Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[driveway]

I feel like there is enough in the CPC Policy Declaration for me to decide I'm not going to vote for them.

Examples:
Point 11 - Parliament voting on Supreme Court Justices. - I'd rather not politicize the Supreme Court.

Point 13 - Electoral Rerfom, there will be no possibility of Electoral Reform under the CPC, sure the Liberals haven't done anything, but the CPC is being crystal clear they won't do anything.

Point 15 - Removing authority from the Human Rights Comission and Human Rights Tribunal. No thank you.

Point 16 - Property Rights - "full compensation" for anyone deprived of property by any federal act. Goodbye infrastructure projects or newly protected lands.

Point 17 - "Right to Work" Legislation - Just eff all the way off, CPC.

That's just up to page 14 of a 77 page document.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Izzle

Back in this thread and I see that @shotinthebacklund hasn't provided examples of specific policies that he likes from the CPC. Oh well, he must be busy.

It’s not hard to imagine why the CPC struggles to gain meaningful support outside their base when the majority that can actually express what is good or inspiring about their policies and positions on issues mostly stay quiet.

Instead, we get treated to the loud minority that either claims being asked about policies they like/dislike is some sort of underhanded attack, or pretends they have this vague distaste for the CPC but blames everyone else for forcing them to vote CPC (which is a special kind of pathetic I didn’t even know they manufactured).

It’s a party where its loudest supporters never say anything meaningful, never offer a reason why CPC, but can only offer reasons why not Liberal. Inspired stuff.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

100 was an exaggeration. It was only 81 years in length and an open contract.

Any link to this? I haven't found anything about this via googling, let alone accusing it of being to a business crony.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by driveway

I feel like there is enough in the CPC Policy Declaration for me to decide I'm not going to vote for them.

Examples:
Point 11 - Parliament voting on Supreme Court Justices. - I'd rather not politicize the Supreme Court.

Point 13 - Electoral Rerfom, there will be no possibility of Electoral Reform under the CPC, sure the Liberals haven't done anything, but the CPC is being crystal clear they won't do anything.

Point 15 - Removing authority from the Human Rights Comission and Human Rights Tribunal. No thank you.

Point 16 - Property Rights - "full compensation" for anyone deprived of property by any federal act. Goodbye infrastructure projects or newly protected lands.

Point 17 - "Right to Work" Legislation - Just eff all the way off, CPC.

That's just up to page 14 of a 77 page document.

Your opposition to 16 is interesting because you are saying that you are okay with the government using eminent domain for their own benefit and potentially screwing over land owners. Why would you be opposed to owners getting fair and just compensation for giving up their land?

11 is also interesting because it already is a politicized process. The federal cabinet recommends appointments and the Governor General makes the appointment. How would you change the process so that it is not politicized or do you view the current process as sufficiently "independent"?

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by belsarius

Any link to this? I haven't found anything about this via googling, let alone accusing it of being to a business crony.

I posted it a few days ago:
https://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/p...qu-en-2100.php

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

I posted it a few days ago:
https://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/p...qu-en-2100.php

Thanks for the link. I see current events are showing this as another big nothingburger as it is a supply arrangement and not a contract. Sounds like all arrangements are for the same timeline.

[driveway]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

Your opposition to 16 is interesting because you are saying that you are okay with the government using eminent domain for their own benefit and potentially screwing over land owners. Why would you be opposed to owners getting fair and just compensation for giving up their land?

11 is also interesting because it already is a politicized process. The federal cabinet recommends appointments and the Governor General makes the appointment. How would you change the process so that it is not politicized or do you view the current process as sufficiently "independent"?

On point 16, here's the full text.

The Conservative Party believes the government should seek the agreement of the provinces to amend the Constitution to include this right, as well as guarantee that no persons shall be deprived of their just right without the due process of law and full, just, and timely compensation.

We believe the government should enact legislation to ensure that full, just and timely compensation will be paid to all persons who are deprived of personal or private property as a result of any federal government initiative, policy, process, regulation or legislation.

First, I dislike the notion of it being a Constitutional Amendment. I am convinced that the valuing of property rights above human rights is at the core of basically all modern problems. I feel this would be a huge step in that direction.

Secondly, I feel like the second part is designed to make it incredibly difficult to pass legislation of really any kind. I don't see it as a protection of property, but rather a way to short-circuit the ability of the Government to govern by creating this law which just looks like it will spawn a million lawsuits and tie up any Federal regulation or initiative in the courts for ages as the question of "full and just" compensation is hammered out.

Point 11

By exposing potential Supreme Court Justices to Parliamentary votes, you now need Justices who will appeal to the fringes of parties. We already have the expectation that parties vote as blocks, and that the opposition opposes. We do not have a tradition of unanimous support for Judicial nominees, it would be a policy that began in an era of polarization, which means Governments would need whatever their governing margin is of members on board to get their nominees through. I don't want Justices that are partisan enough to be palatable to the fringes of the parties.

[calgarygeologist]

The Government of Canada's investment in Medicago has gone poof:

Medicago will be shutting down its COVID-19 vaccine project in Quebec after its sole shareholder decided to no longer invest in the company, the company announced Thursday.

A spokesperson confirmed to Global News the shutdown will affect 586 jobs in Quebec.

In addition, construction on a new, 90,000-square-metre facility and headquarters in Quebec City will be stopped, and “appropriate arrangements” including the property’s sale “will be considered in the winding down process,” he said.

In 2020, Medicago received $173M from the federal government for facility construction and research and development of the vaccine.

Laurie Bouchard, spokesperson for Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry François-Philippe Champagne said the government is “disappointed” to learn of Mitsubishi’s decision.

“Recognizing the impacts this decision will have on their employees, we continue to be in discussion with the Government of Quebec to assess next steps,” said Bouchard.

https://globalnews.ca/news/9456652/m...se-operations/

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by belsarius

Thanks for the link. I see current events are showing this as another big nothingburger as it is a supply arrangement and not a contract. Sounds like all arrangements are for the same timeline.

Yeah, it's a non-binding supply arrangement that saves the trouble of requalifying suppliers each time they are needed for services. The arrangements can also be cancelled at any time by the government.

The period of the supply arrangements is from award date until December 31, 2100 or until such time as Canada chooses to re-compete the supply arrangements or no longer deems the supply arrangements necessary.

https://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-ac...-tsps-eng.html

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by belsarius

Thanks for the link. I see current events are showing this as another big nothingburger as it is a supply arrangement and not a contract. Sounds like all arrangements are for the same timeline.

Originally Posted by opendoor

Yeah, it's a non-binding supply arrangement that saves the trouble of requalifying suppliers each time they are needed for services. The arrangements can also be cancelled at any time by the government.

https://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-ac...-tsps-eng.html

My apologies for getting excited about something being brought up and reported on by the Quebecois. I'll stick with the MSM from now on.

[Harry Lime]

Is there any indication that the federal government offered a loan of 173 million based on the completion of the project, or is it a special gift that doesn't require repayment?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

Your opposition to 16 is interesting because you are saying that you are okay with the government using eminent domain for their own benefit and potentially screwing over land owners. Why would you be opposed to owners getting fair and just compensation for giving up their land?

11 is also interesting because it already is a politicized process. The federal cabinet recommends appointments and the Governor General makes the appointment. How would you change the process so that it is not politicized or do you view the current process as sufficiently "independent"?

16 would significantly impact the energy industry. Land owners sitting over crown mineral rights would be able to to Sue to delay saying there was no due process.

It’s almost a guarantee that various groups would use this to endlessly tie up any type of development. People get frustrated with the duty to consult with First Nations. Now give every land owner a more extreme version of that power.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by opendoor

Yeah, it's a non-binding supply arrangement that saves the trouble of requalifying suppliers each time they are needed for services. The arrangements can also be cancelled at any time by the government.

https://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-ac...-tsps-eng.html

I figured this was something like this but didn’t have time to actually look. Thanks.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by driveway

I feel like there is enough in the CPC Policy Declaration for me to decide I'm not going to vote for them.

Examples:
Point 11 - Parliament voting on Supreme Court Justices. - I'd rather not politicize the Supreme Court.

Point 13 - Electoral Rerfom, there will be no possibility of Electoral Reform under the CPC, sure the Liberals haven't done anything, but the CPC is being crystal clear they won't do anything.

Point 15 - Removing authority from the Human Rights Comission and Human Rights Tribunal. No thank you.

Point 16 - Property Rights - "full compensation" for anyone deprived of property by any federal act. Goodbye infrastructure projects or newly protected lands.

Point 17 - "Right to Work" Legislation - Just eff all the way off, CPC.

That's just up to page 14 of a 77 page document.

For me the corruption and bill C-11 are two automatic strikes against the Liberals that disqualify them from getting my vote regardless of any items in the CPC policy declaration. When you permit the government in power to openly steal from you and censor the information you are allowed access to, you open the door to much further abuse of power because it won't stop there if they are not held to account electorally.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

For me the corruption and bill C-11 are two automatic strikes against the Liberals that disqualify them from getting my vote regardless of any items in the CPC policy declaration. When you permit the government in power to openly steal from you and censor the information you are allowed access to, you open the door to much further abuse of power because it won't stop there if they are not held to account electorally.

Neither of the two main parties are worthy of a vote at this point in time. Especially in Alberta where your vote doesn’t matter you should be voting which ever 3rd party or independent best represents you. If Larry Heather is running he makes an excellent protest vote but really voting NDP makes the most sense to give more room for the Cons to move back to the middle.

[Ozy_Flame]

May I suggest take your party blinders off and vote for the best candidate running in your area. The one that you think will represent you the best.

I know that's going to be extremely hard for some people and areas of the country, but if you can't fathom to vote for the parties, at least give the individual a chance.

To be clear, I personally believe abstaining is not an option. No one is above democracy. We are lucky to have it.

[edslunch]

Firearms bill amendment regarding scope of prohibited weapons withdrawn

https://globalnews.ca/news/9457473/f...e=notification

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

My apologies for getting excited about something being brought up and reported on by the Quebecois. I'll stick with the MSM from now on.

No way, that was good to bring up. I just ended up finding the release that happened a few days later that clarified it. It had potential to be a big deal, but it isn't the gotcha people are trying to use it as.

[PepsiFree]

I don’t see a lot of difference in intent between something like Bill C-11 and PP’s promise to enact financial penalties on Universities that don’t allow certain speakers.

On one hand, government wants Canadian content on platforms streaming in Canada, threatens financial penalties to make it happen.

On the other, party wants controversial speakers to speak in University campuses, threatens financial penalties to make it happen.

I assume people who are disqualifying the Liberals because of C-11 are at least very nervous about the types of authoritarian overreach that the Conservatives are interested in? Or is it OK for the government to control content for some things and not others?

[Yoho]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1621188310180794371

Quebec still not happy about appointee.