Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

I kinda think the people are too sleepy in Canada, and our political situation not really set up very well to support the kind of monumental change this country needs. I think we are in some super big trouble and there are no easy solutions. The country is super divided, not too sure how to fix it.

And then we have America destabilizing before our eyes. I don’t think they’re going to want Canada to just start exporting vital resources that they probably view as “theirs” so to speak.

The best word to describe Canada is “complacent”.

You’re mostly correct. But things are going to have to change pretty quickly or canadians standard of living is going to sharply decline. That’s usually a pretty big motivator.

We need smarter people going into politics and they all better start working together soon or Canada is going to be toast.

[Harry Lime]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

The reality is opposite the conclusion you’ve made here. The UCP under Smith is measurably worse in every way than it was with Kenney.

The mega-reality is the super-conclusion that I made there. UCP under Smith just amped up the ickness to 11, with no restraint at all. The elements that made them that way were all there under Kenney.

Lagrange has no business being anywhere near education or health, but she is a psychopath with no feelings and regret. Smith just took her off the long leash and set her loose in a room full of babies.

The federal liberals have a lot of really greasy MPs. The leader kind of becomes irrelevant if he's not willing to clean his house up.

[#-3]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

I kinda think the people are too sleepy in Canada, and our political situation not really set up very well to support the kind of monumental change this country needs. I think we are in some super big trouble and there are no easy solutions. The country is super divided, not too sure how to fix it.

And then we have America destabilizing before our eyes. I don’t think they’re going to want Canada to just start exporting vital resources that they probably view as “theirs” so to speak.

The best word to describe Canada is “complacent”.

Maybe this is my experience living in Alberta too long, and listening to far too many of the libertarians here that think they are conservatives. But I would describe Canadians as "lacking in consideration", I'd like to say un-considerate, but I think people confuse it with inconsiderate in the emotional and personal well being sense of the word (I don't think that's who we are)

Far to many Canadians fail to take the time to consider the structural causes of our relative prosperity over the last 5-6 generations, they fail to consider the cost of maintaining those structures, and I think this does fall on both sides of the isle, as many have pointed out the conservatives just want to sell off our public institutions to win a rhetorical battle, and liberals want to make everything 10x harder than it needs to be to prove they care about every nimby on the block.

If you give 80% of people 35% of what they want nobody will be happy, we have to do big things and find ideas that 35% of people are very passionate about, 35% of people are indifferent to and we have to push these things through even in the face of opposition from the remaining 30. If you have a choice between dental care and child care, do one of them well instead of half assing both.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

The mega-reality is the super-conclusion that I made there. UCP under Smith just amped up the ickness to 11, with no restraint at all. The elements that made them that way were all there under Kenney.

Lagrange has no business being anywhere near education or health, but she is a psychopath with no feelings and regret. Smith just took her off the long leash and set her loose in a room full of babies.

The federal liberals have a lot of really greasy MPs. The leader kind of becomes irrelevant if he's not willing to clean his house up.

You’ve lost your own point here. Regardless of how you cut it, Alberta is a case for the opposite of what you concluded.

Changing the leader can, and often does, have a big impact on the direction and actions of the party. Especially when you’re talking about building out a cabinet. And even when most of the pieces stay the same.

Every party has good MPs and greasy ones. Yet the existence of one or the other doesn’t seem to be the deciding factor in how the party and its leader operates.

[evman150]

Originally Posted by Goriders

We need smarter people going into politics and they all better start working together soon or Canada is going to be toast.

Like Mark Carney?

I mean seriously, if you want smarter people, what more could you want than Mark Carney?

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by evman150

Like Mark Carney?

I mean seriously, if you want smarter people, what more could you want than Mark Carney?

Minus the net zero BS you’re probably right.

But I don’t mean one guy. You look at all levels of government right now in canada and almost across the board there are terrible leaders everywhere you look.

Municipally, provincially and especially federally. It’s catching up with us now and we’re going to pay for it with our standard of living. Especially younger people.

[Harry Lime]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

You’ve lost your own point here. Regardless of how you cut it, Alberta is a case for the opposite of what you concluded.

Changing the leader can, and often does, have a big impact on the direction and actions of the party. Especially when you’re talking about building out a cabinet. And even when most of the pieces stay the same.

Every party has good MPs and greasy ones. Yet the existence of one or the other doesn’t seem to be the deciding factor in how the party and its leader operates.

I'm not speaking clearly.

Let's say Trudeau has a steaming coffee cup of Satan's vomit. He makes you sniff the cup at regular intervals. He then passes the cap to Carney. To differentiate himself, he has the option of making you sniff the coffee cup at different intervals to Trudeau, or pour the Satan's vomit into your eye hole, or anything in-between.

The solution that I would like to see is Carney to commit to replacing Satan's vomit with coffee. Or a nice Earl Grey. These alternatives can be found at the back of the tea cabinet, or 'bench'. I'm sure there are some competent leaves back there.

Moving Satan's vomit from the coffee cup to a beer mug, won't cut it for me. The contents would still be limiting to Carney, as Satan's vomit has a way of becoming crusty and ingrained. The flavor of Satan's vomit doesn't change much, and isn't a very useful tool. It's limiting in it's application.

[Roughneck]

Satan’s Vomit sounds like a name for a very hoppy IPA from an edgy craft brewery.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by #-3

I actually think it's wild to bash Carney for flip flopping. He is running to represent Canadians not himself. He has a long history of caring about long term climate risk, and a history of supporting conservative market mechanisms to manage climate change, but he now has a better view of real world experience with that, and a very good understanding of public sentiment. If he wants to honour public sentiment he needs to move in a different direction, that would be representing the people.

I bash modern right wingers a lot, but I never complain about them flip flopping, they can change their minds all they want all i want from them is to represent the people, try to make peoples lives better, and try to improve the capacity of Canada as a state to act in the world. .

He’s actually running on increasing carbon taxation. He isn’t flip flopping. He’s taking the revenue neutral carbon tax and expanding it to every good imported into Canada. Let’s not kid ourselves here that he is flip flopping on the Carbon tax. He is doubling down but doing it in a way that’s hidden to the consumer.

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by GGG

He’s actually running on increasing carbon taxation. He isn’t flip flopping. He’s taking the revenue neutral carbon tax and expanding it to every good imported into Canada. Let’s not kid ourselves here that he is flip flopping on the Carbon tax. He is doubling down but doing it in a way that’s hidden to the consumer.

While everyone else is moving away from that. Don’t think that will be a successful platform in the current environment

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by GGG

He’s actually running on increasing carbon taxation. He isn’t flip flopping. He’s taking the revenue neutral carbon tax and expanding it to every good imported into Canada. Let’s not kid ourselves here that he is flip flopping on the Carbon tax. He is doubling down but doing it in a way that’s hidden to the consumer.

I don’t believe this is true, can you highlight in the platform where it indicates to you that this will be expanded to every good imported into Canada (in a way that is not already present today) or increasing carbon taxation overall?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by evman150

Like Mark Carney?

I mean seriously, if you want smarter people, what more could you want than Mark Carney?

If he'd drop the net ZERO stupidity I'd vote for him.

But he won't because he's an elitist prick who doesn't care about Canada's economic security. He cares about virtue signalling and pandering to the environmental loonies.

[Azure]

Oh look, we are doing something.

The governments of Canada and Manitoba on Feb. 23 reported jointly investing up to C$60 million to finish upgrading the Hudson Bay Railway (HBRY) and to start redeveloping the Port of Churchill.

The funding will go to the Arctic Gateway Group, a partnership of 41 First Nation and Bayline communities in Manitoba that owns and operates the 627-mile HBRY, which connects with CN in The Pas, running north through Manitoba to the Hudson Bay at the Port of Churchill (see map below). The group also owns the Port of Churchill and Marine Tank Farm.

https://www.railwayage.com/regulator...mm-investment/

Maybe in 10 years we'll have ice breakers that can keep the bay open year round.

[Azure]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1886933373169623308

So a few weeks in, we have BC (moving ahead with $20b in projects, including LNG projects) & Manitoba (port of Churchill development) makes moves to secure Canada's future.

Still waiting for notable provinces like Quebec & Ontario to do something....

[Johnny Makarov]

Triple post morning outrage in Winnipeg!!!!

Can Azure last another month?

[Ryan Coke]

There is definitely a movement towards cross country pipelines and utilizing our petroleum based resources for the countries economic benefit right now that we haven’t heard in a decade. Even Legault made a reference to it being “socially” unpalatable “right now” but seemed to infer that could change.

Carney however doesn’t seem like a PM that would assist in that movement based on anything I’ve seen so far. I can respect his environmental beliefs, however I find them misguided from a pragmatic standpoint. So it will be more of the same, with Canada impairing its standard of living in exchange for reducing our carbon emissions, while making virtually no difference to the underlying worldwide issue.

I don’t hate Carney, respect his experience and seems like he must be a smart guy. But he is just dressing up his carbon tax in a different outfit and trying to sell it as something fundamentally different, and i expect he would be a large impediment to pipeline and resource development just as Trudeau was.

So while I’m not a fan of PP supporting the trucker convoy years ago, I also expect he places a higher priority on economic development than climate change goals.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Ryan Coke

There is definitely a movement towards cross country pipelines and utilizing our petroleum based resources for the countries economic benefit right now that we haven’t heard in a decade. Even Legault made a reference to it being “socially” unpalatable “right now” but seemed to infer that could change.

Carney however doesn’t seem like a PM that would assist in that movement based on anything I’ve seen so far. I can respect his environmental beliefs, however I find them misguided from a pragmatic standpoint. So it will be more of the same, with Canada impairing its standard of living in exchange for reducing our carbon emissions, while making virtually no difference to the underlying worldwide issue.

I don’t hate Carney, respect his experience and seems like he must be a smart guy. But he is just dressing up his carbon tax in a different outfit and trying to sell it as something fundamentally different, and i expect he would be a large impediment to pipeline and resource development just as Trudeau was.

So while I’m not a fan of PP supporting the trucker convoy years ago, I also expect he places a higher priority on economic development than climate change goals.

I was looking for any article on recent pipeline discussion with Carney, but my searches just came back with the usual nonsense (Azure style "articles").


I did find this from 2012, though opinions do change, so if anyone has any recent stuff he's said on it, I'd be interested in reading it.

Canada's reliance on oil is "unambiguously good" for the country as a whole - not just the West - Bank of Canada governor Mark Carney said Friday in a speech that called for more pipelines and dismissed fears about so-called Dutch disease.

https://www.timescolonist.com/archiv...y-says-4563297

[Muta]

Sure would have been nice to have that oil-by-railcar option these days that the ANDP were pursuing. Something is better than nothing, thanks UCP.

Also:

Which leader would Canadians prefer to negotiate with Donald Trump? Nanos poll results
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/arti...-nanos-survey/

Liberal leadership candidate Mark Carney would do the best job at negotiating with U.S. President Donald Trump, over Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre, and fellow leadership candidates Chrystia Freeland and Karina Gould, according to new polling from Nanos Research conducted for CTV News.

When asked “Which of the following politicians would do the best job at negotiating with U.S. president Donald Trump?”, two out of five, or 40 per cent of respondents, answered Mark Carney.

Poilievre received the second most support with 26 per cent of people surveyed saying he would do the best job.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I was looking for any article on recent pipeline discussion with Carney, but my searches just came back with the usual nonsense (Azure style "articles").


I did find this from 2012, though opinions do change, so if anyone has any recent stuff he's said on it, I'd be interested in reading it.



https://www.timescolonist.com/archiv...y-says-4563297

He is very much focused on climate change and transitioning the economy to a sustainable low caron one. You can't have a low carbon economy with the oil sands. Here's a quote from 2021.

In Canada, Carney said, the move to a sustainable, low-carbon economy offers a "huge economic opportunity." Carney said Alberta's energy industry, which is one of the country's largest industrial emitters, could help to drive that transition through investments in research and development.

"If we can take this opportunity as Canadians to address the issue, respect that there are multiple ways to improve sustainability in this country, build a sustainable future but also build a very strong economy alongside, that would be a tremendous outcome from what has been an extraordinarily difficult year," said Carney.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mar...ange-1.5946117

[Azure]

Buzz words for kill the economy and pander to the loonies.

80% of Canadians agree with building pipelines to increase our exports. Somehow our governments will manage to literally do the opposite.