Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

So you’re also gonna pretend like you give a rats ass about workers rights when it’s convenient? Easy money.

Calling out the hypocrisy of certain posters isn’t the same thing as defending the government no matter how desperately you try to spin it as such

You know you could just simply say: "Liberals did something I don't like that goes against my values". But it appears even when union rights are being stepped on you won't say anything depending on the party doing the stepping. Good to know for future discussions your union views are selective.

Well it seems this one isn't going away. AMFA just announced a strike in clear defiance of our government's action as of an hour ago, likely to cause absolute chaos with flights. Good for them considering the invoking of binding arbitration. I am wondering if you will cheer the AMFA?

https://twitter.com/user/status/1806855981617250438

Originally Posted by rubecube

Didn't realize the NDP held a cabinet position.

They are in a supply and confidence agreement with the Liberals, as such they are propping the government that made this decision that seems contrary to their own party policies.

Singh and the NDP has the ability to make a statement and has not done one yet, heck not even a tweet. I mean he's done tweets slamming corporate greed and high grocery prices and Poilievre's stance on dental plan. Considering he's stood in picket lines while vouching for anti-scab legislation this is an oddity. Will he walk with this one?

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/ndp-leader...201129306.html

[powderjunkie]

The Minister made a declaration; the union seems to have walked a tightrope where they didn't encourage an illegal strike while also pointing out that the strike action is probably still legal. No idea how the court process will play out and whether it would be the Labour Ministry challenging for their right to trample worker rights or if Westjet can do it. Either way its not going to be a great look. But kinda funny. O'Regan probably achieved an impressive lose-lose here by annoying regular Canadian travellers and also voters who support worker rights.

Doesn't have much to do with the NDP. It's just another example of how they are silly to contemporaneously support and condemn the Liberals.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Firebot

You know you could just simply say: "Liberals did something I don't like that goes against my values". But it appears even when union rights are being stepped on you won't say anything depending on the party doing the stepping. Good to know for future discussions your union views are selective.

This is about as desperate of a post as I’ve seen you make. Seriously how little credibility do you have at this point? Even people who can’t stand my views would consider your assertion that my views on unions are selective as being one of the more absurd things to have ever been posted on this site. Keep collecting your cheques though.

Well it seems this one isn't going away. AMFA just announced a strike in clear defiance of our government's action as of an hour ago, likely to cause absolute chaos with flights. Good for them considering the invoking of binding arbitration. I am wondering if you will cheer the AMFA?

https://twitter.com/user/status/1806855981617250438

It’s deplorable that you are only pretending to give a #### about workers rights when it conveniently hurts parties you don’t like. Why didn’t your hero Pierre make any statements against O’Regan’s order? Spoiler alert, it’s because he doesn’t want them exercising their rights. I stand with workers, their decision to defy the order may have consequences, but the decision is theirs to make for themselves and if they think this is the right thing to do and they aren’t using means of violence or anything like that I support their right to choose their path.

They are in a supply and confidence agreement with the Liberals, as such they are propping the government that made this decision that seems contrary to their own party policies.

Again you’re a hypocrite, you’re chastising Singh for not condemning this but at the same time you refuse to call out Pierre for saying nothing. You do this despite your previous desperate attempts to portray him as pro-labour for voting in favour of the recent anti-scab legislation when his party was backed into a political corner and had essentially no choice but to do so.

Also, Singh isn’t in a position to retroactively stop o’Regan’s order even if he were to end the supply and confidence agreement and anyone with half a brain or even the slightest understanding of the authority of the minister of labour would know that.

Singh and the NDP has the ability to make a statement and has not done one yet, heck not even a tweet. I mean he's done tweets slamming corporate greed and high grocery prices and Poilievre's stance on dental plan. Considering he's stood in picket lines while vouching for anti-scab legislation this is an oddity. Will he walk with this one?

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/ndp-leader...201129306.html

We all know you’re not going to change your tune if Singh threatens to cancel the supply and confidence agreement in the event O’Regan threatens to impose penalties on the Union for defying the order for any reason other than to get an early election. You’ll be far more likely to either start praising Singh for standing up for working people while refusing to criticize Pierre for riding his coattails to an early election or you’ll praise him while criticizing Pierre but still vote for Pierre in the end despite your sudden (and obviously faked) desire to see workers rights upheld.

All of this on the backs of good honest working class people who help keep this country running that are simply trying to stand up for their(and our) rights and improve their lives. You know, the people who both yourself and Pierre have historically shown to not give a #### about.

On behalf of working class people in this country, congratulations you’re part of the problem! Hope the money’s worth it!

[bizaro86]

Singh probably has veto power over the Trudeau liberals at this point though. If he said not doing that ruling was required for him to continuing to support the govt they'd cave to him, because the alternative is a snap election where they'd be destroyed.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Singh probably has veto power over the Trudeau liberals at this point though. If he said not doing that ruling was required for him to continuing to support the govt they'd cave to him, because the alternative is a snap election where they'd be destroyed.

Which ruling are you referring to?

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

The Minister made a declaration; the union seems to have walked a tightrope where they didn't encourage an illegal strike while also pointing out that the strike action is probably still legal. No idea how the court process will play out and whether it would be the Labour Ministry challenging for their right to trample worker rights or if Westjet can do it. Either way its not going to be a great look. But kinda funny. O'Regan probably achieved an impressive lose-lose here by annoying regular Canadian travellers and also voters who support worker rights.

Doesn't have much to do with the NDP. It's just another example of how they are silly to contemporaneously support and condemn the Liberals.

If this strike isn’t illegal, which it’s starting to look like it isn’t, then I’m not sure the NDP would have any reason to oppose the previous arbitration order made because that would have been the end result anyway if a prolonged strike were to have occurred. Having not seen the order itself I, as I’m sure many others did, just assumed that there was an explicit directive given by O’Regan to the workers that the could not go on strike as planned solely based on WestJet’s statement declaring the strike was not happening but that appears to not have been the case.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Which ruling are you referring to?

Maybe it's a declaration or order? I was talking about the Minister mandating arbitration. Even when things don't require legislation if Singh said they were a deal breaker for the supply and confidence agreement the Liberals would cave.

They'd have to, because they'd lose the election badly, and "we want to order a union back to work" isn't a winning election issue.

[ThePrince]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Again you’re a hypocrite, you’re chastising Singh for not condemning this but at the same time you refuse to call out Pierre for saying nothing. You do this despite your previous desperate attempts to portray him as pro-labour for voting in favour of the recent anti-scab legislation when his party was backed into a political corner and had essentially no choice but to do so.

Also, Singh isn’t in a position to retroactively stop o’Regan’s order even if he were to end the supply and confidence agreement and anyone with half a brain or even the slightest understanding of the authority of the minister of labour would know that.

This is hilarious, you can’t make this stuff up. You call someone a hypocrite, and then proceed to be a hypocrite. You can’t crap on Pierre for doing something because “his party was backed into a political corner”, then give Singh credit because he’s not in a position to do anything.

You are literally doing exactly what you’re trying to call out.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by ThePrince

This is hilarious, you can’t make this stuff up. You call someone a hypocrite, and then proceed to be a hypocrite. You can’t crap on Pierre for doing something because “his party was backed into a political corner”, then give Singh credit because he’s not in a position to do anything.

You are literally doing exactly what you’re trying to call out.

You’re comparing apples to oranges bud.

In Singh’s situation the minister made a decision, which we now know wasn’t even what Firebot was claiming it to be but regardless, once the CIRB is given that directive they can’t just reverse it for a number of reasons. In any event even if firebot’s fictitious scenario were occurring, I didn’t say Singh shouldn’t be opposed to it I was pointing out how Firebot was selective in his accountability.

If Singh or Pierre would be for or opposed to the same thing I would hold them equally accountable. Firebot has a long history of not doing that so I think it’s fair game to call it out.

Even before realizing that the return to work order that was being reported didn’t actually happen I never at any time said it was ok for Singh to not be opposing it, I was explaining why he couldn’t simply reverse it and wouldn’t have needed to be consulted on the decision prior to it happening because clearly a lot of people here don’t understand how that ministry works with the CIRB.

Clearly Singh had no reason to be openly supporting/opposing a back to work order that was never issued, nor would Pierre. Yet firebot still went out of his way to use the situation to try and attack parties he doesn’t like even though the party he constantly shakes pompoms for was taking the same stance. That’s the hypocrisy.

Also, I never criticized Pierre for voting in favour of the anti-scab legislation so I don’t know what you’re going on about there, I’m glad he did it. Pointing out that he was put into a situation where politically he had little choice is simply stating a fact. If you want me to start praising Pierre as pro-labour I’m happy to do so, just convince him to put forward a pro-labour bill for the first time in his long political career and I’ll be happy to give him credit for that.

Solid attempted drive-by though Prince. Thanks for coming out and trying to be a hero only to fall flat, perhaps firebot can find you some work.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Maybe it's a declaration or order? I was talking about the Minister mandating arbitration. Even when things don't require legislation if Singh said they were a deal breaker for the supply and confidence agreement the Liberals would cave.

They'd have to, because they'd lose the election badly, and "we want to order a union back to work" isn't a winning election issue.

I see what you’re saying now, thanks for clarifying.

I would say that Singh would have a hard time justifying forcing an election over the decision to mandate arbitration while still allowing the workers to strike(which is likelier to lead to a deal prior to the arbitration) when forcing an election at this time would likely result in a government that in a similar scenario would simply mandate arbitration and not allow the mechanics to strike at all.

Singh also has to consider his position as well, the liberals know if he pulls the plug he likely loses any leverage he has to advance his parties objectives over the next year. They’ve called his bluff a few times already.

If I had to guess I’d say Singh is probably ok with how this has played out so far and is hoping WestJet caves soon so he doesn’t get put into a position where he has to make a decision on whether to continue with the supply and confidence deal.

[Firebot]

I clearly struck quite the emotional nerve! Considering your posts in the other thread, where all calgarygeologist did was posting how he questioned why the feds stepped in so quick, a totally valid question:

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

I'm surprised that the feds are stepping in so quickly to resolve this matter. So eager to squash the workers rights to fight for collective bargaining.

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Now all of the sudden you care about workers rights eh?

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

You’re gonna sit here and tell me you’ve never voted for the UCP or any other anti-labour party in your life?

So you clearly don't have problems bringing up UCP / CPC unrelated in non-political threads out of partisan rage just at the mere potential questioning of a faux pas by our current government which happens to be a left leaning party, to the point where you call them supporters of anti-labour parties.

CPC has right to work as a policy in 2021's platform. Poilievre has made no mentions of changes to this policy at this time. You've mentioned why you will not vote for them for this specific rule and that is a total fair and accepted reason if this is genuine.

But this brings us to the current situation. Remember you are the staunch union defender here with self-declared voting red lines, not me (which I never pretended or ever would be mistaken to be though I do believe in worker rights and unions have some value). The Labour Minister clearly contradicted his own words (which you yourself have said you are aware of his comments). Can you explain how the binding arbitration order is pro-labour? I'm all ears

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Singh also has to consider his position as well, the liberals know if he pulls the plug he likely loses any leverage he has to advance his parties objectives over the next year. They’ve called his bluff a few times already.

If I had to guess I’d say Singh is probably ok with how this has played out so far and is hoping WestJet caves soon so he doesn’t get put into a position where he has to make a decision on whether to continue with the supply and confidence deal.

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

If this strike isn’t illegal, which it’s starting to look like it isn’t, then I’m not sure the NDP would have any reason to oppose the previous arbitration order made because that would have been the end result anyway if a prolonged strike were to have occurred.

Now you should be quite relieved that the NDP just made a statement and finally made a position, saving yourself from finding all excuses you can on their behalf. The question now is, do you agree with Matthew Green, or agree with Seamus O'Regan Jr? And does Singh push the issue, or will this be yet another empty vapid threat with no consequences? What a conundrum for an ABCer!

https://twitter.com/user/status/1807117092610576788

That's why I say your union views are selective and your rebuttal to me and others (all of which outright omit any fault while giving any excuse you can while raging at anything conservative in the process) proves you choose to criticize based on what party does them even if it means trumping your own union views.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Firebot

I clearly struck quite the emotional nerve!

Well hypocrisy combined with exploiting workers rights is definitely a sore spot for me.

Considering your posts in the other thread, where all calgarygeologist did was posting how he questioned why the feds stepped in so quick, a totally valid question:

I’m sorry what issue do you have with with what I said? Do you have any specific statements of mine to quote where I said I supported his decision or is all you have is your attempts to put words in my mouth? I’m fairly certain I never said I would have been upset if the minister stayed out of it all together. And if you’re expecting me to not call out the hypocrisy of people pretending to care about workers rights you’re just gonna have to get over it.

So you clearly don't have problems bringing up UCP / CPC unrelated in non-political threads out of partisan rage just at the mere potential questioning of a faux pas by our current government which happens to be a left leaning party, to the point where you call them supporters of anti-labour parties.

What are you going on about? I think it’s fair to point out people’s hypocrisy, you seem to agree as you’re trying in vain to portray me as being hypocritical. The only problem is you haven’t established how I’m actually being hypocritical.

CPC has right to work as a policy in 2021's platform. Poilievre has made no mentions of changes to this policy at this time. You've mentioned why you will not vote for them for this specific rule and that is a total fair and accepted reason if this is genuine.

Good thing that’s my genuine view.

But this brings us to the current situation. Remember you are the staunch union defender here with self-declared voting red lines, not me (which I never pretended or ever would be mistaken to be though I do believe in worker rights and unions have some value). The Labour Minister clearly contradicted his own words (which you yourself have said you are aware of his comments). Can you explain how the binding arbitration order is pro-labour? I'm all ears

Are you saying that because I won’t vote for a party that supports right to work laws and continually calls for government intervention in collective bargaining that I can’t support any party that on rare occasions do something labour related on a smaller scale that I might disagree with? I should just not vote for anyone because I can’t agree with any of them on 100% of issues?

The minister hasn’t prevented them from exercising their rights and he hasn’t settled this round of collective bargaining, he may do so in the future but he hasn’t yet. While it sets a deadline for where they could end up doing so, that timeline is likely months out. Do you really think WestJet is going to allow this disruption to go on throughout the summer? You’re probably unaware that all of this has actually gotten both parties(by that I mean WestJet and the union) talking again.

Now you should be quite relieved that the NDP just made a statement and finally made a position, saving yourself from finding all excuses you can on their behalf. The question now is, do you agree with Matthew Green, or agree with Seamus O'Regan Jr? And does Singh push the issue, or will this be yet another empty vapid threat with no consequences? What a conundrum for an ABCer!

https://twitter.com/user/status/1807117092610576788

I agree with Matthew Green, however I’m also aware that O’Regan’s action thus far have not actually prevented the mechanics from exercising their rights despite what the MP has stated in his letter. I don’t like the fact that O’Regan stepped in when he did(look at that I’m being critical of 2 parties you claim I won’t criticize ) but I’m also cognizant of the fact that his order was one of the least impactful things he could have done and is actually conducive to getting a deal done at the table. I’m sorry that you can’t comprehend that and are resorting to distorting the facts to make your flawed argument.

That's why I say your union views are selective and your rebuttal to me and others (all of which outright omit any fault while giving any excuse you can while raging at anything conservative in the process) proves you choose to criticize based on what party does them even if it means trumping your own union views.

Yeah you say lots of stuff, often times it’s completely out to lunch. You continue to desperately try and portray me as having selective Union while pretending to be pro-labour yourself, despite a long track record that suggests you’re anything but that. Unless of course it’s to take a shot at a party you don’t like based on inaccurate information given by the employee.

I can forgive your ignorance due to a lack of understanding of how these processes work but as far as bringing the integrity of my support of workers into question, GTFO of here with that nonsense. I was at the picket line today speaking to some of the strikers and given them support, where were you?

If you want to see how many people actually buy your bull#### accusations you’re more than welcome to ask the mods to set up a poll asking who believes I have questionable support for workers and who believes you’re just trying to exploit workers rights when you can conveniently use them to criticize a party you don’t like.

I support workers wherever I can, I may even be indirectly doing so every time I respond to you. For all I know you get paid by the post.

[curves2000]

The Canadian government needs to step in and start solving a lot of these issues with vital sectors of the economy such as airlines and transportation.

As a Calgarian I used to be very proud of Westjet, the little airline that could. I used to sit next to the founder at the Flames games. They were usually the airline that could be counted on to do the right thing a lot of times.

Ever since Onyx private equity group bought them, they haven't been the same. I personally haven't had a bad experience but in general, they are bad. In this particular case, I am siding with the workers without direct in-depth knowledge of the situation. I know how ruthless private equity can be.

We have this awful scenario in Canada where a lot of vital industries are being unreasonably allowed to be bought up, merge, become too big to fail all while being sheltered from competition and more. Bring in mass layoffs and non worker friendly policies while bringing turbulence to the market.

The feds bailout airlines like Air Canada during Covid and then allow them to team up with Westjet for this BS competition where they really don't compete as much as before on routes. Air Canada get's the east and Westjet the west with the sprinkles between them split. Nonsense garbage.

Now we have talk about CP Rail striking potentially as if supply chain issues and inflation isn't already a concern. Rail strikes, port strikes, airline's in shambles for years, CBSA potential strikes, CATSA labour issues a while back, screeners at the busiest airport in Canada averting strike at the last minute.

Canadians are getting screwed royally here for the most basic of things in their country. We are not a serious country in this regard. This strike is going to impost tends of thousands of dollars in losses on a lot of people and they are going to have to right tooth and nail to try and get the smallest amount of compensation from WJ as a result. A lot wont and will go through the tribunal process which is another gong show with 18 month long weight times.

We aren't pro business while not being pro union/workers rights and offer jack **** to consumers in terms of protection at the same time. We are left with virtually zero competition to fly Calgary to Regina because the private equity owned firm is playing games, while the taxpayer bailed out Air Canada stopped flying the route, the flight is beyond absurd in cost if you can even get on because everybody has their hands in your pocket and plays us Canadians like a fiddle.

[ThePrince]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Yet firebot still went out of his way to use the situation to try and attack parties he doesn’t like even though the party he constantly shakes pompoms for was taking the same stance. That’s the hypocrisy.

Pot, meet kettle.

Lol again, classic iggy_oi post - long post downplaying positions he doesn’t like, while failing to see how it goes both ways. Never change.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by ThePrince

Pot, meet kettle.

Lol again, classic iggy_oi post - long post downplaying positions he doesn’t like, while failing to see how it goes both ways. Never change.

Man you guys are bad at this but I’ll try and make the most of this anyways. Ill try and drag this post out a little too since you seem to like that.

If I’ve criticized one party for supporting the exact same action as another did in another situation where I didn’t criticize them, then show me exactly where I did so.

Like actually show me. All of our communication has been through text so unless you’re gonna accuse me of deleting or editing posts it should be very easy for you to do.

But don’t come out here with vague arguments or statements removing any and all nuance as you’ve been doing just to take a weak pot shot, it’s completely unproductive aside from making it look as though you can’t actually back up what you’re saying.

Absent of you providing actual proof of what you’re accusing me of, at this point your position has essentially become something along the lines of saying someone who supports a 1% tax cut has to also support a 50% tax cut regardless of any potential consequences because they’re both tax cuts. All or nothing with no nuance otherwise you’re a hypocrite. It’s ridiculous. I mean in a twisted way it’s also somewhat funny to observe, but ridiculous none the less.

[ThePrince]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Man you guys are bad at this but I’ll try and make the most of this anyways. Ill try and drag this post out a little too since you seem to like that.

If I’ve criticized one party for supporting the exact same action as another did in another situation where I didn’t criticize them, then show me exactly where I did so.

Like actually show me. All of our communication has been through text so unless you’re gonna accuse me of deleting or editing posts it should be very easy for you to do.

But don’t come out here with vague arguments or statements removing any and all nuance as you’ve been doing just to take a weak pot shot, it’s completely unproductive aside from making it look as though you can’t actually back up what you’re saying.

Absent of you providing actual proof of what you’re accusing me of, at this point your position has essentially become something along the lines of saying someone who supports a 1% tax cut has to also support a 50% tax cut regardless of any potential consequences because they’re both tax cuts. All or nothing with no nuance otherwise you’re a hypocrite. It’s ridiculous. I mean in a twisted way it’s also somewhat funny to observe, but ridiculous none the less.

Love this - downplay and then straw man. You talk about pot shots and nuance, but you have no clue what my position actually is. But then again, you’re the expert on pot shots.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by ThePrince

Love this - downplay and then straw man.

Love this, doubling down on accusing me of doing things without actually providing any reasoning or examples that illustrate how you came to that conclusion after I literally just called you out for doing just that.

You talk about pot shots and nuance, but you have no clue what my position actually is. But then again, you’re the expert on pot shots.

Your position has been to come out of nowhere to start attacking me for what appears to be no reason so I’m having as much fun with it as I can. As the old saying goes, when life gives you angry internet randos..oh wait there’s no such saying. My bad.

[OldDutch]

I think this strike is far too complex to assign blame. There probably is enough to go round all 3 parties. One party however shouldn’t have stuck their nose in if they didn’t know what they were doing. That would be our favorite clown show the liberals.

Good article on this, and how the Libs boffed this for Canadians.

https://calgaryherald.com/news/braid...cs-strike-mess

EDIT: going to add saying anything about opposition parties failing to act or not act is pointless. At this point standing by and watching the Liberals continue to implode is just too easy.

Also this is what happens when they “Listen to Canadians” yeash

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by OldDutch

I think this strike is far too complex to assign blame. There probably is enough to go round all 3 parties. One party however shouldn’t have stuck their nose in if they didn’t know what they were doing. That would be our favorite clown show the liberals.

Good article on this, and how the Libs boffed this for Canadians.

https://calgaryherald.com/news/braid...cs-strike-mess

It’s their fault WestJet’s lawyers didn’t advise their clients that they should continue to negotiate in an effort to avoid a work stoppage since the Union still had the right to legally proceed with their strike? After all if the Union’s lawyers were able to figure that out one would think WestJet’s lawyers ought to have been able to figure it out too.

The board enabled the binding arbitration ordered by O’Regan but then added: “ministerial referral does not have the effect of suspending the right to strike or lockout.”

It was literally in the order and WestJet still tried to act as though they had no knowledge of this. They made no effort to re-engage in negotiations to prevent the strike and even publicly threatened to discipline their employees for participating in a legal strike, which is also against the law.

While O’Regan did state that the order was inconsistent with his directive to the board that statement could mean a number of different things. If it comes out that his intention was for the CIRB to deny them their right to strike then I would agree with you that he definitely dropped the ball. Even though I wouldn’t be a fan of him trying to impose that on them. But if that were the case why would WestJet not have brought the error to his attention prior to the strike deadline and request that an updated directive be given before the strike deadline? The bigger question is if it was O’Regan’s intention why would he not make that order as soon as he noticed the error?(this is a gimme for someone to respond with “because he’s incompetent”, so you’re welcome in advance)

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

This is a huge loss for the Liberals. Going back as far as the 90’s they have usually doubled or tripled the vote count of the second place party in Toronto St Paul. To lose this stronghold sends a pretty clear message.

I wonder what the "polls are always wrong and should be ignored" crowd has to say about this.