Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by edslunch

I would love to see a detailed explanation of the government’s rationale for high immigration levels. I know part of it is the ageing population, and I’ve seen references to want to grow to 100 million people but I’d like to see the overall strategy behind it. It didn’t spring up from nowhere. I’m not opposed necessarily apart from the immediate stresses it places on housing, etc. but neither do I know what problems it is targeting.

It’s mainly aging and the dependency ratio. Transitioning from a society with 8 working taxpayers for every senior to a society with 3 for every senior is putting massive strain on the delivery of public services. Importing lots of working-age taxpayers to fund the pensions and health care of aging Canadians is an expedient way to moderate that transition. The other levers governments can pull to address the worsening dependency ratio - higher taxes on workers or cuts to health care and pensions - are so politically unpalatable that immigration is the easiest solution.

As for the 100 million Canadians thing, it’s about economies of scale. Business wants lots of workers to keep costs down, and lots of customers so they can grow and grow. Building a domestic market is more attractive (ie easier) than going out and competing in the global marketplace to win market share. Again, it’s the easy way out.

There are also quick and easy benefits to investor-class immigrants - they bring a lots of cash with them. Easy money. Same with international students. It’s money there for the taking.

The common theme with all these choices is they’re the easy way to alleviate macro problems. Unfortunately, like most easy solutions, once you scratch the surface they have downsides.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

There are only 3 choices

You’ve already (quiet well) explained why ex Liberal voters won’t vote NDP

Sometimes (almost always) the hope of something better is all you need

I can understand the change for the sake of change view point, even if I believe it’s a misguided approach. What I’m less understanding of is people claiming that the change will actually result in improving certain issues when there isn’t much if any evidence to back that up.

At the end of the day I don’t think that a CPC majority is going to fix the country, and it may surprise you that it’s not simply because it’s the CPC, as I’ve said in the past I’m willing to vote for them but they clearly don’t want my vote. My concern is that it’s going to perpetuate the problem by having a bunch of legislation crammed through without opposition that’s just going to lead us to the same spot when none of the concerns you mentioned get addressed and the cycle repeats itself when people inevitably grow tired of that regime.

Realistically I think the best outcome for the country right now would be to have the CPC win a minority government with a slightly more moderate NDP holding the balance of power because forcing two parties representing drastically different interests to work together would actually result in the most Canadians having their voices heard. But barring something unforeseen that’s almost certainly not gonna end up happening next year.

And while I know a lot (well like 10 people who live on this board ) think the fringe issues matter , most of the country cares about affording a home , the cost of food , and having a job

And all three of those things are getting worse with this government.

The fringe issues clearly matter to the politicians though, why else would the CPC be cozying up to the “freedom” protesters who represent the beliefs of such a small segment of the population? Votes.

The fringe issues that you’re probably referring to though should be an easy political win for a party like the CPC (or any other Conservative party at different levels of government for that matter) but from what I’ve noticed in my dealings with them is that for whatever reason they are just unable to moderate their positions to be clearly neutral on a number of those issues. Most of these “fringe” groups aren’t looking for the government to go out and start(in some cases literally) carrying the flag for them, they’re just wanting neutrality and a basic level of respect.

[CaptainCrunch]

I don't think that the CPC can do the tax cuts that they want to because I think that the Liberals have put us in a situation with their out of control spending and bloating of the public service and pissing away money on contracts and other pet projects that our debt servicing is becoming a major issue.


I do believe that there will need to be significant cuts to the government, I also believe that we're going to find out that the financial situation is worse then the Liberals are admitting to, we keep seeing these reports from the PBO office questioning Liberal finances and spending.


I have no interest in a minority CPC government, because I don't trust the Liberals and NDP to not team up to topple the government at their first opportunity.



I firmly believe that Singh has to be fired by the NDP, he's supported too much of the Liberal scandals, I believe that the Liberals need to burn out Trudeau and his Trudeau friendly cabinet and rebuild their party and their reputation.



Just my two cents.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

I think the solution to that problem is largely going to end up being less immigration. That reduces pressure on the housing market and reduces competition for jobs.

It's not even a "no immigrants" policy, it's more like "take your foot off the gas of record-breaking population growth".

While it certainly plays a role I think immigration is just an easy scapegoat politically. But I do agree it needs reform, should be tied to employment levels etc..

That being said the reason I don’t see it having as big of an impact on things like housing for example is that the overwhelming majority of immigrants aren’t coming here and working high paying jobs to begin with.

A house going from being listed at $500k 2 years ago to over $600k today probably wasn’t because of a mass influx of minimum wage fast food workers. Same goes for renters in a 2 bedroom apartment that went from $1500/month to $2500/month during that same period.

As a side note I think a lot of people would be shocked to learn of some of the living conditions that immigrants and especially TFWs are living in. I’ve seen and heard of some employers shacking up 6 adults in 1 or 2 bedroom apartments. Upwards of 20 living in a small single family home. It’s doubtful that those scenarios are really driving up rental or sale prices.

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

The fringe issues clearly matter to the politicians though, why else would the CPC be cozying up to the “freedom” protesters who represent the beliefs of such a small segment of the population? Votes.

The fringe issues that you’re probably referring to though should be an easy political win for a party like the CPC (or any other Conservative party at different levels of government for that matter) but from what I’ve noticed in my dealings with them is that for whatever reason they are just unable to moderate their positions to be clearly neutral on a number of those issues. Most of these “fringe” groups aren’t looking for the government to go out and start(in some cases literally) carrying the flag for them, they’re just wanting neutrality and a basic level of respect.

The reason the CPC has to cozy up to these nuts is that the only path to a federal victory is ensuring you have a completely united West and get all the votes.

Unfortunately, the second they start moving more central you will have an upstart party (Reform, Alberta Sovereign, Albert Separatist, etc) that start rallying the rural riding and those very valuable seats.

So its a bit of a catch 22 and actually a huge problem in our electoral system (Maybe not the system per se, but a problem)

NDP effectively will never win an election or be any real threat federally, as they have actually lost ground when in theory Liberal defectors should be moving to NDP. However, they can hold the rest of the country 'hostage' by effectively selling their votes vs being a proper opposition.

Quebec separatist parties will always be a thread (seat wise) and have way to much control by capturing the crazy separatist vote. They also can (effectively) push policy that isnt a benefit to the country / hold the country hostage

The CPC NEEDS all the rural seats to secure a majority.

And the Liberals who are the party who are popular with most the voters are completely incompetent and entitled frauds at this time and being run as a joke of what the party use to be.

As long and the Bloc, NDP, and Western Rural ridings have so much electoral power its actually very hard to have a party run that the majority of Canadians would most likely vote for and be happy voting for.

The best thing (might) be for the Cons to absolutely destroy the other parties this election, and realize that they don't need to be as dependent on the western rural ridings and can stop catering to the nuts. However that would take a lot of faith that a significant amount of the riding that flipped from Liberals won't just be a 1 term protest vote.

And I don't think the Cons have belief in that and will continue to depend on these right wing radical ridings

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by edslunch

I would love to see a detailed explanation of the government’s rationale for high immigration levels. I know part of it is the ageing population, and I’ve seen references to want to grow to 100 million people but I’d like to see the overall strategy behind it. It didn’t spring up from nowhere. I’m not opposed necessarily apart from the immediate stresses it places on housing, etc. but neither do I know what problems it is targeting.

Cliff covered the broad strokes, but just to put some numbers to it. Historically Canada has seen labor force growth of about 1.25-1.5% a year. Thats generally a good area to be in if you want to be able to continually fund things like healthcare, pensions, other retirement benefits, etc., particularly with people living longer and longer.

With Canada's existing demographics, there are about 2 people entering retirement age for every 1 person entering working age. So basically, absent immigration, we could expect the labor force to drop by about 100-125K every year for the foreseeable future. And with current birthrates, the problem won't go away on its own. As that happens, the burden of funding everything falls on fewer and fewer working age people, which means either higher taxes or significant cuts in services, neither of which are particularly palatable to voters.

So to make up for that 100-125K loss and increase the labor supply at the target rate, we need about 350-375K working-age immigrants every year. And because only about 2/3rds of immigrants are working age (many are kids, and others are older immigrants brought in on family sponsorships), that's about 500-550K permanent immigrants total each year to maintain that trajectory.

And that's about where we sit now, so I'd expect that level to continue going forward. Where the abnormal growth has really been is in non-permanent residents (asylum claims, study permit holders, and work permit holders). Some of that is policy driven (allowing more temporary workers and students) and some of that is geopolitical issues (i.e. about 15-20% of the growth in temporary residents in the last several years is from Ukrainians fleeing the war).

So I'd expect reductions in temporary permit holders going forward, but immigration to still generally remain high. I mean, there's a reason that the Conservatives haven't said a whole lot about it. Contracting the labor force is an option and some countries are doing it, but it mainly just leaves you with a bunch of bad choices:

1) You can increase taxes and hope it doesn't negatively impact the economy or lead to a brain drain

2) You can reduce services and benefits (i.e. higher retirement age, reduce or eliminate Old Age Security, privatize health care, etc.)

3) You can use debt to pay for everything and kick the can down the road.

But again, none of those things are really vote getters.

[edslunch]

Labour shortage can be addressed to some extent with productivity, which Canada has been falling behind on. It doesn’t help grow the personal tax base though

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Reminder, there is only one federal leader using terms like "radical woke socialists" to describe other federal parties. If you are bothered by the discourse, well, that's what started the conversation.

Well, it wouldn't make a lot of sense from the other leaders to call PP a "radical woke socialist", though it would be funny .

And I am bothered by the things PP says. Don't mistake my complaints about the far left as support of PP and his pandering to the far right.
I don't have a team in this and I have plenty of bother to go around.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

The reason the CPC has to cozy up to these nuts is that the only path to a federal victory is ensuring you have a completely united West and get all the votes.

I’m not sure I agree with them having no choice, I understand it’s politically advantageous but I don’t think they would be losing that many votes by remaining more neutral. Same applies to a number of other issues.

Unfortunately, the second they start moving more central you will have an upstart party (Reform, Alberta Sovereign, Albert Separatist, etc) that start rallying the rural riding and those very valuable seats.

So its a bit of a catch 22 and actually a huge problem in our electoral system (Maybe not the system per se, but a problem)

Is it a problem only because it may negatively impact the party you support?

I mean you do realize with even as bad as the liberal/NDP have handled the last 3 years, if they were to form a new party together rather than splitting votes in most ridings they likely would win a majority.

NDP effectively will never win an election or be any real threat federally, as they have actually lost ground when in theory Liberal defectors should be moving to NDP. However, they can hold the rest of the country 'hostage' by effectively selling their votes vs being a proper opposition.

Never is a pretty bold statement. They would need to make major changes for sure but even just better leadership would help them drastically.

Quebec separatist parties will always be a thread (seat wise) and have way to much control by capturing the crazy separatist vote. They also can (effectively) push policy that isnt a benefit to the country / hold the country hostage

Why is it that whenever a party you’re not voting for has leverage to represent their constituents’ interests and prevent bills they don’t agree with you consider them to be holding the country hostage? There aren’t many examples of all people living in a free nation being in complete agreement on an issue.

I can appreciate that your frustration is likely rooted in your belief that certain policies would be a net benefit to Canadians and you may actually be right about that, unfortunately that doesn’t guarantee everyone will go along with it. Trust me I get how frustrating it is when people in tough situations can’t recognize something that will help them no matter how obvious the benefits are.

For better or worse in a democracy you don’t always get what you want, the alternative option to try and always get what you want is authoritarianism but that just means someone else isn’t getting what they want and there’s no guarantee that that someone else won’t be you.

The CPC NEEDS all the rural seats to secure a majority.

Are you saying they’re holding the party hostage?

And the Liberals who are the party who are popular with most the voters are completely incompetent and entitled frauds at this time and being run as a joke of what the party use to be.

Yeah they’ve left a lot to be desired for sure.

As long and the Bloc, NDP, and Western Rural ridings have so much electoral power its actually very hard to have a party run that the majority of Canadians would most likely vote for and be happy voting for.

History suggests otherwise. We’ve had both liberal and conservative majorities in the past 15 years despite those factors.

The best thing (might) be for the Cons to absolutely destroy the other parties this election, and realize that they don't need to be as dependent on the western rural ridings and can stop catering to the nuts. However that would take a lot of faith that a significant amount of the riding that flipped from Liberals won't just be a 1 term protest vote.

And I don't think the Cons have belief in that and will continue to depend on these right wing radical ridings

I think a major loss will be helpful in getting the other parties to moderate their positions and clear out some of their baggage, but it may be a painful 4 years for Canadians who aren’t business owners or in the investor class while those parties rebuild. The working class aren’t really being offered much by the CPC other than to remove a tax without a guarantee of actual price relief.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I have no interest in a minority CPC government, because I don't trust the Liberals and NDP to not team up to topple the government at their first opportunity.

The hypothetical scenario I was suggesting would be one where that wouldn’t be possible even though that would require the stars to align perfectly. It’s not gonna happen, but I still think it’d be the best case scenario for Canadians from the perspective of wanting responsible governance and forcing the parties to compromise in order to get results for their constituents. Basically forcing them to do their jobs properly.

[Firebot]

iggy_oi when the Liberals shifted left with Dion in 2008, Liberals lost a good portion of their vote. When Liberals decided to become NDP like, with a good leader in Layton, the NDP suddenly rose and became the opposition. When the Conservatives moved center in 2021 it did not resonate with Canadians and they lost a number of folks to the PPC. 2021 is a perfect example of why saying they should be neutral may not be enough in a political spectrum where both sides are attempting to normalize extremes and focus solely on wedge issues. Partisans from the left still used the same boogeymen and fearmongering they are doing today, and as pointed out before Poilievre saying "woke socialist" isn't going to go over well with socialists. They did the same with Harper (soldiers with guns in Canadian cities ad and scary music for example). As we say, the political pendulum has swung, but going further and further on the pendulum is just not helpful (Liberals-NDP have ensured that the pendulum will swing hard this time).

Now the CPC chose to move further right. Do they need to change, when they are running away with a landslide majority in the polls with what they are doing? I wish they were more moderate, but seeing how far out of touch the NDP and Liberals have gotten with Canadians, there is no centrist / neutral party in Canada right now and the CPC is seen as the only electable alternative for moderates outside of a few red line topics that may shift some individual votes.

Never is a pretty bold statement. They would need to make major changes for sure but even just better leadership would help them drastically.

The party choose to stick with Singh and the Leap Manifesto was a far left think tank supported by a number of NDP supporters. Mulcair tried to distance the federal NDP from it, and he was kicked out as a result of being "too conservative" for their ideology. This is not a Singh issue, but a party issue. Nenshi had the right idea in trying to separate the Alberta NDP from the federal NDP as they are too far gone.

NDP are in danger of losing official party status if they project on the low end of seats and have made absolutely no attempts to rise to the occasion that the Liberals are presenting them. Who do you see can come out as leader to replace Singh right now? One day Charlie Angus seemed like a prime candidate, but he's retiring. Rachel Notley is too "conservative" (centre-left) for the current federal NDP

https://338canada.com/federal.htm

Maybe it's time for a new party, a true centrist party to come out?

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Firebot

iggy_oi when the Liberals shifted left with Dion in 2008, Liberals lost a good portion of their vote. When Liberals decided to become NDP like, with a good leader in Layton, the NDP suddenly rose and became the opposition.

I’m honestly not really sure what point you’re trying to make here, liberals shifting to be more like the NDP resulted in more votes for the NDP?

When the Conservatives moved center in 2021 it did not resonate with Canadians and they lost a number of folks to the PPC.

I think there’s a little bit of revisionist history at play here. First off I don’t really see what major moves the CPC made in their policy to consider it as moderation and secondly I think the PPC’s surge was far more due to the pandemic and a rise in a(at times very misguided) anti-establishment movement more so than the CPC’s at best minor shift in policies. There’s no way to confirm that the additional 500k or so votes they received were siphoned solely from the CPC base or how many of those votes came from people who previously abstained from voting. Anecdotally, I know a lot of people who previously voted for other parties who supported the PPC at that time.

2021 is a perfect example of why saying they should be neutral may not be enough in a political spectrum where both sides are attempting to normalize extremes and focus solely on wedge issues.

I’m going to maintain my position that there was little to no moderation by any of the major parties during that election so I don’t see it as a very good example. I get the sense that you’re going to cite O’Toole’s “support” of Unions as an example but that would be a pretty weak argument as he provided nothing more than lip service. Had he actually taken some steps to assure neutrality on that issue I can almost guarantee you it would have actually resulted in additional votes.

Partisans from the left still used the same boogeymen and fearmongering they are doing today, and as pointed out before Poilievre saying "woke socialist" isn't going to go over well with socialists.

Personally I think someone using the term woke shouldn’t go over well with anyone, but I don’t think it’s worth getting as riled up about as some do. It’s a stupid divisive buzzword that if you asked 10 people who use it what it actually means you’d probably get 10 different answers. I know I get a different answer every time I ask someone to define it right after they use it. Basically I consider PP’s statement an indictment on how little ability he has at times to articulate his points in a sensible manner but I’m not about to get outraged over that.

They did the same with Harper (soldiers with guns in Canadian cities ad and scary music for example). As we say, the political pendulum has swung, but going further and further on the pendulum is just not helpful (Liberals-NDP have ensured that the pendulum will swing hard this time).

Political attack ads are generally ridiculous, not much to be gained in saying one side is worse than the other in that regard since they’re all pretty bad with it.

Now the CPC chose to move further right. Do they need to change, when they are running away with a landslide majority in the polls with what they are doing? I wish they were more moderate, but seeing how far out of touch the NDP and Liberals have gotten with Canadians, there is no centrist / neutral party in Canada right now and the CPC is seen as the only electable alternative for moderates outside of a few red line topics that may shift some individual votes.

I’m not saying their current strategy isn’t likely to work this time around, but I don’t believe it’s going to be effective long term. Moderating now while they have such a big lead in the polls would give them a far better chance at winning multiple terms because they won’t need to be so reliant on a fringe group that is probably gonna turn on them anyways. Just my 2 cents.

The party choose to stick with Singh and the Leap Manifesto was a far left think tank supported by a number of NDP supporters. Mulcair tried to distance the federal NDP from it, and he was kicked out as a result of being "too conservative" for their ideology. This is not a Singh issue, but a party issue. Nenshi had the right idea in trying to separate the Alberta NDP from the federal NDP as they are too far gone.

I don’t think they’re very effective leaders. Smart individuals sure but not effective leaders. If you don’t believe that leadership can make a difference ask yourself this question, do you think the NDP would be exactly the same as they are today had Layton not passed away and continued to lead the party going into the 2015 election?

NDP are in danger of losing official party status if they project on the low end of seats and have made absolutely no attempts to rise to the occasion that the Liberals are presenting them. Who do you see can come out as leader to replace Singh right now? One day Charlie Angus seemed like a prime candidate, but he's retiring. Rachel Notley is too "conservative" (centre-left) for the current federal NDP

The party needs some new blood for sure, but given who they’ve currently got to pick from it shouldn’t be overly difficult to find more capable people who may not currently be involved with the party.

https://338canada.com/federal.htm

Maybe it's time for a new party, a true centrist party to come out?

Maybe. But the last thing the CPC are going to want is for the NDP to fold because they need them to keep splitting votes with the liberals and BQ if they want to maintain a majority.

[CliffFletcher]

For those wondering why it’s difficult to get serious people to run for high office:

…This story prompted a significant reaction from some senior Liberals and MPs who accused the PMO of repeating the same mistake it did with Bill Morneau’s departure from Finance, and when Jody Wilson-Raybould was shuffled out of the justice portfolio. Morneau’s departure preceded a number of damaging media leaks about his handling of the pandemic and economic management.

…In a tweet, author Stephen Maher tweeted a page from his new book The Prince that suggested that leaks about Morneau were likely the reason why Carney never joined the Trudeau team.

“Seeing Morneau being treated so shabbily seems to have given Carney pause, and he did not allow himself to be seduced,” wrote Maher. “They spooked him by putting the shiv in Morneau.”

https://www.hilltimes.com/story/2024...inatio/428196/

[CaptainCrunch]

I guess there's not another Randy.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1813600102382239833

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I guess there's not another Randy.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1813600102382239833

Insert Austin Powers: "Are you Randy?" Here

[Azure]

Why are the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, along with parts of the power sector, so concerned about Ottawa’s proposed Clean Electricity Regulations?

A letter sent last month by Electricity Canada, a national organization representing the country’s electricity sector, to federal Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault offers some pretty good clues — and some blunt language — about the problems the proposed rules will create.
Article content

The letter, obtained by The Herald, states the organization has profound concerns over the government’s engagement process with industry about the proposed regulations.

The letter is intended to “inform you about the failure of this process,” states the three-page document signed by Electricity Canada CEO Francis Bradley.

The group noted it signed a non-disclosure agreement earlier this year to allow Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) to freely share federal modelling and its assumptions underpinning the proposed regulations with the national organization.

However, the department “has repeatedly delayed sharing the information” and the assumptions contained material factual errors, making it impossible for the industry to provide meaningful feedback, according to the letter.

“We remain deeply concerned that what has been shared with us during this engagement still reveals what is, in our expert opinion, an unequivocally flawed regulatory design that risks significant impairments to the reliability of the electricity system and severe affordability impacts in many parts of the country,” Bradley wrote.

https://calgaryherald.com/opinion/co...lations-flawed

Without taking sides, thoughts? Typical deregulated power company complaining? Paid shill for the fossil fuel industry?

Or move in the wrong direction? Lots of load generation, almost no baseload generation. Which is fascinating to watch, actually as people seem to have little to no understanding how power generation works.

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by Looch City

Normal people have jobs. Be normal and stop being woke.

Normal people have rich parents.
Stop being a weirdo.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I guess there's not another Randy.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1813600102382239833

How did Randy get involved with such a shady business partner to begin with? Things definitely don't look good for him. I expect he'll definitely be shuffled in the next Liberal cabinet moves to a less prominent role, maybe even shuffled out of Cabinet altogether.

Boissonnault’s former business partner linked to woman detained in Dominican Republic cocaine bust

https://globalnews.ca/news/10626137/...-cocaine-bust/

[CaptainCrunch]

I don't think that we need to wonder how Randy got involved. He willingly went there and willingly continued to do business while in Parliment knowingly breaking the rules. The question is how it took so long for him to get caught, and why hasn't Justin thrown him out of caucus yet.



Knowing the Liberals they'll Mary Ng him and put him into a more prominent caucus role, maybe if Mark Carney says no, Randy will be named Finance Minister.


I would really like to see a campaign platform by all candidates in the next election making corruption something with severe punishments.

[Doctorfever]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I don't think that we need to wonder how Randy got involved. He willingly went there and willingly continued to do business while in Parliment knowingly breaking the rules. The question is how it took so long for him to get caught, and why hasn't Justin thrown him out of caucus yet.



Knowing the Liberals they'll Mary Ng him and put him into a more prominent caucus role, maybe if Mark Carney says no, Randy will be named Finance Minister.


I would really like to see a campaign platform by all candidates in the next election making corruption something with severe punishments.

I agree. Although it’s unlikely the Liberals run on the promise to punish corruption.