Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by Slava

I think a Carney/Polievre debate is going to be fascinating. Whether you agree with him or not, Carney is the real deal. Obviously he was both the Bank of Canada and Bank of England governor. You don’t just end up in those roles and particularly not the BoE after if you don’t know what you’re doing.

He was the first non-Briton to run the Bank of England and took them through Brexit and a piece of Covid. In Canada he was governor coming out of the GFC (2008-09) where Canada was the first country to raise interest rates coming out of that crisis.

Bottom line, is it would be very interesting to see how Poilievre fares against an outsider, who clearly knows his stuff.

Carney is as financially savvy as it gets and certainly his financial pedigree is bar none the best that would come into parliament, but he's also an outsider, which will absolutely play against him as it did for Ignatieff. He also has never been in politics and does not have a seat. Trudeau and Ignatieff held elected seats for years before eventually becoming leader into an election. Carney is a complete unelected outsider in comparison heading into an election within months that could become PM without a seat (similar scenario was used consistently as an attack on Smith being premier in Alberta while unelected for example).

I don't understand his play for PM right now, considering it will be a considerable loss in the election. A number of Liberals including Trudeau and Telford's camp clearly want him to lead as the spiritual successor to enact Trudeau's policies and legacy, while Freeland is currently winning the hearts and mind Liberals. It may be that Liberal Party leadership rules may be why Carney is being pushed now by the Liberal core, as they may not be able to remove Freeland once she becomes leader, and who the core may see as having become a bit rogue.

https://torontosun.com/opinion/colum...clark-implodes

As for Poilievre, it honestly doesn't matter who he is is facing on the opposite side this coming election, as the incumbent is just that unpopular.

I think Carney will be the right leader for the Liberals eventually...just not while it's imploded from the inside as it is now. It makes little sense at the very moment.

[Slava]

Yeah, I don’t know why he’s going to run now because it seems like a lost cause. But I still want to see the debate and how that shakes down. Carney does have experience in the public eye and while that’s different from parliamentary politics, he’s not going to in parliament until after that election. He’d be PM outside the house.

[Jacks]

Ridiculous that Clark is now saying she "misspoke", she couldn't have been more clear and went to the extent of saying any evidence that she held a membership would be fabricated.

[Fuzz]

It's a good thing she didn't officially launch, because at this point she should quietly slink away.

[CaptainCrunch]

Mckinnon adds his name to the nope don't wanna club. At this point, why do we need 3 months for this.



Tell Carney and Freeland to commit by next weekend, and then hold a virtual meeting the weekend after that includes a vote, then get parliament back into session.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Firebot

Carney is as financially savvy as it gets and certainly his financial pedigree is bar none the best that would come into parliament, but he's also an outsider, which will absolutely play against him as it did for Ignatieff. He also has never been in politics and does not have a seat. Trudeau and Ignatieff held elected seats for years before eventually becoming leader into an election. Carney is a complete unelected outsider in comparison heading into an election within months that could become PM without a seat (similar scenario was used consistently as an attack on Smith being premier in Alberta while unelected for example).

I don't understand his play for PM right now, considering it will be a considerable loss in the election. A number of Liberals including Trudeau and Telford's camp clearly want him to lead as the spiritual successor to enact Trudeau's policies and legacy, while Freeland is currently winning the hearts and mind Liberals. It may be that Liberal Party leadership rules may be why Carney is being pushed now by the Liberal core, as they may not be able to remove Freeland once she becomes leader, and who the core may see as having become a bit rogue.

https://torontosun.com/opinion/colum...clark-implodes

As for Poilievre, it honestly doesn't matter who he is is facing on the opposite side this coming election, as the incumbent is just that unpopular.

I think Carney will be the right leader for the Liberals eventually...just not while it's imploded from the inside as it is now. It makes little sense at the very moment.

I doubt its going to make a difference in a general election whether its Freeland and Carney, and this prorogation combined with a bunch of senior Liberals noping or even walking away isn't going to help the Liberal fortunes.



It might be closer, but still likely a majority for the Cons. The announcement of Trudeau resigning actually increased the Conservative lead. The Libs have poisoned their brand.

[calgarygeologist]

Some good news from the federal government in that the zero emissions vehicle rebate program is going away at the end of March.

[Fuzz]

Great news, subsidizing wealthy people with tax dollars paid by everyone was always a poor policy.

[calgarygeologist]

Canada's Foreign Affairs Minister is not opposed to making life in Canada significantly more expensive by adding a retaliatory tariff on American goods and everything is on the table.

CTV News confirmed this week that Canadian officials are preparing a list of American products — including steel, ceramics, such as toilets and sinks, and Florida orange juice — that could be targeted with retaliatory tariffs in response to Trump’s threat.

Foreign Affairs Minister Melanie Joly is not ruling out any countermeasures when it comes to dealing with U.S. president-elect Donald Trump — his threat of significant tariffs on Canadian imports, in particular.

In an interview with host Vassy Kapelos for CTV Question Period, airing Sunday, Joly would not rule out cutting off energy exports to the U.S. in response to those tariff threats.

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, Quebec Premier François Legault and Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Andrew Furey have all said they are opposed to cutting off energy exports to retaliate.

The premiers will meet this week with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in person to discuss the Canadian response, with plans to travel to Washington, D.C., together next month for a Council of the Federation mission.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/ever...reat-1.7172631

[GullFoss]

Originally Posted by Slava

I think a Carney/Polievre debate is going to be fascinating. Whether you agree with him or not, Carney is the real deal. Obviously he was both the Bank of Canada and Bank of England governor. You don’t just end up in those roles and particularly not the BoE after if you don’t know what you’re doing.

He was the first non-Briton to run the Bank of England and took them through Brexit and a piece of Covid. In Canada he was governor coming out of the GFC (2008-09) where Canada was the first country to raise interest rates coming out of that crisis.

Bottom line, is it would be very interesting to see how Poilievre fares against an outsider, who clearly knows his stuff.

I don't think it will matter tbh. The recession in Ontario is starting to really bite and life there is getting worse. Homes are still too expensive, mortgage costs are biting, the immigration backlash there is real and legitimate given how many intl students and tfw have landed there. There is no reason for anyone in Ontario (outside of Ottawa and Kingston maybe) to vote liberal. They are going to get trounced.

[Geraldsh]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

Canada's Foreign Affairs Minister is not opposed to making life in Canada significantly more expensive by adding a retaliatory tariff on American goods and everything is on the table.


https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/ever...reat-1.7172631

Why cut off the exports? Keep the price + tariff costs and let the Americans pay.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

Canada's Foreign Affairs Minister is not opposed to making life in Canada significantly more expensive by adding a retaliatory tariff on American goods and everything is on the table.


https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/ever...reat-1.7172631

As she should be. Tariffs hurt both sides but if we're not willing to pay the price to inflict pain on the USA we have already lost. If the USA wants us to remove energy exports as a point of leverage they need to make concessions.

I wonder why we're not making noise about electric vehicle tariffs? Going after President Musk directly seems like the play to me.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Geraldsh

Why cut off the exports? Keep the price + tariff costs and let the Americans pay.

Because starving refineries and Americans without power aren't fixable with a subsidy. Cutoffs are a much bigger, sharper stick.

[Sylvanfan]

Originally Posted by SebC

Because starving refineries and Americans without power aren't fixable with a subsidy. Cutoffs are a much bigger, sharper stick.

The thing is that with a fossil fuel friendly administration coming in there's a path for the U.S. to expand crude oil production and potentially change their refineries to upgrade shale crude as opposed to what they get from Canada.

The U.S. is better positioned to win this trade war and frankly they've been moving this way for 20 years. So I think Canada needs to try and figure this out diplomatically rather than retaliatory. They can withstand our 50 nerf darts a lot easier than us taking thousands of ballistic missiles.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Sylvanfan

The thing is that with a fossil fuel friendly administration coming in there's a path for the U.S. to expand crude oil production and potentially change their refineries to upgrade shale crude as opposed to what they get from Canada.

The U.S. is better positioned to win this trade war and frankly they've been moving this way for 20 years. So I think Canada needs to try and figure this out diplomatically rather than retaliatory. They can withstand our 50 nerf darts a lot easier than us taking thousands of ballistic missiles.

How do you find a diplomatic solution when your opponent believes immigrants are eating their cats, eating their dogs? Rational arguments don't work anymore. I kinda think you have to speak in languages they understand. What I'm saying is, we need to lie to them and trick them into thinking they are doing what is best for America. If nothing else, they are incredibly easily manipulated. We just need to understand how to use the pressure points.

[Firebot]

Chretien calling out the Liberals pretty strongly to get back to being what they are supposed to be about

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/form...ntre-1.7172306

"It is a fundamental condition for the party to come back to be the radical centre, as I used to say, because it is what has been the Liberal party all along," Chretien said in an exclusive interview with CTV Question Period airing Sunday.

Liberals have strayed so far off the beaten track under Trudeau. I know it's popular here to claim centrism doesn't exist but it's time they reinvent themselves.
Chretien with Martin as finance minister has always been my favourite party leader duo. They did a lot of good things for Canada and righted the ship in a time of extreme turmoil and uncertainty about Canada's future.

It does seem like there are some quite different camps in the Liberals right now on what the Liberal party should be about, while unlikely could we see a split of the party? This similar turmoil broke the PC party.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Sylvanfan

The thing is that with a fossil fuel friendly administration coming in there's a path for the U.S. to expand crude oil production and potentially change their refineries to upgrade shale crude as opposed to what they get from Canada.

The U.S. is better positioned to win this trade war and frankly they've been moving this way for 20 years. So I think Canada needs to try and figure this out diplomatically rather than retaliatory. They can withstand our 50 nerf darts a lot easier than us taking thousands of ballistic missiles.

That doesn’t change that the initial gouging position has to be we are willing to nuke ourselves to take them with us.

[Sylvanfan]

Originally Posted by GGG

That doesn’t change that the initial gouging position has to be we are willing to nuke ourselves to take them with us.

Do you really think that the Americans can't overcome losing 100% of Canadian imports? Some short term pain, but there's many other ways they can get what they need.

[Sylvanfan]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

How do you find a diplomatic solution when your opponent believes immigrants are eating their cats, eating their dogs? Rational arguments don't work anymore. I kinda think you have to speak in languages they understand. What I'm saying is, we need to lie to them and trick them into thinking they are doing what is best for America. If nothing else, they are incredibly easily manipulated. We just need to understand how to use the pressure points.

What that administration says publicly for shock factor vs what they seek are two different things. It's not like Canada has not dealt with Trump before. He wants to be flattered and if you do that, than they can be manipulated. I'm not so sure getting defensive about tariffs would work as well as saying, you are right to do this and should probably put higher tariffs on our stuff would.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by opendoor

2 big reasons I can think of:

1) Basic fairness. With full income splitting, a single person would pay about 30-50% more income tax (depending on the income level) than a person earning the same amount but with a spouse who didn't work. Which can create some sort of perverse financial incentives, both marriages of convenience and people staying in relationships they'd otherwise leave.

2) It disincentivizes working for the lower earning spouse (primarily women) because it makes marginal income for that person be taxed at a higher rate than it otherwise would. Under the current system, if you had a person making $200K and their spouse didn't work, if that non-earning spouse rejoined the labor force and earned say $50K, they would keep almost all of that money with an average tax rate of about 15%. But with income splitting, if the non-earning spouse took that same $50K job, the effective tax rate on that additional income would be more like 35-40%. High labor force participation is generally a good thing for society but income splitting can discourage it, as can things like high childcare costs.

Granted, there are cases where you may want to encourage a member of the household to not work if they don't want to, like a family with very young kids. But if you want that, then you target that group with supports or tax incentives, rather than any random person who happens to be married.

For sure, I think the nuance that is lost in this however is when you have two working members in a household, and one makes significantly more than the other. I guess the incentive for the lower earning spouse is "find a better job", but that doesn't seem as strong.

For households with very unequal income, and kids in play (one spouse is optimizing their work for allowing them to be able to take care of kid stuff) it's not ideal. But that's pretty narrow, and will have some small tax burden increase for the majority to make that narrow case more "fair" (and incentivizing people to raise kids).