Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Cappy

Per capita?

Per 100k people, violent crime has dropped 26% since 2014, homicides have increased 25%.

For context on homicides, it’s an extra .5 of a person per 100k.

[Ped]

I’m not saying that you have to vote conservative because the liberals are corrupt.

Personally, I would not vote for the corrupt party. Period.

Well, the nice thing is, you don't have to vote for anyone you don't want to. But you were expressing confusion with how anyone could consider voting Liberal given their corruption history. I gave you some possible reasons why. Whether you think they're good enough reasons is irrelevant; for a great many people, they are.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Violent crime was almost double what we have now in the 1990's, 10,000 incidents per 100,000 as against the 5000 we have now, if you factor in both population increases and the fact that the police respond and arrest for a far lower bar than they ever used to, no one got arrested for a brawl in a bar back in the 90's, they were just all dropped in city cells than kicked out in the morning, now everyone cops a charge.

Violent crime is massively down, my guess is we approaching historic lows, what is up are stupid stories about how the world is ending on twitter

Just anecdotally from my personal experience, and I have no data to back this up at all, but it seems like there could be more brazen and sensational violent crime these days, at least in places that get a lot of media coverage.

For example, I live in Coquitlam and is seems like shootings are being reported almost weekly. I think since Christmas, there have been 3 or 4. Same thing in Surrey. While there may be fewer fist fights or muggings that would rarely if ever make the news, there "seems" to be more events that are big enough to be newsworthy. Again, just my perspective and other might have a different experience.

That's why I think you really need to break it down to see where things are getting better and where they are getting worse. Something like domestic assaults, as terrible as they are, can go up and the general public probably isn't going to feel unsafe like if there was a shooting or random stabbing on a city bus, but both just become data points on a chart. Same thing with property crimes. Painting swastikas or gang symbols has a different psychological effect than say painting initials or penises on buildings. One clearly implies more danger.

Looking at total numbers gives us some information, but not the full picture when it comes to public safety.

[Doctorfever]

Originally Posted by Ped

Well, the nice thing is, you don't have to vote for anyone you don't want to. But you were expressing confusion with how anyone could consider voting Liberal given their corruption history. I gave you some possible reasons why. Whether you think they're good enough reasons is irrelevant; for a great many people, they are.

Not expressing confusion. I just consider it hypocritical to condemn one party who is corrupt while voting for another party who is corrupt. Even if they are at different levels of government.

I think it takes away any credibility, not to mention morals, that a voter can have.

[shotinthebacklund]

My company has things stolen out of our yard pretty much weekly. Our fences have been destroyed by thieves constantly, Gates smashed with trucks. We stopped reporting it unless its of value enough to require insurance or public safety concerns. The last time I tried we were literally told by the officers there is nothing we can do.



Lights, security, Cameras. means nothing to thieves.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by shotinthebacklund

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...iolent-crimes/
I already provided the link for this exact question.

Those statistics are for non-violent crimes though.

Edit- I evidently can’t read at times

This data:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...homicide-rate/

Suggests that while Jason14h is correct in that homicides numbers in 2022 were roughly 50% higher than in 2012, they did fall again the following year. It also shows that the numbers have had similar increases in the United States over that same period so it brings in to question how much of an impact our domestics policy has had.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Just anecdotally from my personal experience, and I have no data to back this up at all, but it seems like there could be more brazen and sensational violent crime these days, at least in places that get a lot of media coverage.

For example, I live in Coquitlam and is seems like shootings are being reported almost weekly. I think since Christmas, there have been 3 or 4. Same thing in Surrey. While there may be fewer fist fights or muggings that would rarely if ever make the news, there "seems" to be more events that are big enough to be newsworthy. Again, just my perspective and other might have a different experience.

I also live in Coquitlam (Austin Heights area) and have never once felt unsafe walking around the community, even alone at night. In fact, based on my personal anecdotal experience, this feels like an even safer place than when I lived in Calgary (which, to be clear, I didn't consider to be unsafe either, and I was never personally a victim of any crimes over the 20+ years I lived in the Beltline).

Are you saying people are genuinely scared for their safety and worried they might get shot while walking to the SkyTrain because they saw a story about a gang-related drive-by shooting on the news?

[shotinthebacklund]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Those statistics are for non-violent crimes though.

This data:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...homicide-rate/

Suggests that while Jason14h is correct in that homicides numbers in 2022 were roughly 50% higher than in 2012, they did fall again the following year. It also shows that the numbers have had similar increases in the United States over that same period so it brings in to question how much of an impact our domestics policy has had.

that link is 100% for Violent crimes.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by shotinthebacklund

that link is 100% for Violent crimes.

My bad, I clicked on another table while it initially loaded.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by shotinthebacklund

My company has things stolen out of our yard pretty much weekly. Our fences have been destroyed by thieves constantly, Gates smashed with trucks. We stopped reporting it unless its of value enough to require insurance or public safety concerns. The last time I tried we were literally told by the officers there is nothing we can do.



Lights, security, Cameras. means nothing to thieves.

You're Cliff Claven.

[Drak]

Yep. Bullsht alert.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

You're Cliff Claven.

I like that a made up story about a thief turning themselves in and the conversation they had while waiting is what made them lose faith in the justice system and not this new story that entails being a regular direct victim of crimes and having the police do nothing.

[Monahammer]

Shot (himself) in the (foot)land

[shotinthebacklund]

come canvas the northeast industrial areas and ask about the crime we are seeing. Just because you dont want to believe it does not make it true. Head in sand approach in action.

Ask some officers if you know them about the crime in this area.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

How do you rate;
Sponsorship Scandal
We Scandal
Airbus Affair
SNC Lavalin Affair

Are any of those “fireable offences”?

To me, most of those are scandals of bungling, incompetence, and making bigger mistakes trying to cover up previous ones. The end result typically being wasted money. These types of things are common across most governments everywhere. No, on their own, they shouldn't be rewarded with a vote.

But the UCP scandals tend to revolve around making things worse for citizens, which is the bigger failing, because that's their job. You look at the green energy stuff, coal mines, dismantling our health care systems, kowtowing to anti-vax morons which endangers our health...all things that work against the best interest of citizens. They have an end goal in mind and they don't really seem to care what they have to do to get there, as long as no one rats them out. So I see scandals that are more than just grifting and wasted money as far more egregious.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

I will wait for the findings of the investigation. But if corruption is found, I will NOT vote UCP.

Honestly.

You’re saying that despite riding in on your high horse you voted for the UCP in the last election as well, despite their corruption and cronyism and other bs?

Seems like we all have levels we are willing to tolerate when looking at options we don’t find palatable.

[Azure]

To be continued by Carney.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1890076222543253538

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

To me, most of those are scandals of bungling, incompetence, and making bigger mistakes trying to cover up previous ones. The end result typically being wasted money. These types of things are common across most governments everywhere. No, on their own, they shouldn't be rewarded with a vote.

But the UCP scandals tend to revolve around making things worse for citizens, which is the bigger failing, because that's their job. You look at the green energy stuff, coal mines, dismantling our health care systems, kowtowing to anti-vax morons which endangers our health...all things that work against the best interest of citizens. They have an end goal in mind and they don't really seem to care what they have to do to get there, as long as no one rats them out. So I see scandals that are more than just grifting and wasted money as far more egregious.

If you are just willing to shrug off things like SNC it really shows how partisan you are. That was far more than just a bungling matter and incompetence at play. It was a scandal that ripped through our procedural systems and damaged the independence of governing bodies. It involved political interference from the PMO to save their buddies at SNC.

When the UCP strong arms governmental affairs you are quick to beat them down but SNC was nothing apparently.

After Kathleen Roussel, the director of public prosecutions, decided in September 2018 that she would not make a deal and would proceed with a trial against SNC Lavalin, Wilson-Raybould said she reached a similar decision on the matter — and made it clear to all in government that she would not intervene in the PPSC process.

The former minister said despite that position, she still fielded 10 phone calls and sat for 10 in-person meetings with members of the PMO, including Mathieu Bouchard, Trudeau's adviser on Quebec issues, and special adviser Elder Marques, among others.

Despite attempts to convince her to reconsider her stance given the possible economic consequences, Wilson-Raybould said she was undaunted in her position and that she should take no further action.

She also said she faced pressure from Ben Chin, Finance Minister Bill Morneau's chief of staff, and Gerry Butts, the prime minister's former principal secretary, to consider the consequences. Butts resigned last week while saying he acted ethically.

Wilson-Raybould said she was reminded by these staffers of the political consequences for both the provincial and federal Liberal parties if SNC-Lavalin folded or laid off workers.

"I experienced a consistent and sustained effort by many people within the government to seek to politically interfere in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion in my role as the attorney general of Canada," she said.

"Within these conversations, there were express statements regarding the necessity for interference in the SNC-Lavalin matter, the potential for consequences, and veiled threats if a DPA was not made available to SNC," she said.

When Wilson-Raybould raised her discomfort with the pressure she said she faced with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in a September meeting, she said Trudeau told her he, too, was worried about SNC-Lavalin layoffs and the company's continued viability if it were convicted of the criminal charges.

A conviction could bar the firm from bidding on federal contracts for up to 10 years, a key source of revenue for the company.

"At that point the PM jumped in stressing that there is an election in Quebec and that 'I am an MP in Quebec — the member for Papineau.'"

"I was quite taken aback," Wilson-Raybould said.

"My response — and I remember this vividly — was to ask the PM a direct question while looking him in the eye — I asked: 'Are you politically interfering with my role, my decision as the AG? I would strongly advise against it.' The prime minister said, 'No, No, No – we just need to find a solution,'" Wilson-Raybould said Wednesday.

Speaking to reporters after her testimony, Trudeau denied any wrongdoing and said his government was principally concerned about job losses, namely for the 9,400 Canadians who work for SNC-Lavalin, when there were discussions about the DPA.

After the meeting and amid her clear reluctance to "find a solution," on Dec. 18, 2018, her chief of staff, Jessica Prince, was "urgently summoned" to meet with both Butts and the prime minister's chief of staff, Katie Telford, to discuss a DPA.

In a text message exchange said to have been sent immediately after that meeting, Prince told Wilson-Raybould about the conversation.

"Gerry said 'Jess, there is no solution here that doesn't involve some interference,' Wilson-Raybould said, reading the text message from Prince to the committee Wednesday.

"At least they are finally being honest about what they are asking you to do! Don't care about the PPSC's independence. Katie was like 'we don't want to debate legalities anymore.' … They kept being like 'we aren't lawyers, but there has to be some solution here,'" Prince said in a text to Wilson-Raybould.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/key...ndal-1.5036629

[Scroopy Noopers]

#### SNC Lavalin. I ain’t using them under their new name either.

[shotinthebacklund]

SDTC Scandal was proving to be interesting. Enough to limit government for weeks before the procurement.