Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Azure

So it looks like Carney is being more direct about cutting spending, i.e. program spending, and instead investing money into Canada via what I assume will be projects and investments that actually some ROI.

I mean good, but its funny how everyone just goes along with it. When PP says we need to cut spending its 'OMG how DARE HE SAY THAT.'

When Carney says we need to cut spending, its crickets.

Most voters understand there’s a difference between making spending cuts to address fiscal challenges and making spending cuts as an ideological commitment to smaller government.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Most voters understand there’s a difference between making spending cuts to address fiscal challenges and making spending cuts as an ideological commitment to smaller government.

Honestly I am not sure they do.

[Manhattanboy]

Nm

[#-3]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Honestly I am not sure they do.

I think the second half of the statement was correct structurally. But I'd be Ok with revising the statement to say, "most politically engaged people understand the difference"

PP still have an above average chance of winning, because most people do not know.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by 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.

Just some quick back of napkin, but they advertise as HSR with ~300kph speed. Toronto-Montreal ~ 550 km, say 600km, so 2 hour straight time, with a single stop adding 30 min, 2.5 hour one way TO-Montreal should be achievable. One would assume a service would also contemplate direct express routes. Very competitive with Air, and that's why the CEO of Westjet was making social media posts in total outrage yesterday.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

Just some quick back of napkin, but they advertise as HSR with ~300kph speed. Toronto-Montreal ~ 550 km, say 600km, so 2 hour straight time, with a single stop adding 30 min, 2.5 hour one way TO-Montreal should be achievable. One would assume a service would also contemplate direct express routes.

Speeds up to 300km/h but not an average of 300km/h. Would be slower in the cities, suburbs and exurbs. closer to 4 hours would be a much more realistic travel time and be in line with other HSR systems.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

The most irritating thing about the war against DEI is idiots parroting "We just want the most qualified people for the job", which is exactly what DEI does. Why can't they just admit that they just don't want to hire any women or minorities

Absolutely 100% this. DEI initiatives have never been about lesser-qualified women or minority candidates getting a position over a more-qualified white man. Rather, it's precisely the opposite. They exist to make sure a more highly qualified woman or minority isn't unfairly passed over in favour of a lesser-qualified white man due to institutional or individual biases. The only people who have anything to fear from DEI policies are underqualified white men who only got as far as they did in their careers because of systemic racism/sexism.

[dammage79]

Edit: After some light digging, this was something from 2015. It happened but has nothing to do with 2025.

[flamesfever]

1. The overuse of the concept, "diversity, equity and inclusion" in the hiring process e.g. universities, critically important positions

"The entire point of DEI is to make sure the most qualified people get the jobs. DEI is about making sure minorities and women get a chance to show they are the most qualified for the job, rather than a white guy hiring another white guy. Anyone who says they are against DEI because they think the job should go to the most qualified person, is just explaining that they don't understand the concept."

If that is what was happening, I would be all for it. However, I have witnessed the opposite.

In the 1980s PET and the Liberals decided that there should be more French Canadians in the RCMP. MY BIL, a very high ranking RCMP officer, charged with promoting senior officers, revealed to me how orders were given as to how that was to be carried out.

Officers were to be chosen, on an annual basis, in the following order, 1. a French Canadian, 2. a bilingual member, and 3. an English member. All officers were routinely tested annually, and in when it came time to choose a
French Canadian member, he was forced to choose someone who stood 50th in the list of those who were tested.

So I think you can see that the best person was not always chosen. And we all know what has happened with the RCMP over the years.

Also, if it is done to give women the advantage, it is worth noting that in the Universities, women are often over-represented in some of the professions, e.g. medicine, teaching

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

Speeds up to 300km/h but not an average of 300km/h. Would be slower in the cities, suburbs and exurbs. closer to 4 hours would be a much more realistic travel time and be in line with other HSR systems.

Europe is much more densely populated than this corridor though. Really, it's possible to conceive of this line barely entering municipalities outside of a few select on the route.

Rome to Milan, BTW, is 3 hours 10 minutes by HSR express, and is 30-40 km further apart than TO and Montreal.

I think 2.5-3 is fairly realistic.

[OldDutch]

Originally Posted by dammage79

Allegedly there's storefronts in Austin Texas with whites only stickers on their doors approved by the city.

So uhhh yeah. Regression in full swing.

Link?

I did quick search and the only one that matches is from 2015

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by dammage79

Allegedly there's storefronts in Austin Texas with whites only stickers on their doors approved by the city.

So uhhh yeah. Regression in full swing.

source

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

If that is what was happening, I would be all for it. However, I have witnessed the opposite.

So your counterpoint against DEI initiatives in 2025 is to bring up a single anecdote from 40+ years ago that you did not, in fact, witness yourself (contrary to your statement above) but was instead literal hearsay from your brother-in-law?

[edslunch]

I’m thinking the next Federal election is going to be ugly, with the full weight of Russian, Chinese, AND American interference in play.

[dammage79]

Originally Posted by OldDutch

Link?

I did quick search and the only one that matches is from 2015

Same. I edited the OG post.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by edslunch

I’m thinking the next Federal election is going to be ugly, with the full weight of Russian, Chinese, AND American interference in play.

I am concerned there will be overt funny business. Not just the social media bot farms and strange media angles that have become commonplace in this last wave of political elections.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

1. The overuse of the concept, "diversity, equity and inclusion" in the hiring process e.g. universities, critically important positions

"The entire point of DEI is to make sure the most qualified people get the jobs. DEI is about making sure minorities and women get a chance to show they are the most qualified for the job, rather than a white guy hiring another white guy. Anyone who says they are against DEI because they think the job should go to the most qualified person, is just explaining that they don't understand the concept."

If that is what was happening, I would be all for it. However, I have witnessed the opposite.

In the 1980s PET and the Liberals decided that there should be more French Canadians in the RCMP. MY BIL, a very high ranking RCMP officer, charged with promoting senior officers, revealed to me how orders were given as to how that was to be carried out.

Officers were to be chosen, on an annual basis, in the following order, 1. a French Canadian, 2. a bilingual member, and 3. an English member. All officers were routinely tested annually, and in when it came time to choose a
French Canadian member, he was forced to choose someone who stood 50th in the list of those who were tested.

So I think you can see that the best person was not always chosen. And we all know what has happened with the RCMP over the years.

Also, if it is done to give women the advantage, it is worth noting that in the Universities, women are often over-represented in some of the professions, e.g. medicine, teaching

So, your limited one anecdotal example should completely override all DEI ideals and place them firmly on the radical left part of the spectrum? How about I give an example where a more qualified immigrant was overlooked for an anglo male. I'm sure there must be an example of that out there somewhere.

And your other example is medicine and teaching? Professions where the work has been historically "women's work" of nurses and schoolteachers. Next are you going to point out how women also are over-represented in office administration and housekeeping roles in the workforce?

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

1. The overuse of the concept, "diversity, equity and inclusion" in the hiring process e.g. universities, critically important positions

"The entire point of DEI is to make sure the most qualified people get the jobs. DEI is about making sure minorities and women get a chance to show they are the most qualified for the job, rather than a white guy hiring another white guy. Anyone who says they are against DEI because they think the job should go to the most qualified person, is just explaining that they don't understand the concept."

If that is what was happening, I would be all for it. However, I have witnessed the opposite.

In the 1980s PET and the Liberals decided that there should be more French Canadians in the RCMP. MY BIL, a very high ranking RCMP officer, charged with promoting senior officers, revealed to me how orders were given as to how that was to be carried out.

Officers were to be chosen, on an annual basis, in the following order, 1. a French Canadian, 2. a bilingual member, and 3. an English member. All officers were routinely tested annually, and in when it came time to choose a
French Canadian member, he was forced to choose someone who stood 50th in the list of those who were tested.

So I think you can see that the best person was not always chosen. And we all know what has happened with the RCMP over the years.

Also, if it is done to give women the advantage, it is worth noting that in the Universities, women are often over-represented in some of the professions, e.g. medicine, teaching

No, you've witnessed gossip and rumour. I've had so many similar conversations and its always hyperbole/bull####

[Monahammer]

About 2 decades ago, the DEI conversation and debate was instead labelled as Affirmative Action. The best argument against affirmative action that I can recall was psychological, and went something like this:

Assigning lesser requirements to a specific portion of the population has two longer term impacts that are hard to understand or counter. 1. It creates the impression for those outside of the selected group that those inside are INCAPABLE of reaching the same achievement or production as those outside the group, reinforcing a divide between groups. This is partially because individuals en masse have a difficult time assessing structural barriers that prevent groups from reaching goals, and have a much easier time assigning personal performance relative to conditions they've experienced. 2. It also potentially demotivates higher achieving individuals within the selected group long term as they also see less required exertion to meet similar goals, reinforcing their own feeling of otherness.

I was not really fond of those arguments (I prescribe to a more nichomachean ethical view) and believe that on balance, affirmative action was likely to create more good results than the possible creation of negative via the described potential mechanism.

Now that I reflect on it further, it could be part of what plays into the current polarization and re rise of anger against "DEI" policies and other.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

Woke for me is about telling the Progressive Left where they are going too far in their fight for justice. For example:

1. The overuse of the concept, "diversity, equity and inclusion" in the hiring process e.g. universities, critically important positions

2. Forgetting the contribution of those who worked and sacrificed to get us where we are today. e.g. renaming schools, streets, and tearing down statues

3. Politicizing science, leading to disinformation and inequality

4. Defunding the police

5. Being too soft on crime e.g. paroling people who are judged to be high risk to reoffend, putting hardened criminals in sweat lodges

6. Adopting measures which restrict freedom of the press

7. Mandating against a person's right to decide what goes into their bodies

8. Etc.

Originally Posted by flamesfever

1. The overuse of the concept, "diversity, equity and inclusion" in the hiring process e.g. universities, critically important positions

"The entire point of DEI is to make sure the most qualified people get the jobs. DEI is about making sure minorities and women get a chance to show they are the most qualified for the job, rather than a white guy hiring another white guy. Anyone who says they are against DEI because they think the job should go to the most qualified person, is just explaining that they don't understand the concept."

If that is what was happening, I would be all for it. However, I have witnessed the opposite.

In the 1980s PET and the Liberals decided that there should be more French Canadians in the RCMP. MY BIL, a very high ranking RCMP officer, charged with promoting senior officers, revealed to me how orders were given as to how that was to be carried out.

Officers were to be chosen, on an annual basis, in the following order, 1. a French Canadian, 2. a bilingual member, and 3. an English member. All officers were routinely tested annually, and in when it came time to choose a
French Canadian member, he was forced to choose someone who stood 50th in the list of those who were tested.

So I think you can see that the best person was not always chosen. And we all know what has happened with the RCMP over the years.

Also, if it is done to give women the advantage, it is worth noting that in the Universities, women are often over-represented in some of the professions, e.g. medicine, teaching

wow

a couple back to back hits