Oh man, can you imagine the heads that would explode if the federal government was going to try to use resource money to build a sovereign wealth fund? Resources are under the purview of the provinces, but floating some idea around that would be both hilarious, and crater the NDP in Alberta forevermore.
I legitimately think Alberta would go the distance if the feds tried this and vote independence and/or try to join the USA. Nationalizing would be a horrendous message by Canada for a variety of reasons, and it would have far reaching negative economic implications at a time when Canada should be desperately trying to revive its economy and trying to convince everyone to invest in Canada, not tell them we’ll steal your #### and hit the road.
IEA out with their latest outlook. Projecting oil and gas demand growth out to 2050. The lefties and NDP are on the wrong side of reality on this. There are simply too many products and things made with O&G, that rely on it to work, and that these products feed deeply intertwined energy systems. People don’t understand it, and that’s the main issue- energy illiteracy. There are not the substitute products yet out there that people think there should be, and billions of people are getting out of energy poverty which means an all of the above solution not just solar and wind and nuclear/ all forms. I believe the only one seriously at risk that the IEA is forecasting to decline is coal.
As for the pipeline- oil is Canada’s biggest bargaining chip with a hostile trading partner threatening to annex it. To not build the pipe to me means that the feds believe the threat isn’t serious, which is definitely possible. If it is a serious threat, the pipe needs to be built yesterday. It really is that simple. Part of me wonders if the US, which I think largely views Canadas resources as belonging to them anyway, messaged to Canada not to build the pipeline or things would get intense on the annex front. It’s like hey- yeah- you’re not selling that to Asia Canada, nice try (messaged in a behind closed doors kinda way).
Last edited by Mr.Coffee; 11-13-2025 at 10:09 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Mr.Coffee For This Useful Post:
Building a building is by far the easiest part. The logistics for an efficient supply chain is a very different story. Especially when dealing with perishable+cold+frozen goods sourced from all over the world.
It blows my mind that most frozen pizzas I buy seem to come from Germany.
I agree. I am actually very surprised at the minds popping on the easy parts. I think the stores are a pretty easy lift in building the service and I think that getting contracts with farmers will go really well as many of those farmers would likely see a government contract as a lifeline.
The heavy lift is that middle "public food distribution" part. It would be the biggest logistic challenge but also have the most opportunity to add long term benefits and synergies with other services.
However, I am curious how much "all over the world" we would do in a public grocer. I would be more inclined to try to minimize global imports and focus on what you can source closer to home. Knowing the limitations of our growing season though, perhaps we need to go talk to Dyson about their farming innovations:
Circling back to a post earlier in the thread that actually touched upon something worth talking about:AI shouldn't be low priority in the slightest, AI (and automation, by extension) should be one of their biggest issues. (Also 'having your own AI' is sort of an irrelevant take for the FedNDP to get behind as a policy specific to them.)
Let's think in terms of the FedNDP being the party of the worker, of labour. The biggest threat to workers right now is automation and AI, easily the biggest economic threat facing workers in decades. Amazon alone is targeting 600,000 warehouse roles for automation, and it won't stop with unskilled/low-skill labour. Middle management, clerical, logistics, and customer-facing jobs are all in the blast radius (Amazon has said as much).
The FedNDP should have a strong point of view on AI and automation's impact to the workforce, and my thinking is their point of view should advocate for some means for workers displaced by AI and automation to have a significant portion of their lost salary covered. This could be the start of a very plausible "universal basic income" concept that voters would likely be onboard with, because these things can impact both blue collar and white collar workers.
"AI will free humans from menial jobs to go do things they want to do," yeah sure, with what money from what job? AI and automation will make redundant far more jobs than it'll create. The idea that we're gonna re-skill every labourer displaced by AI or automation is as pie-in-the-sky as it gets.
Sorry, I was clunky in my wording. I specifically trying to say that "fear of AI" is low priority. AI policies are a big deal and I agree that the NDP (and all of the parties) should really wrap their heads around how to handle it.
I am curious on the different approaches that people would support whether it is "pro-labour" or "populist":
- Pro-Labour might try to fight against AI in order to save jobs and when that fails, try and pump a lot of money into re-skilling people to get them into new jobs
- Populists might put less emphasis on saving jobs, admit that AI is coming whether we want it or not, and take steps to soften the blow to the people. Taxing AI agents as if they are workers is going to need to become a requirement and then using those tax dollars to stand up a UBI will be a big deal as more and more of the workforce gets laid off. Then, while the people are in the UBI safety net they can then focus on re-skilling to get back into the workforce.
The Liberal party's plan looks to be "support AI Development and investment" and "ensure monitoring of the impact of AI" and then a $15,000 upskilling benefit for workers but that might just be for people who are employed, not people who have been replaced by AI... I would say they have the corporatist approach locked in. I do not really see anything that helps people in their latest platform document.
That was a good time. The thought that a group of presumably sane people in boardroom somewhere believed that was a good idea is absolutely mind-boggling.
I doubt it was crafted in a boardroom. More likely at a table in the back of an independent bookstore in the Annex over free trade espresso.
You have to admire the earnestness of Lewis and Klein. And I don’t begrudge them earning a tidy living from their activism. But they’re about the furthest people imaginable from typical Canadians in outlook and lifestyle. If Lewis does win their NDP leadership, they’ll basically have turned the party into the Greens - an electorally-irrelevant talking shop for disaffected university graduate urbanites.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
The Following User Says Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
Oh man, can you imagine the heads that would explode if the federal government was going to try to use resource money to build a sovereign wealth fund? Resources are under the purview of the provinces, but floating some idea around that would be both hilarious, and crater the NDP in Alberta forevermore.
The reason conservatives have balked at sufficiently funding the Heritage Fund is their paranoia over the federal government swooping in and claiming it. If a federal party even hinted that they would do exactly that, it would supercharge Alberta independence and justify all the fears of the swivel-eyed loons over Ottawa.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
The Following User Says Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
I doubt it was crafted in a boardroom. More likely at a table in the back of an independent bookstore in the Annex over free trade espresso.
You have to admire the earnestness of Lewis and Klein. And I don’t begrudge them earning a tidy living from their activism. But they’re about the furthest people imaginable from typical Canadians in outlook and lifestyle. If Lewis does win their NDP leadership, they’ll basically have turned the party into the Greens - an electorally-irrelevant talking shop for disaffected university graduate urbanites.
People said that about Carney as well - "He wrote a book about renewable energy". But he hasn't had very much of a 'green' agenda since getting into office.
Avi might focus more on the populist movement and hope that a green agenda can flow from that with time. He can see the polls as well as anyone else:
When climate is #10 on the list, you put it on the backburner. His focus should be issue #1 and I would argue it is based on his early comments in the leadership race.
There has been a lot of talk about chewing gum and walking. I think Avi (or anyone running to be a party leader) is able to chew gum (have a climate policy) and walk (everything above climate on the lists) at the same time.
Knowing the limitations of our growing season though, perhaps we need to go talk to Dyson about their farming innovations:
Building some sort of massive greenhouse is one sort of "national" public project that should really be considered. There is so much available land up in northern Canada that is should be a good opportunity to build a massive greenhouse warehouse, build a nuke to power/heat it and build out a rail connection between the facility and a distribution point like Edmonton.
Building some sort of massive greenhouse is one sort of "national" public project that should really be considered. There is so much available land up in northern Canada that is should be a good opportunity to build a massive greenhouse warehouse, build a nuke to power/heat it and build out a rail connection between the facility and a distribution point like Edmonton.
Sorry, I was clunky in my wording. I specifically trying to say that "fear of AI" is low priority. AI policies are a big deal and I agree that the NDP (and all of the parties) should really wrap their heads around how to handle it.
I am curious on the different approaches that people would support whether it is "pro-labour" or "populist":
- Pro-Labour might try to fight against AI in order to save jobs and when that fails, try and pump a lot of money into re-skilling people to get them into new jobs
- Populists might put less emphasis on saving jobs, admit that AI is coming whether we want it or not, and take steps to soften the blow to the people. Taxing AI agents as if they are workers is going to need to become a requirement and then using those tax dollars to stand up a UBI will be a big deal as more and more of the workforce gets laid off. Then, while the people are in the UBI safety net they can then focus on re-skilling to get back into the workforce.
The Liberal party's plan looks to be "support AI Development and investment" and "ensure monitoring of the impact of AI" and then a $15,000 upskilling benefit for workers but that might just be for people who are employed, not people who have been replaced by AI... I would say they have the corporatist approach locked in. I do not really see anything that helps people in their latest platform document.
A "pro-labour" plan that tries to slow or block AI is pointless, though; you can't regulate automation out of existence, especially as it has already been around for decades in some form or another. The real labour position is what happens after the jobs go, ie: basic economic protection. If a company replaces a thousand workers with automation then it should pay into the same tax base those workers used to support, funding a real income floor for people who get displaced. How do you accomplish that? F-ck knows, but it's at least the start of a conversation that the other parties aren't having. An NDP with a real pro-labour stance could hammer on the Liberal plan as the classic corporatism it is, really. Cheer on AI adoption, monitor the fallout, hand out a small upskilling credit (ie: "welp, you're on your own now"). It does nothing for someone who already lost their job. Re-skilling will help a minority, but there will not be enough new roles to absorb everyone who gets replaced.
If the NDP wants relevance, they gotta be the ones sounding the alarm bells that the other parties aren't: Automation is coming fast, it will erase huge numbers of jobs, and -- as neither the Liberals nor Cons seem to have a sensible plan to address it -- their platform is to make sure workers don't get crushed by it.
A "pro-labour" plan that tries to slow or block AI is pointless, though; you can't regulate automation out of existence, especially as it has already been around for decades in some form or another. The real labour position is what happens after the jobs go, ie: basic economic protection. If a company replaces a thousand workers with automation then it should pay into the same tax base those workers used to support, funding a real income floor for people who get displaced. How do you accomplish that? F-ck knows, but it's at least the start of a conversation that the other parties aren't having. An NDP with a real pro-labour stance could hammer on the Liberal plan as the classic corporatism it is, really. Cheer on AI adoption, monitor the fallout, hand out a small upskilling credit (ie: "welp, you're on your own now"). It does nothing for someone who already lost their job. Re-skilling will help a minority, but there will not be enough new roles to absorb everyone who gets replaced.
If the NDP wants relevance, they gotta be the ones sounding the alarm bells that the other parties aren't: Automation is coming fast, it will erase huge numbers of jobs, and -- as neither the Liberals nor Cons seem to have a sensible plan to address it -- their platform is to make sure workers don't get crushed by it.
Yes, I agree. Which is why I didn't like the vibe of Tony's approach to the AI conversation.
Canada needs to get in front of AI and address it head on and I think there are two key issues that need to be addressed quickly.
1) Nationalize AI. If Canadians are going to adopt AI, we need to ensure that the AI is Canadian. It can still be "Microsoft" or "Google" or whatever but they need to house it on Canadian servers and that the data from the AI is not being given to foreign governments or agencies. (This would help ensure local jobs)
Following that, align the AI to Canadian requirements and values to ensure it is not telling people to kill themselves and offering to write the suicide note. It would also be good to force the AI companies to force more fact based results and discourage misinformation.
Any AI company that refuses to play within the rules of Canada gets blocked from being deployed. This wouldn't really come as a surprise to most SaaS companies as many Canadian companies force their data to be in Canada data centres to protect the data from US Government overreach (they have a law saying they can look at anything they want in a US data centre).
2) Catch the fallout of AI on the workforce. We already have SOX reporting and SOX compliance. The audits can cover things like "how many computers did a company buy and how many are in use". All that would really need to be done is expand the SOX audits to include AI consumption and AI agents. Once you have that data you can ensure the proper taxes are applied based on their use of AI to replace the workforce.
So now the government isn't just owning and operating food production, distribution, sales, real estate, housing, property management and a bunch of other things, but they're getting into the tech sector too. What industry is next, I wonder?
The government isn't even competent to regulate AI properly - we have to cross our fingers and hope they do a good enough job to mitigate some of these harms despite a clear imbalance in expertise between the public and private sectors - much less be in charge of operating it.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
So now the government isn't just owning and operating food production, distribution, sales, real estate, housing, property management and a bunch of other things, but they're getting into the tech sector too. What industry is next, I wonder?
The government isn't even competent to regulate AI properly, much less be in charge of operating it.
For this thread, here's a great idea. The government runs everything and collects all the money, then divides it equally among all citizens for our wages.
So now the government isn't just owning and operating food production, distribution, sales, real estate, housing, property management and a bunch of other things, but they're getting into the tech sector too. What industry is next, I wonder?
The government isn't even competent to regulate AI properly - we have to cross our fingers and hope they do a good enough job to mitigate some of these harms despite a clear imbalance in expertise between the public and private sectors - much less be in charge of operating it.
How big of a corporatist shill are you? You just bleated out 3 of their talking points in 2 sentences.
Waaaaaaah, the private sector is so great.
Sniffle, people become dumber if they get hired by the government.
Sob, this idea is too complicated!
Also, way to ignore the issues of our data all being served up to America or how American companies are adjusting their AI to do horrible things (Kids committing suicide and Mecha-Hitler).
If you pretend I said "on shore" instead of "nationalize" would it break your brain less?
In seriousness, and there's no way to say this without being condescending, I think it's great that you're really invested in the next iteration of the NDP, but you sound like a kid who just got to college and your brain is expanding and you've been exposed to all these new ideas and you're absolutely sure you've got everything all figured out and if people would just listen to you these huge, important problems would all be solved. This thread has repeatedly demonstrated that you don't have a clue what you're talking about on any of these topics. It's just such a hopeless naivete that it's impossible not to look at and be a bit vicariously embarrassed.
Everything that's important - and a lot of stuff of questionable importance - is enormously complex when it gets to a level of government policy. There are cascading impacts of even small tweaks to public policy, forget about things like attempting to "align AI with Canadian requirements", whatever that even means. It is extremely clear that you have a very superficial understanding about these topics, yet are expressing strong convictions about what should happen with this self-assured certainty that either speaks to a terrible case of Dunning-Krueger or - and this is why I asked what I asked earlier - the folly of youth that many of us have fallen victim to.
Just take a step back, calm the #### down, ask a lot more questions, and assume that you do not have any answers unless the area under discussion is one where you're a bona fide expert. Because the guns-a-blazing approach you're taking to this stuff is not a good look (as people in this thread have repeatedly tried to get you to understand either with gentle nudges or otherwise).
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
To be fair Corsi you do have a corporatist shill vibe to you. I think it’s the colours you chose for your new door and siding. Really screams maximizing shareholder value.
His cuddly approach aside, Wolven is not entirely wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolven
Yes, I agree. Which is why I didn't like the vibe of Tony's approach to the AI conversation.
Canada needs to get in front of AI and address it head on and I think there are two key issues that need to be addressed quickly.
1) Nationalize AI. If Canadians are going to adopt AI, we need to ensure that the AI is Canadian. It can still be "Microsoft" or "Google" or whatever but they need to house it on Canadian servers and that the data from the AI is not being given to foreign governments or agencies. (This would help ensure local jobs)
Following that, align the AI to Canadian requirements and values to ensure it is not telling people to kill themselves and offering to write the suicide note. It would also be good to force the AI companies to force more fact based results and discourage misinformation.
Any AI company that refuses to play within the rules of Canada gets blocked from being deployed. This wouldn't really come as a surprise to most SaaS companies as many Canadian companies force their data to be in Canada data centres to protect the data from US Government overreach (they have a law saying they can look at anything they want in a US data centre).
2) Catch the fallout of AI on the workforce. We already have SOX reporting and SOX compliance. The audits can cover things like "how many computers did a company buy and how many are in use". All that would really need to be done is expand the SOX audits to include AI consumption and AI agents. Once you have that data you can ensure the proper taxes are applied based on their use of AI to replace the workforce.
"Nationalize AI" isn't the right turn of phrase, it's "data sovereignty", and Canada has a serious problem there. We run on foreign cloud infrastructure owned by American companies, and even when the servers sit in Montreal or Toronto, the parent companies fall under US law. The CLOUD Act lets the US compel access to that data. Canada has no sovereign cloud equivalent and no domestic provider big enough to replace the American providers, so we keep getting more dependent on them. Blocking new AI deployments is a fantasy unless we want to kneecap ourselves. We are not the EU, and we do not have that kind of market leverage.
PIPEDA is outdated, we have nothing like GDPR, and the federal government hasn't built a coherent baseline for cross-border data control or AI-processed personal data. That is a national issue for any government to solve, not a differentiator the NDP can build a revival around. Every party should fix it, but none will win votes on it.
The NDP is in a rebuild, they are not forming opposition anytime soon, and they are not going to win on tech policy. If the party wants a reason to exist again, it really should go all-in on labour. That means hitting automation and AI's impact on workers, not drifting into jurisdiction fights they can't control anyway.
To be fair Corsi you do have a corporatist shill vibe to you. I think it’s the colours you chose for your new door and siding. Really screams maximizing shareholder value.
Excuse me, I crowdsourced that decision - it was made by the people. I am a siding colour populist, if anything.
Also I am pretty sure I recall you being a member of team green, and now I get nothing from you guys, I'm out here making interior design decisions by myself. It's a doomed process honestly.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
