Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Canada has long neglected our military responsibilities and needs to become less dependant on the USA. This is one area where I can understand US frustration with Canada.

The US doesn't actually care about our military; the frustration is fake.
Our military may very well be under funded but it's not like we've gone around picking fights and asking the US to save us.
That's just another made up Trump distraction to get something he wants.
Why would he want the neighbor he's trying to annex to have a strong military to defend itself?

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

The US doesn't actually care about our military; the frustration is fake.

I don't think that's entirely it, here's the thing about Trump, I think he's an isolationist chickenhawk and he always wants someone else to pay for what he wants...

He said he'd build a wall and have Mexico pay for it, he sold Tariffs as other countries paying for tax cuts (untrue but that was one of the propaganda lines he put out), rumblings about him wanting to jackboot other countries into basically financing US debt relief, getting pissy about companies passing on tariff costs to customers and putting tariff charges on bills of sale, etc. etc...

I think this is just an extension of that. I don't think he wants us (and others) to spend more on the military, I think what he actually wants is for the U.S. to spend less without having to suffer any consequences of doing so. Trump isn't a chess player, he can't think three moves ahead and see how this is actually bad for U.S. global hegemony.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

The US doesn't actually care about our military; the frustration is fake.
Our military may very well be under funded but it's not like we've gone around picking fights and asking the US to save us.
That's just another made up Trump distraction to get something he wants.
Why would he want the neighbor he's trying to annex to have a strong military to defend itself?

Disagree.

Canada made commitments and has reneged. Stop making commitments if you don’t intend to fulfill them. That’s what Americans do so if Canada really wants to set itself apart, have integrity and follow through on your agreements.

[Drak]

It’s amazing to me, after all these years, that some folks still don’t understand who Trump is and how he operates.

[CliffFletcher]

America and other NATO allies have been frustrated for a long time with Canada’s failure to meet its military funding commitments.

Trump is using the excuse of Canada’s underfunded military to try to strong arm other concessions.

Both are true.

[Johnny Makarov]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Canada has long neglected our military responsibilities and needs to become less dependant on the USA. This is one area where I can understand US frustration with Canada.

Which I agree. I just don't think fighter jets are the way to go with those insane costs.

Out of all the fighter jets the Russians lost how many were actually shot down by another jet? I don't think many.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by dammage79

I think it's absolutely wild that they've close Botanical Beach.

They closed it for 24 hours. Hardly newsworthy.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Disagree.

Canada made commitments and has reneged. Stop making commitments if you don’t intend to fulfill them. That’s what Americans do so if Canada really wants to set itself apart, have integrity and follow through on your agreements.

I didn't say Canada didn't do any of that.
But those agreements were made with ally governments and under a different relationship. Those US governments would want Canada to be a strong military ally.

Trump doesn't view Canada as an ally, so his view of those agreements would differ from preview regimes.
He doesn't benefit from Canada having a strong resistance when he wants to take over our country; that's completely illogical.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

The US doesn't actually care about our military; the frustration is fake.
Our military may very well be under funded but it's not like we've gone around picking fights and asking the US to save us.
That's just another made up Trump distraction to get something he wants.
Why would he want the neighbor he's trying to annex to have a strong military to defend itself?

This is simply untrue that it's made up by Trump as it's been a long standing issue. Canada's military spending has been criticized by the US and other NATO countries going back decades to when Martin tried to respond with with a $13 billion infusion which Harper initially reduced. Military spending, dairy cartel, ets are easy low hanging fruit for Trump to grasp onto but the reality is that it's long been a problem.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

This is simply untrue that it's made up by Trump as it's been a long standing issue. Canada's military spending has been criticized by the US and other NATO countries going back decades to when Martin tried to respond with with a $13 billion infusion which Harper initially reduced. Military spending, dairy cartel, ets are easy low hanging fruit for Trump to grasp onto but the reality is that it's long been a problem.

The dairy cartel, while an irritant, is really the same as the US subsidies on Dairy. Our dairy Tarrifs would need to remain the same with or without the presence of the cartel to prevent US dumping. Cost of production per litre unsubsidized is very similar.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by simmer2

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/clo...things-to-come

Not quite Canadian Politics, but close enough I think to the right thread. Curious to hear what folks' opinions are to the BC Government's actions around National Parks.

I understand the National Post isn't the desired source of news for a large portion of posters in this thread, but hoping to garner some takes just based on what BC is doing.

If it's on unceded land, they should have the right to limit who enters it.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by ThePrince

It's pretty disappointing that this post gets the hurrah from a ton of posters on this board, but a sitting cabinet minister spreading misinformation is greeted with "what he's in charge of doesn't actually matter, lol you losers get so riled up".

Consistency would be nice, but I've come to realize that's asking for too much from a lot of people on this board.

In this instance we were more talking about the volume of misinformation spread. If it was a 1:1 ratio, then you might have a point, but PP has a far larger platform, a more devout audience, and has objectively spread much more misinformation.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by rubecube

If it's on unceded land, they should have the right to limit who enters it.

That is also true of essentially the entire province. Should they have the right to limit who can enter every public space in BC?

How about private property?

[Mr.Coffee]

We should just give all land back to First Nation people. Then we’ll all be happy.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

That is also true of essentially the entire province. Should they have the right to limit who can enter every public space in BC?

The various levels of government in this country can restrict who enters certain spaces. If we're serious about indigenous self-governance, why would indigenous governments not be given the same rights?

How about private property?

Just to clarify, are we talking personal property or private property?

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by rubecube

The various levels of government in this country can restrict who enters certain spaces. If we're serious about indigenous self-governance, why would indigenous governments not be given the same rights?

Just to clarify, are we talking personal property or private property?

Because Indigenous self-governance isn’t a one-to-one with federal or provincial governments. It’s its own distinct form of governance tied to specific nations, cultures, and histories, and not just another layer of government with identical powers.

Giving the “same” rights sounds fair in theory, but in practice, it would create conflicts over land access, public resources, and private property; especially if applied across all unceded territory as Corsi suggests. Self-governance needs to be respected, sure, but that doesn’t automatically mean identical authority in every context.

EDIT: Also, since you qualified your statement with "certain spaces", then sure, because we already do. You can be charged with trespassing if you enter reserve land without permission, per the Indian Act. I think the disagreement here is with public park land being included in those 'certain' spaces.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by rubecube

If it's on unceded land, they should have the right to limit who enters it.

All land was ceded when they got conquered, silly billy.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by GGG

The dairy cartel, while an irritant, is really the same as the US subsidies on Dairy. Our dairy Tarrifs would need to remain the same with or without the presence of the cartel to prevent US dumping. Cost of production per litre unsubsidized is very similar.

Cost of production is quite a bit different because we've organized the industry quite differently. Quota is distributed to provinces/regions based on their national market share from like 50 years ago. The western provinces have grown much faster than Quebec since then, and have a lower cost base for agriculture (more low cost ag land). It would be much cheaper to have fewer large scale dairies in the west. If we got rid of the quotas and kept the tarriffs that's what we'd end up with, and then our production costs would be similar to those in the US.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

All land was ceded when they got conquered, silly billy.

They weren’t conquered and no agreements were reached on all that territory. Rubecube is 100% correct with his interpretation.

So we should give all lands back to First Nations people. They can do what they want with all lands. I presume that means we will be subject to them I guess. Somebody has to make decisions on lands.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

They weren’t conquered and no agreements were reached on all that territory. Rubecube is 100% correct with his interpretation.

So we should give all lands back to First Nations people. They can do what they want with all lands. I presume that means we will be subject to them I guess. Somebody has to make decisions on lands.

We could get out of all of this mess by just handing everything back on paper, and then "invading," taking it all fully and declaring victory.


This might involve crossing some moral boundaries.