Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

I don’t know if Glencross is right or left leaning. It doesn’t matter.

Point is, poor French was used as an excuse for lying, or telling two different stories.

I don’t think it’s a good excuse. But that’s just me.

That's just Mark Carney performing next level at being 'Prime Ministerial', which is remarkable given he's only a rookie politician. Telling English Canada one thing and the Quebecois the complete opposite in their native languages so it's difficult to sus out actual intention while governing is a time-honored practice of only the elite level Prime Ministers.

He'll achieve legendary status if he can operationalize that practice to 21st Century Canada and also play those games with Canada's different diaspora populations. Say one thing in Richmond and the opposite in Brampton.

[Scroopy Noopers]

I’m hoping he guts our institutions and makes himself king, personally.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

I’m hoping he guts our institutions and makes himself king, personally.

King Carney!

Cotton candy and ring toss for everyone! A Ferris wheel in badly need of repairs for every town!

[Azure]

So what does everyone think about the big rail investment? Good idea? $40b is a lot of money, but if it actually gets built without going ridiculously over budget, it could be a huge net benefit.

I have my doubts though. All the companies involved have a long history of just leeching off the government but not actually accomplishing anything.

[Azure]

I really, really hope this turns out. Would be huge for Canada.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1892217457873437101

[Doctorfever]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Do Conservative supporters not think for themselves anymore? I understand just parroting whatever PP tells them to think is easy, but it’s a pretty big reach to take a case of unclear language and call it lying.

From the article;

Liberal leadership candidate Mark Carney’s campaign said it needs to “tighten up” his message after he said in English that he would use federal emergency powers to push major energy projects through traditional roadblocks if he were prime minister, but then told Quebecers in French that he would not impose any such projects on the province against its will.

He told the CBC this weekend that if he were prime minister his government would specifically accelerate approvals for pipelines, after years of the federal Liberal government cancelling or blocking several pipeline proposals. “We as a nation need to build some new pipelines for conventional energy,” Carney said. He said he would do so “in consultation with provinces, with First Nations.”

He then said his government would use emergency powers at its disposal to accelerate projects that are in the “national interest” only with the support of the provinces and First Nations.

“I would never impose (a pipeline) on Quebec,” he said.

Then this.

In his first French-language interview in Quebec in early February, Carney told TVA: “We need to reduce operational deficits. This means, transfers to individuals, transfers to provinces … and all that,” he said.

But on Monday, in his Radio-Canada interview, he contradicted that. When Roy asked Carney if he was planning as prime minister to cut transfers, Carney said the opposite.

“The deficit is $60 billion. My question is: will you cut transfers to the provinces?” asked Roy.

Carney said “no.”

“You do not cut transfers to individuals?” asked Roy.

“No,” said Carney.

You don’t see the inconsistencies in the messages? Even his campaign team has acknowledged this.

[Monahammer]

I am stuck wondering, why now? On the highspeed rail stuff.

If Trudeau wanted a legacy project or something to ingratiate himself to canadians, why not roll out this plan last year? This corridor has been discussed for what seems like decades for hsr. What is the trigger that made this a good idea today rather than 6 months from now or last year?

Motive is important. I won't believe in the veracity of the project at all until I can understand that better.

What's interesting though is that theoretically the gov can rush the approvals needed, and the fact that they're willing to cajole freight rail and airlines at the same time... something fishy is happening imo.

[mogg]

Originally Posted by Azure

I really, really hope this turns out. Would be huge for Canada.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1892217457873437101

That corridor is about as ideal a candidate as there is for high speed rail. Long overdue.

We never seem to question the necessity or cost of road infrastructure. But when it comes to trains, bikes, heck even walking, it’s considered a luxury or special interest thing. For me it’s all just transportation infrastructure. You get what you invite. Give people viable, desirable alternatives and they will use them.

[Ironhorse]

Originally Posted by Azure

So what does everyone think about the big rail investment? Good idea? $40b is a lot of money, but if it actually gets built without going ridiculously over budget, it could be a huge net benefit.

I have my doubts though. All the companies involved have a long history of just leeching off the government but not actually accomplishing anything.

I can't think of any ridership numbers that make that kind of investment worthwhile. Probably someone's pet project, and a shady Quebec company will get the job.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

You don’t see the inconsistencies in the messages? Even his campaign team has acknowledged this.

Try again. This time reading the post of mine you quoted.

[Johnny Makarov]

Originally Posted by Azure

So what does everyone think about the big rail investment? Good idea? $40b is a lot of money, but if it actually gets built without going ridiculously over budget, it could be a huge net benefit.

I have my doubts though. All the companies involved have a long history of just leeching off the government but not actually accomplishing anything.

Vote buying. Which is why AB is ultra stupid. No political party is going to spend anything extra here because of all our lemming voters.

[CliffFletcher]

I’ve heard about so many high-speed rail proposals over the decades that I don’t take any of them seriously. Wake me up once the track is laid.

[Johnny Makarov]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I’ve heard about so many high-speed rail proposals over the decades that I don’t take any of them seriously. Wake me up once the track is laid.

well it makes way more sense there than the Calgary to Edmonton one.

[Harry Lime]

Originally Posted by Ironhorse

I can't think of any ridership numbers that make that kind of investment worthwhile. Probably someone's pet project, and a shady Quebec company will get the job.

This is the difference between government and business. It's something that Alberta has always had a problem separating. A government can understand the overall economic to the entire region, and not just trying to recoup ticket cost.

Tickets should cost whatever the overhead is for upkeep, operations, reserve and insurance. The 40B is absorbed by the government and recouped over time from the increased tax revenue from auxiliary sources.

Alberta should be next in line for a train like this, and having one would be a positive economic explosion throughout the province. My worry is that if the UCP is in power when the Feds offer to build one, they would reject it. They would then do a 'made in Alberta' version, that costs more and has ticket prices of $200 a seat one way to Edmonton... because it's a business!

[Doctorfever]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Try again. This time reading the post of mine you quoted.

Nm

Not worth my time.

[Lubicon]

Originally Posted by Azure

So what does everyone think about the big rail investment? Good idea? $40b is a lot of money, but if it actually gets built without going ridiculously over budget, it could be a huge net benefit.

I have my doubts though. All the companies involved have a long history of just leeching off the government but not actually accomplishing anything.

My opinion, the money would be better spent on rail transit in the larger cities. Toronto, Montréal, Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton. All have projects that do not have the funding, this could go a long way and probably for more benefit.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

Nm

Not worth my time.

This sounds about right.

[WideReceiver]

Originally Posted by ThePrince

….blue states had worse educational effects from prolonged lockdowns. Not sure why timeline matters to that.

Maybe because many kids in red states drop out of school by eighth grade.

[Roughneck]

The biggest value of a Toronto-Montreal high speed rail would simply be showing that we could do it. The kind of thing that could spur confidence in other mega projects.

I'll spare the clickbait of 'HSR killed Italian air travel' and just say that trains have successfully competed against air travel on a similarly distance route of Rome to Milan. Toronto to Montreal would be a bit longer, but if they can keep the stops just in Peterborough and Montreal then you're looking at a 3.5-4hr journey from downtown to downtown. Might be a 1.5 hour flight, but with commutes and security that would start to even out pretty quick for a lot of people.

Make it so it isn't more expensive to take the train, and don't cave to pressure to add regional stops to keep that travel time under 4 hours and it can be pretty successful. Montreal-Quebec City and London-Kitchener-Toronto as additional phases become very enticing as well.

But just get it done. Connect the country's largest city with the second largest with high speed rail. It's what a competent country should be able to do. Especially with the capital (and 6th largest metro to boot) in between.

[TherapyforGlencross]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

You would think he would be smart enough not to answer a question in a different language that he wasn’t sure about.

But really that just a cop out anyways.

Even his campaign managers are saying he should have answered better (paraphrasing). So not sure how you bring in his French skills as a defence to this.

Poor French is probably worse for him than lying, when it comes to votes.

He’s gotta speak French. It’s a requirement.

Yes, I’m cutting him some slack. I’d cut slack for PP as well, although, him being a politician and living in Ottawa for 20 years, you’d think he’d improve upon it. Regardless, I’m picturing myself on that stage, and using the incorrect word in my second language to try to get my point across.

Anyways… to quote the NP, here’s a passage:

He then said his government would use emergency powers at its disposal to accelerate projects that are in the “national interest” only with the support of the provinces and First Nations.

“I would never impose (a pipeline) on Quebec,” he said.

FYI, he said this in French.

Carney would only use emergency powers to accelerate projects if provinces are in support of that said project. Meaning, he would not use emergency powers to impose against the wishes of the provinces. I’m assuming emergency powers would be used to fast track regulatory and various study (environmental such as excess soil, biological, ect ect) manners. If I remember correctly, he said something similar (in english) with his interview with CBC.

So what part is contradictory? Again, i’m assuming it may just have to do with a french language miscalculation.


edit: funny enough, PP reflected on Carney’s quote:

“Sneaky Carney said in English in B.C. that he would use federal emergency powers to force provinces to accept big projects. In French, he said he would not impose projects on reluctant provinces. Sneaky. Sneaky,” said Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre.

PP is the one who appears to be disingenuous. Note how PP says “force”. Carney not once said he’d use emergency powers to force provinces against their will. But rather, accelerate. Sounds like pure semantics, but I beg to differ. Theres a difference between the two. If you can find me a quote where Carney uses the word force, I’ll retract my statement. I couldn’t find any.

For what it’s worth, I was planning to vote for PP (reluctantly) this election, but I’ve made the switch to Carney. Take that for what you will, considering I think it was you who was wondering if I was left or right leaning.