind if it deviates from his messaging. If they obey, they are rewarded. If they deviate from his messaging and try to represent their constituents then they are punished.

When MPs failed to obey then PP would restrict their speaking time in the house and during question period. Basically neutering them as representatives.

So, how is it any different, better, or worse for the Liberals to say "hey, come join our party. It is better over here and we won't treat you like a prisoner inside your own party."?

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by Wolven

If you prioritize business then any regulations is "over-regulation" because regulations get in the way of profits. Why value safety when you can make more money? Why value the environment when you can make more money? Why value the health of the population when you can make more money?

On the other hand, if you value the people, regulations are necessary to ensure that everyone comes home safe and the environment is not destroyed in the pursuit of profit.

You are deliberately strawmanning because you cannot make a real point. No one said that regulations are not necessary. We are talking strictly about over-regulating.

So I take it you are against Carney eliminating red tape?

Overregulation means more administrative costs paid by Canadian taxpayers.

You frame it as regulation getting in the way of greedy profits. I would frame it as over-regulation getting in the way of taxpayers getting value for their money

The budget (as a responsible government would) views it as the cost to taxpayers and improving efficiencies.

This will help ensure that Crown corporations are prioritising nation-building projects where possible and coordinating their support to unlock projects while delivering value for money for taxpayers.

In this time of uncertainty, there is also a heightened urgency to make our economy more resilient and competitive. Through this budget, the government will tackle structural issues that are holding back Canada's economy—internal trade barriers, burdensome regulation, and weak competition intensity. Eliminating our barriers to growth will usher in a new era of economic security and prosperity for Canadians.

The audacity of getting value for money for taxpayers.

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by Firebot

You are deliberately strawmanning because you cannot make a real point. No one said that regulations are not necessary. We are talking strictly about over-regulating.

So I take it you are against Carney eliminating red tape?

Overregulation means more administrative costs paid by Canadian taxpayers.

You frame it as regulation getting in the way of greedy profits. I would frame it as regulation getting in the way of taxpayers getting value for their money

The budget (as a responsible government would) views it as the cost to taxpayers and improving efficiencies.

The audacity of getting value for money for taxpayers.

Sorry, there are a lot of things in this man but none of it is straw.

Regulations are the language that the government uses to 'talk' to corporations. Like any language, some of it is good, commonly understood, and effective. But some of it is confusing and ineffective. As in any conversation, you want to use the best language possible so that everyone understands and is in alignment and can move forward in their respective interests. In that way, I agree with effective regulations over ineffective regulations.

Corporations frame it as regulations being bad because they get in the way of profits.
*I* frame it as regulations being good and necessary because they protect the citizens of our city/province/country/world from corporations that would feed us lead to make a buck.
You frame regulations as "getting in the way of taxpayers getting value for their money", which I would say is nonsense. It is a backward argument for you to side with corporations and against the people by pretending it is beneficial to the people to eliminate regulations.

"Value for taxpayers" is when we get effective and efficient services from our government and our collective dollars return more value to us than if we tried to use our dollars separately to do the same thing.

This budget does a lot of things, and most of them are good for corporations, but value for the people is not really a feature of the budget as they are slashing services pretty heavily. There are things to be excited about and I think the long term plan could work out well for Canada but I worry about the prioritization of business over citizens and environment.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by Wolven

Sorry, there are a lot of things in this man but none of it is straw.

Corporations frame it as regulations being bad because they get in the way of profits.
*I* frame it as regulations being good and necessary because they protect the citizens of our city/province/country/world from corporations that would feed us lead to make a buck.
You frame regulations as "getting in the way of taxpayers getting value for their money", which I would say is nonsense. It is a backward argument for you to side with corporations and against the people by pretending it is beneficial to the people to eliminate regulations.

Says not strawmanning, proceed to strawman in next sentence

You are continuing to argue on something no one is saying. You can always reason why a regulation is justified. Over-regulation is the point of contention.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Firebot

You are deliberately strawmanning because you cannot make a real point. No one said that regulations are not necessary. We are talking strictly about over-regulating.

How do you draw the distinction between good regulation and over regulation just based on numbers? Some regulations can be pro-business and pro-competition, and it's quite possible to have a higher regulation count but with less restrictive regulation overall (which is what OECD data suggests for Canada over the last 50 years). For instance, regulating telecommunications to force outside competition would theoretically increase the regulatory burden for a few existing providers, but would also reduce the barrier to entry, spurring investment and lowering prices for consumers

And even just looking at raw numbers, obviously some things have gotten more complex in that time period due to significant technological change, so you'd expect there'd be some regulations where there weren't before. And the data backs that up. The primary growth in new regulations is from e-communications and media. Whereas forestry, agriculture, and fisheries have actually seen their regulations decline over that period, and sectors like mining, oil and gas, business services, and construction have seen pretty modest growth in regulation.

I mean, there's a reason why regulation growth was faster under Harper than it was under Trudeau based on this study, and that's because things like social media, streaming media, and whatnot barely existed in 2006.

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by Firebot

Says not strawmanning, proceed to strawman in next sentence

You are continuing to argue on something no one is saying. You can always reason why a regulation is justified. Over-regulation is the point of contention.

You are arguing that there is "over-regulation" as if regulations are a hurdle.

I am arguing that "over-regulation" is nonsense because regulations are not a hurdle, they are a language between corporations and governments that represent people.

Think of it like computer programming. When you need to write a function, you might be able to write it with 1000 lines of code or 100 lines of code. Obviously writing it with 100 lines of code is more effective. But you are arguing to just delete the function entirely because you think there are too many functions.

[Fuzz]

Fascinating. PP really is the most repulsive substance ever created.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Jeneroux


He's an Edmonton MP, so that'd be nice to boost Alberta representation.

[peter12]

Oh man, people arguing here that regulations aren't a hurdle have obviously never been close to the process. It's the sheer complexity and overlap of the process that is challenging. That, and the incompetence of the bureaucracy and the unstable Indigenous governments.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Wolven

If you have been paying attention, PP has been wielding his power as party leader to force obedience through incentivization. There have been many accusations and news stories that PP would not allow the MPs in his party to talk to members of other parties or speak their mind if it deviates from his messaging. If they obey, they are rewarded. If they deviate from his messaging and try to represent their constituents then they are punished.

When MPs failed to obey then PP would restrict their speaking time in the house and during question period. Basically neutering them as representatives.

So, how is it any different, better, or worse for the Liberals to say "hey, come join our party. It is better over here and we won't treat you like a prisoner inside your own party."?

I think that approach (freer speech and not being ruled with a heavy hand), compared to something like "hey, come to our party and we'll give you a plum cabinet post," is a world away.

[peter12]

Wolven acting like message control is something new in politics. Oh Wolven, my dear sweet boy. You need a kiss.

[spetch]

Chris gave his reasons for crossing the floor and as a Red Tory myself, I can relate to him doing so

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/chr...evre-9.6967559

It's time to lead a country to try and make it better and not try to knock it down," he said. "We have a great opportunity here in Canada and rather than knocking people down, we should try to find ways to work together, and that's what I've always tried to do in my career."

[Drak]

He says more may cross over.

[peter12]

Crossing the floor is gross. It's unfortunate our system allows it. His constituents didn't elect a Liberal, they elected a Conservative. A floor-crossing should automatically trigger a by-election.

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by Slava

I think that approach (freer speech and not being ruled with a heavy hand), compared to something like "hey, come to our party and we'll give you a plum cabinet post," is a world away.

Are either of the Conservatives that are crossing the floor being given plum cabinet positions? Or are you just wringing your hands because it could happen?

Chris d'Entremont seems like the kind of competent person that should have a cabinet post. He was deputy speaker after all.

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by peter12

Crossing the floor is gross. It's unfortunate our system allows it. His constituents didn't elect a Liberal, they elected a Conservative. A floor-crossing should automatically trigger a by-election.

peter12 acting like switching parties is something new in politics. Oh peter12, my dear sweet boy. You need a kiss.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Wolven

peter12 acting like switching parties is something new in politics. Oh peter12, my dear sweet boy. You need a kiss.

It's not new at all. It's just an obviously self-interested move which blatantly disregards the will of constituents. I love how blindly partisan you are in defending it. Okay, yes, your team won this. Good work.

[Johnny Makarov]

Originally Posted by peter12

Crossing the floor is gross. It's unfortunate our system allows it. His constituents didn't elect a Liberal, they elected a Conservative. A floor-crossing should automatically trigger a by-election.

why not? He gave PP a chance to change from his deplorable ways after he got knocked off his high horse in the Nepean riding.

but guess what. the effing moron didn't change a single thing after he got back into the house. hahaha suck it pp.

[btimbit]

It also helps that these days Carney is closer to being a Conservative, than the Conservative party