Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Parallex

It's not his portfolio. When he talks about subject X or Y and it's not part of his portfolio then what he says is about as meaningful as what you, I, or a random hobo in the alley says about X or Y.

This simply isn't true. He's a cabinet minister. If he's giving a public interview, he is speaking for the government until someone else in the government says otherwise. Carney should absolutely be telling him to shut his yap or be relegated to the back bench - which is where he should already have been sent.

[ThePrince]

Originally Posted by Parallex

Who cares?

It's not his portfolio. When he talks about subject X or Y and it's not part of his portfolio then what he says is about as meaningful as what you, I, or a random hobo in the alley says about X or Y.

Huh, I guess I was mistaken that the hobo in the alley is an MP of the governing party that gets to go to cabinet meetings and influence lawmaking.

Just because something is not within the specific purview of their cabinet position, doesn't mean that they have no influence on policy that could apply to it.

[Manhattanboy]

Originally Posted by D as in David

Are you for or against removing inter-provincial trade barriers? If for removal, why now? Which bureaucrats may have come up with this on their own?

What’s your problem? I have always been for lowering trade barriers.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Manhattanboy

Rube I’m going to dig into this further because I doubt this was the result of consumers or small businesses lobbying for years for change. I suspect the bureaucrats came up with it on their own.

Generally, bureaucrats don't just have license to come up with things on their own. Someone presents them with a problem or a complaint and it's their job to propose a solution, which then gets ran back up the chain to the minister responsible for that file.

[woob]

Originally Posted by btimbit

Conservatives have what, like 140 seats? If you have such good ideas then introduce bills proposing them. Don't just sit in the corner and cry, or smugly suggest the other parties should just 'steal' your ideas while you do nothing but watch. Actually participate in parliament rather than just fight everyone on everything.

Yes to all of this. I undestand the party not in power is called the opposition party, but that does not have to be the literal defining approach of your party/MPs. Put in some work and come up with some quality, useful policy, that doesn't contain rhetoric wording, gotcha politics, etc. and take an approach of collaboration for the good of the country.

Liberals have a minority government and may not hold power for 4 years, but if I have to listen to Pierre yammer on, with the same approach and rhetoric, I might take a long walk off a short pier.

Listening to Carney today, it's incredibly refreshing to hear a politician who seems to actually have the countries best interests in mind, not just their parties interests.

Agreed. Early days, but very hopeful that action follows the words.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Manhattanboy

I suspect the bureaucrats came up with it on their own.

I wanted to circle back to this for a minute because I think it's a great example of how conservatives have poisoned the discourse around public service.

Bureaucrats don't get into the public service because they're nefarious humans who just want to enact unnecessary regulations, or exert more control over general population. Like any number of others job in the world, they apply for something that they believe they're qualified for. Some do it just for the paycheck, even though the pay isn't that great. Some do it because they feel it gives them purpose.

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by Manhattanboy

What’s your problem? I have always been for lowering trade barriers.

Not when it comes to shopping malls, apparently. Why not?

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by indes

I hope so. I think when you start looking at the cost and timeline to get something like that done the interest will fade. Does Carney have the political capital to invest $120bn on a 4600km (3x as long, 3x the cost?) pipeline that will take a decade to build and will most likely never pay for itself?

Optimistically maybe they have pipeline companies in every province work on their section, and it could get done in a few years? I just don't see it. I'm a mechanical project planner for a major and it just seems so far-fetched that this would ever get done.

We Abertans get so hung up on pipelines... but why not advocate for something more innovative instead.

Build TransCanada hyperloop corridor. If you built it to have 4 or 8 tubes you could really disrupt how transportation happens in Canada.

If you build 8 tubes, you could lease 4 of them specifically to Oil transport, similar to Notley's rail car strategy but the cars are now moving at 1600km/h. 2 tubes could go to other cargo transport and 2 tubes could be passenger transport. As Oil transport demand declines over the decades, you can scale back the hyperloop capacity dedicated to Oil transport and instead move other things like raw minerals, finished goods, or people.

Charging the Oil companies a premium to use the TransCanada Hyperloop would help fund the project and leave Canada with an impressive transportation option for the next century. That makes more sense to me than building a pipeline that can only transport one thing and then is kind of useless once that dries up.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by MacDaddy77

Then our unfriendly eco terrorist MP and minister of culture lays out this gem.

https://x.com/cbcwatcher/status/1922...-5v4QVKOPk-nlw

So the question that always was still remains. Can Carney bring the extreme right of the party to the centre or will he need to align with conservatives to enact any energy superpower programs?

Flat out lying that tmx is at 40% capacity. Last month it was 710,000 barrels

Well that didn't take long. And they put Guilbeault's old friend into the Environment Minister position as well?

I guess we're back to no more funding for roads and saying one thing in english and another thing in french already.

[PepsiFree]

Going to be a hilarious 4 years if this is all it takes to rile conservatives lol.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by Wolven

We Abertans get so hung up on pipelines... but why not advocate for something more innovative instead.

Build TransCanada hyperloop corridor. If you built it to have 4 or 8 tubes you could really disrupt how transportation happens in Canada.

If you build 8 tubes, you could lease 4 of them specifically to Oil transport, similar to Notley's rail car strategy but the cars are now moving at 1600km/h. 2 tubes could go to other cargo transport and 2 tubes could be passenger transport. As Oil transport demand declines over the decades, you can scale back the hyperloop capacity dedicated to Oil transport and instead move other things like raw minerals, finished goods, or people.

Charging the Oil companies a premium to use the TransCanada Hyperloop would help fund the project and leave Canada with an impressive transportation option for the next century. That makes more sense to me than building a pipeline that can only transport one thing and then is kind of useless once that dries up.

pipelines, which are often seen as ultimately uneconomical, don't have to hold vaccuum and are a fraction of the diameter (and thus a fraction of the material cost) of a hyperloop corridor. No one could afford to use a hyperloop to transport goods.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Going to be a hilarious 4 years if this is all it takes to rile conservatives lol.

Well, that statement from someone like Guilbeault (I was wrong) is very harmful and dumb as ####, tbh. He knew saying that that it would cause issues with Albertans. I hope he's getting disciplined behind closed doors about it, as I suspect would be Carney's type of leadership.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by chemgear

Well that didn't take long. And they put Guilbeault's old friend into the Environment Minister position as well?

I guess we're back to no more funding for roads and saying one thing in english and another thing in french already.

Where are you seeing this information about Julie Dabrusin? As far as I can tell, outside of the reference on her website to being anti oil sands expansion (lets park this for a second) I wasn't able to find much information at all of any public stances she's taken on environment issues. She only started as the Parliamentary secretary to Environment in 2025, so likely under Duguid not Guilbeault. Interested to know why you think they are old friends.

Here's what her page says:

Environmental Protection: Julie’s action on the environment and climate change includes work to modernize the Canada Environmental Protection Act, which includes developing the ban on single-use plastics and building a circular economy that places responsibility on the producers of waste to ensure that their items do not end up in landfill. She has supported putting a price on carbon pollution, has taken a strong stance against oil sands expansion, and has promoted the critical need for a transition from fossil fuels to a low-carbon economy. She has shared the priorities of local environmental groups with her colleagues in Ottawa. As a local resident who relies on cycling, walking and transit to get around the city, Julie is committed to federal support for public transit and cycling infrastructure.

- Ban on single use plastics was/ is a losing policy, but popular among the urban toronto crowd.
- producer responsibility for recycling is a very common policy in the developed world now.
- industrial price on carbon is a key Carney policy as well.
- Oil sands expansion: hard to see a positive here, though i suspect again this is heavily driven by her personal riding's inclinations about it. Time to see if this will hold up. Further, whenever someone talks about regulatory hurdles to oil sands growth now, I can't help but come back to this brilliant Andrew Leach tweet: https://x.com/andrew_leach/status/1882834950740914640
It's not just regulatory hurdles stopping development. All of these sites are already approved, but havent been built because they're uneconomical in today's conditions, or the export capacity hasn't developed to suit them yet. Notable that the minister says nothing about exports or pipelines.
- transition to a low carbon economy; that's coming directly from the local environmental groups she also mentions (interest group in riding...) and is just buzzword soup for center left politicians these days. IMO you could talk her into an ammonia pipeline based on this thinking.

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by Wolven

We Abertans get so hung up on pipelines... but why not advocate for something more innovative instead.

Build TransCanada hyperloop corridor. If you built it to have 4 or 8 tubes you could really disrupt how transportation happens in Canada.

If you build 8 tubes, you could lease 4 of them specifically to Oil transport, similar to Notley's rail car strategy but the cars are now moving at 1600km/h. 2 tubes could go to other cargo transport and 2 tubes could be passenger transport. As Oil transport demand declines over the decades, you can scale back the hyperloop capacity dedicated to Oil transport and instead move other things like raw minerals, finished goods, or people.

Charging the Oil companies a premium to use the TransCanada Hyperloop would help fund the project and leave Canada with an impressive transportation option for the next century. That makes more sense to me than building a pipeline that can only transport one thing and then is kind of useless once that dries up.

Just have to say that Hyperloops are a scam. Even the Elongated Muskrat has admitted that. They are not feasible in any sense to build.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

Well, that statement from someone like Guilbeault (I was wrong) is very harmful and dumb as ####, tbh. He knew saying that that it would cause issues with Albertans. I hope he's getting disciplined behind closed doors about it, as I suspect would be Carney's type of leadership.

I don’t even know why they were asking him the question at all, but what’s he going to say “I’m well versed and fully supportive of pipelines now?”

He said something stupid, but people are acting like he just put policy in place. People are way overreacting if they think this is harmful.

[Leeman4Gilmour]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I don’t even know why they were asking him the question at all, but what’s he going to say “I’m well versed and fully supportive of pipelines now?”

He said something stupid, but people are acting like he just put policy in place. People are way overreacting if they think this is harmful.

I think it's fair for people to be critical of him stating numbers which were not true. 40% utilization is false. Regardless of political affiliation, misinformation should be called out. And, because of his previous posting, it's easy to surmise he intentionally did this. Once you get to there, it's equally as easy to surmise that he intentionally did that to be harmful. Or at the very least, push an agenda that isn't his anymore. For me personally, I don't want the Minister of Canadian Culture and Identity blantantly lying. Doesn't feel very Canadian to me.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I don’t even know why they were asking him the question at all, but what’s he going to say “I’m well versed and fully supportive of pipelines now?”

He said something stupid, but people are acting like he just put policy in place. People are way overreacting if they think this is harmful.

The responsible thing to do would have been to say "This is something to discuss with the new minister of environment and minister of natural resources."

He didn't, which was irresponsible. I don't think it's asking too much to hope that your ministers in cabinet act responsibly and have some type of political sense instead of just blundering into obvious trap questions.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Leeman4Gilmour

I think it's fair for people to be critical of him stating numbers which were not true. 40% utilization is false. Regardless of political affiliation, misinformation should be called out. And, because of his previous posting, it's easy to surmise he intentionally did this. Once you get to there, it's equally as easy to surmise that he intentionally did that to be harmful. Or at the very least, push an agenda that isn't his anymore. For me personally, I don't want the Minister of Canadian Culture and Identity blantantly lying. Doesn't feel very Canadian to me.

“Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.”

We’re getting a little soap boxy here.

[D as in David]

I'm waiting until Tim Hodgson weighs in on culture, identity, or an official language before I get in a huff.

[ThePrince]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

“Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.”

We’re getting a little soap boxy here.

Just so we’re clear though - when Conservative MPs do dumbass #### like take pictures with losers, it’s totally fair game to get riled up and crap on them and extrapolate that to all Conservative Party members, but complaining about Liberal MPs/current cabinet ministers who have done damaging things to our country doing dumbass things is overreacting soap boxy and dumb to get riled up about?

Because I view Guilbeault and those loser Conservatives in the exact same way, and I want Canadians to hold both equally accountable.