Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

Also from Bill C-372:

promotion means a representation about a product or service by any means, whether directly or indirectly, including any communication of information about the product or service and its price and distribution, that is likely to influence and shape attitudes, beliefs and behaviours about the product or service

PromotionProhibition

6 It is prohibited for a person to promote a fossil fuel, a fossil fuel-related brand element or the production of a fossil fuel except as authorized by the provisions of this Act or of the regulations.


Promotion offences — other persons
(2) Every person, other than a producer, who contravenes section 6 is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $500,000.


Files by persons actually goes up to 750,000. Worth reading the entire proposed bill.

https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/e.../first-reading

This is almost word for word a copy of the same regulations that apply to Tobacco.

Prohibition

19 No person shall promote a tobacco product or a tobacco product-related brand element, including by means of the packaging, except as authorized by the provisions of this Act or of the regulations.

Promotion offences — other persons

(2) Every person, other than a manufacturer, who contravenes section 19 is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $500,000.

The NDP are basically comparing Fossil Fuels to Tobacco in regards to the risks.

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Indeed.



I do find this part very problematic though:



I assumed that a prohibition like this would also be qualified by something like "if incorrect or misleading". It does not. That's bad.

As an aside, I would offer the related CBC article, who are believed to be trusted, are only explaining a partial truth. It's no wonder the CPCs railing against the CBC plays with people.

The distinction, or lack thereof, of excluding "misleading promotion" is kinda... well dangerous to me.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by belsarius

This is almost word for word a copy of the same regulations that apply to Tobacco.



The NDP are basically comparing Fossil Fuels to Tobacco in regards to the risks.

Yeah, I don't think that's reasonable though. Tobacco has essentially no redeeming benefits to the user (and so I can understand a complete prohibition on promoting its use as safe or safer in any way). One can't say the same about fossil fuels. So I think this was a bad bill.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Yeah, I don't think that's reasonable though. Tobacco has essentially no redeeming benefits to the user (and so I can understand a complete prohibition on promoting its use as safe or safer in any way). One can't say the same about fossil fuels. So I think this was a bad bill.

I'm not debating the validity of the bill - just that the wording wasn't created as a way to specifically spite the fossil fuel industry, but simply a copy paste of existing legislation that already applied to tobacco.

The debate for how well those two compare is a fair one to have, I just wanted to point out that it wasn't just huge penalties drawn out of thin air, they were using a template of something they considered comparable.

Forgoing economic benefits, when comparing just environmental and health effects, I think the two are comparable so I can see the thought process.. but I agree you need to take into account those positives when crafting legislation.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by belsarius

I'm not debating the validity of the bill - just that the wording wasn't created as a way to specifically spite the fossil fuel industry, but simply a copy paste of existing legislation that already applied to tobacco.

The debate for how well those two compare is a fair one to have, I just wanted to point out that it wasn't just huge penalties drawn out of thin air, they were using a template of something they considered comparable.

Forgoing economic benefits, when comparing just environmental and health effects, I think the two are comparable so I can see the thought process.. but I agree you need to take into account those positives when crafting legislation.

Sorry, even though I quoted you, I didn't really mean to direct my comments to you. That was just me shaking my fist and yelling at the clouds.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Sorry, even though I quoted you, I didn't really mean to direct my comments to you. That was just me shaking my fist and yelling at the clouds.

For sure - but part of me hopes that in reality this is kind of how the process should be working. The bill comes out, and has a valid basis but is too strong. Gets debated, they talk about the differences that fossil fuels have to our way of life compared to tobacco and that there needs to be adjustments. They work on a more realistic version of the legislation that takes it all into account and comes out the other side with a fair compromise.

But all I can think of is a bunch of monkeys throwing feces at each other in question period instead of people who can actually work together to make things better.

[CaptainCrunch]

Last week the fingers started pointing at the Liberal Candidate in St. Paul, and that she wasn't a good campaigner.



Now we're seeing where the Liberals are questioning how Freeland communicates her Financial vision on behalf of the government.



I don't think there's any doubt that Freeland's star has fallen, she's gone from a possible next candidate for the big chair to not being mentioned. I doubt they'll shuffle her at this point.



But the blame is starting to hit her shoulders.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1811433051593007593


The issue for the Liberals is I don't think they could shuffle her to a lessor portfolio, without complaints of the Liberals throwing another strong female MP under the bus.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

They could, I guess. And the NDP could nationalize Canada’s banks and insurance companies if they formed the federal government (as has been proposed in recent party conventions). But it’s probably not worth losing sleep over.

Private banking and insurance has become so idyllic that nationalization would definitely be a tremendous loss to our quality of life.

Originally Posted by Azure

And then it would be appealed and the Supreme Court would knock it down.

Round and round we go....

Originally Posted by Jacks

I mean, it's possible I guess.
First they have to get all those newly elected urban MP's to agree, doubtful but possible I suppose.
Then they need to get it through the Senate, 0.0001% chance of that.
Assuming they hold the families of about 70 Senators hostage to force it through then it goes to the Supreme Court and gets squashed there.
If they jump over all those hurdles then it gets overturned immediately next election and the CPC gets obliterated.

More likely that the meteor hits really.

There is a lot of daylight between the status quo and full blown criminalization. A province could change the scope of a billing code such that the service is only payable after two consults including a psychiatrist and that the procedure must be scheduled and performed in a major hospital. ie. throw a whole bunch of obstacles in the way that significantly reduce access.

And I wouldn't expect all of that to happen in one go, but rather brick by brick.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Yeah, I don't think that's reasonable though. Tobacco has essentially no redeeming benefits to the user (and so I can understand a complete prohibition on promoting its use as safe or safer in any way). One can't say the same about fossil fuels. So I think this was a bad bill.

Rolling Stones! Street Fighting Man! G7!!!

[Johnny Makarov]

I don't care what these polls say. I still say deplorable PP doesn't win even with blackface as Liberal Leader.

You just start running attack ads about him and Danielle Smith and there goes your election in Ontario.

I think they blew that by-election a fews back on purpose to give the Reform Party a fals sense of security.

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by Locke

Rolling Stones! Street Fighting Man! G7!!!

Uhhh... you just hit G8.

[CliffFletcher]

No doubt Trudeau’s team hopes Carney would step in as finance minister. But in the unlikely event Carney accepted, it would show he doesn’t have the political acumen to be PM.

[Johnny Makarov]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

No doubt Trudeau’s team hopes Carney would step in as finance minister. But in the unlikely event Carney accepted, it would show he doesn’t have the political acumen to be PM.

He would still be 100 times better than a Pierre Polliverveeee.

[Red Slinger]

Didn't Carney recently call for Trudeau's resignation, or did I imagine that?

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Johnny Makarov

He would still be 100 times better than a Pierre Polliverveeee.

Oh probably. But he’d have to engineer a dramatic turnaround in Liberal fortunes to win an election. Otherwise he’d be tarred with the same brush as the rest of Trudeau’s circle and his political career would be over before it started. And I don’t get the sense the Canadian voting public is in the mood for an establishment technocrat at the moment. Better to keep his powder dry and build up his profile in opposition.

[cral12]

Paging competent politicians w/ integrity...

https://twitter.com/user/status/1811188543248539941

https://twitter.com/user/status/1811393778948907447

https://twitter.com/user/status/1811151427546251674

[Looch City]

Normal people spend millions per quarter. Y'all are a bunch of plebs if you don't.

[PepsiFree]

Just a normal guy. Everyone else are extremist radicals that HATE you.

[Leeman4Gilmour]

Travel, hospitality, and contracts

That's a bit too vague to even raise an eyebrow let alone be cynical about.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

That's it, that's your rejection? Do you understand how to debate at all? You've discredited the author well enough, so good job, yet failed to address the fact that Pierre's rhetoric is facist-like. And then made up a statement that I am not saying(the bold bit). I don't care that the author is Marxist IF the points follow fact. And the fact is Pierre uses fascist rhetoric(as described in the article) while saying one thing and doing another.

You are still going on and pretend an article calling Poilievre a fascist comparable to Hitler and Mussolini (but not exactly like them, since that would be tooooo extreme ) is a legitimate point of discussion, even after it was revealed it was written by a commie using commie perspective? I guess I didn't get my point across. Maybe this will?


https://socialistchina.org/2023/12/0...c-instability/

That you had to use quotes on "far left" and it's later revealed it was written by a full blown commie sympathetic to the CCCP and still decide to continue does that mean you...

Are you using commie rhetoric ?

This bring us to this question. How and why did you find that article so quickly as a rebuttal to Cowboy89's genuine statement about fascist parties in Canada to counter your own false assertation? You never even bothered to consider the source? It appears you have a specific viewpoint and chose to find ways to affirm your point of view no matter the source versus having an informed point of reference.

How is that any different from 10 minute city folks? It's just another extremist view. What is there to debate here?