Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I don’t see a lot of difference in intent between something like Bill C-11 and PP’s promise to enact financial penalties on Universities that don’t allow certain speakers.

On one hand, government wants Canadian content on platforms streaming in Canada, threatens financial penalties to make it happen.

On the other, party wants controversial speakers to speak in University campuses, threatens financial penalties to make it happen.

I assume people who are disqualifying the Liberals because of C-11 are at least very nervous about the types of authoritarian overreach that the Conservatives are interested in? Or is it OK for the government to control content for some things and not others?

Let's look at the potential consequences of overreach in each instance:

1) Bill C-11 - taken to it's extreme effectively empowers the Government to censor or block sources for any/all content on all media that's available including youtube, print media available on online platforms, etc. Most people consume 3-4 hours of some sort of media on their phones, TV, Internet, etc.

2) Taken to it's extreme, universities could get fined for not letting someone like Ann Coulter speak - which would only be an issue if there's an audience large enough to warrant someone like that showing up in the first place

It's not like both of these imperfect policies come out in a wash. Maybe you should look through Bill C-11 with a different lens - imagine a future where a populist 'Trump-like' figure somehow leads the CPC to a majority electoral victory with like 38% of the popular vote and then proceeds to eject all appointees from all government positions including the CRTC and replaces them with extreme partisans. Are you happy that bill C-11 is the law of land knowing that it's rather likely that sooner or later the government will be run by people you disagree with?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Let's look at the potential consequences of overreach in each instance:

1) Bill C-11 - taken to it's extreme effectively empowers the Government to censor or block sources for any/all content on all media that's available including youtube, print media available on online platforms, etc. Most people consume 3-4 hours of some sort of media on their phones, TV, Internet, etc.

2) Taken to it's extreme, universities could get fined for not letting someone like Ann Coulter speak - which would only be an issue if there's an audience large enough to warrant someone like that showing up in the first place

It's not like both of these imperfect policies come out in a wash. Maybe you should look through Bill C-11 with a different lens - imagine a future where a populist 'Trump-like' figure somehow leads the CPC to a majority electoral victory with like 38% of the popular vote and then proceeds to eject all appointees from all government positions including the CRTC and replaces them with extreme partisans. Are you happy that bill C-11 is the law of land in that scenario given who's controlling the government?

But those aren’t two extremes. Your “extreme” version of Bill C-11 isn’t even realistic in the extreme, and your “extreme” version of PP’s proposed policy is how it is intended to function at a basic level.

Ignore Bill C-11 for a second. Do you agree that the government should be threatening financial penalties towards educational institutions if they don’t host speakers the government believes they should host? Should the government have that say?

[SebC]

Originally Posted by driveway

On point 16, here's the full text.

The Conservative Party believes the government should seek the agreement of the provinces to amend the Constitution to include this right, as well as guarantee that no persons shall be deprived of their just right without the due process of law and full, just, and timely compensation.

We believe the government should enact legislation to ensure that full, just and timely compensation will be paid to all persons who are deprived of personal or private property as a result of any federal government initiative, policy, process, regulation or legislation.

Sheesh that's bad, on two fronts.

The first front is gun control. I find it extremely distasteful that the government would give constitutional protection to people's investments, when they made investments into killing machines with their disposable income. Surely, as a society, we have better things to do with our money.

The second front is wealth equality. As capital and land get concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer people, do we really want the government to handcuff its own ability to do something about it?

[Yoho]

Originally Posted by edslunch

Firearms bill amendment regarding scope of prohibited weapons withdrawn

https://globalnews.ca/news/9457473/f...e=notification

https://twitter.com/user/status/1621547152588652546

Poilievre when asked about bill C-21

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Ignore Bill C-11 for a second. Do you agree that the government should be threatening financial penalties towards educational institutions if they don’t host speakers the government believes they should host? Should the government have that say?

Is there more info on what PP would like to do or how it would function? It is very vague to say they will penalize institutions who don't host speakers without the full context. There are all sorts of logistics constraints (ie. scheduling or security) that could arise which would not permit an event to be held.

In the end though, all private and public institutions should be able to host or not any event or speaker with very few exceptions for extreme cases. The same goes for online content. It should all be available through the various online providers and the government shouldn't be making decisions on algorithms that preferentially serve up content to anyone because it is "Canadian." If I want Canadian content I will search for it.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

For me the corruption and bill C-11 are two automatic strikes against the Liberals that disqualify them from getting my vote regardless of any items in the CPC policy declaration. When you permit the government in power to openly steal from you and censor the information you are allowed access to, you open the door to much further abuse of power because it won't stop there if they are not held to account electorally.

The moral grandstanding some posters constantly do about the CPC really falls flat when they deliberately look the other way at some pretty gross transgressions that are meant to debilitate and censor Canadians for the sake of broader oligarchy powers.

The Senate has now passed C-11, but with some key amendments.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/sena...ents-1.6258138

Rodriguez said Thursday that the Liberal government would not accept all of the Senate's recommendations, but he didn't say which ones he disagrees with.

"We'll see when the bill comes back. There are amendments that have zero impact on the bill. And others that do, and those, we will not accept them," the minister said Thursday during a Canadian Media Producers Association panel.

The Senate also removed a clause in the bill that Sen. Paula Simons described as giving "extraordinary new powers to the government to make political decisions about things."

https://twitter.com/user/status/1621525235899183109

I wonder which amendments the Liberals (and by association the NDP) refuse to accept.

But hey Poilievre plagiarized a speech, and suggested crypto to combat inflation, he's a clear menace that cannot rule the country, or so we are told.

I understand why a number of people will never vote for the CPC due to ideological differences, and quite frankly they have done the opposite of gaining trust to be the main party with several of their poor decisions of late (i.e the freedom convoy support).

Still, just because the CPC doesn't deserve a vote, doesn't mean the Liberals or NDP deserve a vote nor should their transgressions be ignored or marginalized.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

But those aren’t two extremes. Your “extreme” version of Bill C-11 isn’t even realistic in the extreme, and your “extreme” version of PP’s proposed policy is how it is intended to function at a basic level.

Ignore Bill C-11 for a second.

No, the whole point of this discussion was talking about Bill C-11 being awful and disqualifying the Liberals of being eligible for my vote.

You're trying to tell me I should somehow be more worried about who does and who doesn't get to speak at universities than control over all the media content that's available to all Canadians who consume an average of 3-6 hours thereof daily. Sorry, the two are not even remotely comparable in severity.

Bill C-11 is not really defensible in any interpretation in my mind. At best it's corrupt pork barreling to mostly Quebec-based corporations who have controlled the traditional broadcasting in this country who have lost their influence with the proliferation of internet content by forcing their content upon us and directly and indirectly forcing us to pay for it. At worse it can be used in practice to censor content not deemed 'Canadian enough' and artificially shape the content that is available for Canadians. Like literally no one other than people connected to companies like Bell actually wants this.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

No, the whole point of this discussion was talking about Bill C-11 being awful and disqualifying the Liberals of being eligible for my vote.

You're trying to tell me I should somehow be more worried about who does and who doesn't get to speak at universities than control over all the media content that's available to all Canadians who consume an average of 3-6 hours thereof daily. Sorry, the two are not even remotely comparable in severity.

No, stop being needlessly combative about it, I’m just asking a question.

I’m not saying you should be more or less worried about one or the other, I’m asking: if Bill C-11 is disqualifying, does PP’s intended policy regarding Universities cause any concern or make you nervous? You bolded that exact question so I know you read it. You responded, so I’m not sure why you’re now refusing to have that conversation. You didn’t need to respond, I didn’t quote you, so it doesn’t make a lot of sense to respond and then refuse to address the question.

I’m not trying to convince you one way or another, it doesn’t matter to me if you think Bill C-11 is disqualifying or not, we can believe different things and still have a conversation, no? I’m just asking if, the former being true, whether PP’s attitude toward Universities concerns you at all, if your aversion to C-11 is an ethical one?

[CaptainCrunch]

Gov't pulls a major retreat on their gun ban

https://torontosun.com/news/national...t-to-guns-bill

OTTAWA — The federal Liberals are withdrawing an amendment to their guns bill that introduced a controversial new definition of an assault-style weapon.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

Is there more info on what PP would like to do or how it would function? It is very vague to say they will penalize institutions who don't host speakers without the full context. There are all sorts of logistics constraints (ie. scheduling or security) that could arise which would not permit an event to be held.

In the end though, all private and public institutions should be able to host or not any event or speaker with very few exceptions for extreme cases. The same goes for online content. It should all be available through the various online providers and the government shouldn't be making decisions on algorithms that preferentially serve up content to anyone because it is "Canadian." If I want Canadian content I will search for it.

Not a lot. That’s why I was asking if it made people nervous, it’s not like we can disqualify someone based on a policy that doesn’t even really exist, but some of his comments are concerning.

FWIW I agree with you. I think forcing Canadian content on threat of financial penalty and telling Universities who they have to host on threat of financial penalty are both absurd.

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Gov't pulls a major retreat on their gun ban

https://torontosun.com/news/national...t-to-guns-bill

Why a use language of defeat like retreat? Shouldn't it be celebrated that they listened to concerns and reacted?

[Ozy_Flame]

Yeah if a government changes course, that shouldn't be shunned.

This "damned if you do, damned if you don't" narrative is extremely harmful. Let's move beyond that.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

Why a use language of defeat like retreat? Shouldn't it be celebrated that they listened to concerns and reacted?

Never should have gotten this far to begin with, I don't like the fact that years of opposition didn't mean a thing to them until native leaders also started to oppose it.
Until they walk back the whole thing, no, I won't be celebrating anything

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

Why a use language of defeat like retreat? Shouldn't it be celebrated that they listened to concerns and reacted?

They were defeated though so it is accurate. They laid out their amendments and would not negotiate. They realized there was no support from opposition parties so their bill was dead. Now they have to figure out what their next move will be.

[Roughneck]

By going back on parts of the gun ban, they can re-open the issue when they need to again in the future. Probably right after a shooting somewhere.

Can’t let that well go dry.

[PepsiFree]

I’m all for tight gun restrictions but I don’t think the government should have to be given credit for reversing a decision or policy from the people who disagreed with it or criticized them in the first place. You can recognize that the reversal is good, but at best that makes it neutral. They lose points for bringing it up in the first place and, so long as it doesn’t do objective damage, they gain those points back for reversing it. Net zero. No credit, no criticism.

[btimbit]

Plus one of the first things they said was they want to re-word it and try again. They'll just sit on it for a bit, wait until there's something the NDP needs from them to trade support for, and we'll be right back here again

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Firebot

But hey Poilievre plagiarized a speech, and suggested crypto to combat inflation, he's a clear menace that cannot rule the country, or so we are told.

This is over complicating things, he’s a menace because he supports right to work laws.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

Why a use language of defeat like retreat? Shouldn't it be celebrated that they listened to concerns and reacted?

Revisionist history.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/cons...ster-1.6171754

Liberals (and the NDP who initially supported it) has zero intentions to budge on this amendment, even claiming that Conservatives were fearmongering.

OTTAWA - Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino is accusing the Conservatives of "whipping up fear" that the Liberal government is outlawing ordinary long guns and hunting rifles.
The government only wants to reinforce a regulatory ban on assault-style firearms such as the AR-15 by enshrining a definition in legislation, and it is prepared to work with MPs to get it right, Mendicino said in an interview.

"The government has no intention — no intention whatsoever — to go after long guns and hunting rifles," he said. "And this is simply Conservative fearmongering."

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/trud...exts-1.6201494

"Our focus now is on saying okay, there are some guns, yes, that we're going to have to take away from people who were using them to hunt," Trudeau said. "But, we're going to also make sure that you're able to buy other guns from a long list of guns that are accepted that are fine for hunting, whether it's rifles or shotguns. We're not going at the right to hunt in this country. We are going at some of the guns used to do it that are too dangerous in other contexts."

Turns out (a shock for the Laurentien Liberals and out of touch GTAers), that a large demographic of the NDP and Liberal in rural area use hunting rifles for their livelihood, most notably in rural BC regions and Northern Ontario. The backlash was so severe that it could cause traditionally NDP / Liberal areas to vote Conservative on this issue. Add to that native leaders calling the ban a violation of their treaties, and Liberals started backtracking

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/firs...ghts-1.6186862

They only retreated because part of their own demographic was against it, and could have alienated first nations as well, until then, it was only those pesky rural conservative fearmongers that were getting hit.

They deserve nothing.

[Azure]

To be fair, that is exactly how everyone government regardless of which party handles their legislation when they have to step back.

First it is everyone else is fear mongering and there is no way we change it, then its come on guys, we weren't ever serious about it to begin with.