Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Vaieti

2019 Canadian Elections

Recommended Posts

Don’t Know how many people here want to discuss Canadian politics, but I was curious to know what people on here think of our current situation. Right now the Race is really between the Conservative party led by Andrew Sheer and the Liberal party of Justin Trudeau. The other partys that will be major parts of the opposition will be the New Democratic Party or NPD for short, led by Jagmeet Singh, and the Bloc Québécois, led by Yves-François Blanchet (which is a peculiar party but I’ll mention it later.) So, for the uninitiated, I’ll try to name the main objectives of each party in a first paragraph (major disclaimer: some of this may be out of date. The complete official platforms are not available as I am writing this, so I will use the ones from the previous elections combined with what we know, and try to remove what which I know is outdated)  then i’ll give my personal take on everything in a second one.

 

Canada is very different from most other countries in the sense that there are very little right wing options. The main right wing party is the Conservatives, and we now have the Canadian populist/people’s  party, which is about as right wing as the American Republican party. I won’t talk about the later, since they have very little political traction and very low chance of doing anything in the opposition, I won’t talk about the greens (although for the same reason. Now, what is the Conservative party? It is currently the most popular party by 0.2% but is half as likely to win as the liberals because they most likely won’t be able to win enough seats. Their leader, Andrew Sheer is an Ontarian, Roman Catholic and the current head of the opposition in Canada. Here are some changes they wish to push for:

Environment 

an Abolition of the Carbon tax, which they judge unfair.

 They want to cut funding to environmental policies that do not benefit the state.

They want to invest in offshore petroleum extraction, continue to encourage oil sand industry in Alberta and continue to invest in natural gas for energy generation, as well as continue investing in the construction of pipelines, even against the will of certain provinces, to carry petroleum through Canada and allow more exploitation.

They want to invest reasonably in Green energy to limit the effects of climate change.

They want a reduction in restrictions on general ore mining.

They do not advocate for a full transition out of fossil fuel, but rather a balanced energy mix.

They do not want to put more restrictions on internet and cellular cost, one of the highest in the world, but wan’t to improve signal coverage, which is lacking in the north. 

They will reduce taxation by 5% on green technology.

They would invest 250 million in private sectors to create new companies to develop green technology.

Economy

They wish to reduce or eliminate laws on foreign property.

They encourage non-interventionism with companies, big and small.

They want more trade-deals and want to limit protectionism around the world.

They want tax-cuts and reduction for the Canadian people.

They hold in priority reducing the Canadian debt.

Justice

They wish to slightly loosen gun laws.

They want to make sentences more harsh for fraud.

They want to give strong sentences for anyone found guilty of possessing illegal drugs.

They will not change laws on abortion, even though their leader is firmly anti abortion.

Family

They want to try to fix the declining birth rate.

They wish to reduce most fiscal disadvantages for parents at home.

Other laws

A review of the federation system, to try and officially conjoin Quebec to the federation, and remedy to the feeling of alienation (their words not mine) of the habitants of the Canadian west.

They might consider a change in election method.

They want a rep. by pop. senate.

They mostly will stick to status-quo for what I have not mentioned, including immigration, but I might have missed a few meaningful policies here and there because of how all over the place and unclear their official program is. Let’s continue with the liberal party. This is the current ruling party and will most likely be re-elected as a majority. Their leader is the well known Justin Trudeau. The party wishes to do the following during their second term:

environment 

They wish to rise the carbon tax, in order to economically discourage companies from polluting.

They want to outlaw single use plastic by 2021.

They wish to invest in New nuclear technology and starting research on small modular reactors by 2026.

They want to get rid of all coal plants by 2030.

They want to get rid of combustion car sale by 2040.

Investing 300 million more per year to green technology.

They will not push for a fast stop to oil sand exploitation.

They will continue investing in pipelines, even against the will of specific provinces.

Economy

Encourage a green economy.

reinforce the middle class.

Slightly more balanced taxes, a reduction of 22 percent on the middle class and an increase of 33% for the rich.

Raising international commerce.

More affordable housing.

More affordable high-education.

A reduction of the cost of medicine.

Investing massively in Infrastructure and those who will run them, even at the cost of a higher deficit.

Investing in collective transport.

Giving reasonable power to unions.

Family

Making maternal/paternal leaves less painful on the wallet.

Making it easier to get a leave to go see a gravely ill relative.

Reforming aspects of the worker’s code to help families.

Better employment insurance to help financial stability.

Crime

They wish to improve support to victims of sexual harassment/abuse.

Thigh tier gun laws.

Reduction of sentences attributed to owning illegal drugs.

other laws

They heavily favor higher immigration rates.

I really am tired of reading through their programs by now and having to often read between the lines to see what is actually promised. Now for the other two parties they depend on absolute priority. The NPD favors very socialist policies like: democratization of internet and large reduction to cellular fees, extreme and fast action on climate, including the cost of medication in canada’s Healthcare, but aside from that they have basically all the very progressive policies of the liberals, but more extreme. As for the Bloc, it is a Québec only party that stands at the left of the political spectrum. They are quite similar to the NPD in terms of focus on environment and Socialist policies, but there main objective is to represent and protect the interests of the province of Quebec. 

 

As for my opinion, I am a firm Bloc supporter. I believe that my culture is in danger with the current state of the Canadian federation. The French language is receding quickly in favor of mostly English, especially in Montreal, where it is becoming a common instance to be responded in English when ordering in French for instance. The facts that partys like the Conservative want to officially include Quebec in the federation is also proof that outside of our province, people don’t understand our precarious state regarding language and culture, and that being at least a separate entity within Canada is necessary to protect our different society. Another worrying fact for me is that Trudeau said he would not hesitate to veto the recent controversial law on secularism, that would require individuals in positions of authority to not bear any visible religious symbols. This law is supported by 72% of Quebec citizens. His reaction shows that the federal has the power to get rid of a law that was chosen democratically, in what is basically a completely different society, without possible opposition from said people. But enough about culture, I have other priorities as well. My second largest priority (which is really close to becoming first) is environment. The thing with environment is that Trudeau promised so much about Canada’s great green future, but he’s done close to nothing to help the environment and what he has done is counterbalanced by all the negative things he has done with petroleum exploitation. And don’t get me started on the conservatives. They wish to remove the carbon tax, one of the proven and true greatest way to incentivize companies to pollute less, and then help the environment even more by using the money obtained from carbon credits to invest Green. They also don’t believe that we should transition to all carbon free quickly, I mean whaaat? One of the only things that redeems the liberal party to me though is their investments in new nuclear which I highly support. Once again, the bloc is doing a good job here by calling out the Liberal’s unwillingness to do something and has done a lot of good to try their best in the conservative led opposition. I could also see myself voting for the NPD since Singh also is pretty pro-Quebec and has a great environmental plan. My only big problem with the NPD is that they don’t explain at all how they’ll do things. I want transparency damnit! As for economics the conservatives say they’ll cut taxes, but they’ll probably still find a way to fuck over the middle class, similarly to how Trump’s famous tax cut rose taxes for a lot of his voters. As for Trudeau, it’s pretty centrist, I would definitely prefer if he taxed the richest a bit more, same for large companies, but hey. The NPD’s wish for abordable cellular data and internet is great though especially considering that Canadian pay in average 30% more for data then the rest of the world, only because the government chose to not restrict the fees set by the 3 only major telecommunications companies. So basically my preference is Bloc-NPD-Liberal-Conservatives.

 

Well this took a while, I hope I’ll have drawn at least a bit of interest to this topic. Also let me know if I have gotten anything wrong or if you want me to back up my claims with data, I am currently on mobile so links are a pain but I’ll be able to respond with proper links.

 

 

Now if you wonder why law 21 is not so controversial within the province, you don’t have too look further then Quebec’s history with religion. The Duplessis era which lasted in the three years preceding WWII and between 1944 and 1959, is the cause of Quebec’s hostility to religion. During those 18 years Duplessis ruled, the Société Québécoise underwent a massive recession. With extreme Christian conservative policies, Duplessis basically gave control of education, culture and a lot of other aspect of everyday life to the church. Those years are remembered very negatively, and Duplessis policies, even those unrelated to the church, have forever tainted the reputation of organized religion. Our society still bears the scars of that “great darkness” as it is called here. The damage caused by his anti union policies, which made companies literally abuse their workers and created some of the worst working conditions in the provinces history. His policies against the intellectual elite and making basic education unaffordable for the poorer francophones, caused education (elementary school drop out was at 52%, for francophones, 5 times more than anglophones) to become increasingly rare and continued to hurt Quebec for years. All of these made Quebec suffer, and when the tranquil revolution arrived after his death, we evolved massively as a society and religion lost a lot of it’s influence and importance in our society. Here are the numbers on religion in Quebec: only 63% believe God exists, of those only 43% believe there religion as importance in there lives and only a small fraction, around 20% of believers, still practice their religion at least once a week. This is why the society of my province is favorable to such laws, because we are at a point where 57% of us believe that religion is only an aspect of personal life and should not intertwine with governmental work. We believe that employees of the government should represent religious neutrality or secularism, especially those in position of authority. I understand that some people still give great importance to religion, but I believe that we should learn to set it aside to show that our social responsibility goes before religion. This was my hot take on law 21, thank you for reading.

 

Edited by Vaieti
weird spacing and a typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Always been a Quebec secessionist myself but the Bloc is dead and frankly, so is the Quebec sovereignty drive amongst the general populace.

This post is probably much too excessively Quebec-centric for it to get traction though.

Still cool to see another Quebecois FE fan. 


 

Edited by Vince777

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Vince777 said:

Always been a Quebec secessionist myself but the Bloc is dead and frankly, so is the Quebec sovereignty drive amongst the general populace.

This post is probably much too excessively Quebec-centric for it to get traction though.

 

I mean I did say I would give my opinion at the end which is what I did, but yeah it is obviously Quebec-centric.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You missed the People's Party of Canada (PPC) who are a cross between the old Reform Party and the Libertarian Party. The modern day Conservatives are nothing more than what the Liberal Party used to be like when Chretien was running it.

I grew up in Toronto in a Liberal stronghold (provincial riding just flipped to NDP which is shocking) but my family always empathized more with the Conservatives. However, both my father and one of my sisters are probably going to vote PPC this time round because Maxime Bernier is the only leader who seems relatively sane. Considering that my father is an immigrant, even he has no issue with turning around and saying "look, mass immigration is a bad idea, let's pump the brakes on that train and reform the country's immigration policy to revolve around Canada's needs instead of blindly accepting everyone just because".

I also find it strange that you would side with the NDP after the Bloc. The NDP as they stand today would be firmly against things such as Quebec sovereignty on sheer principle because they fundamentally oppose nationalism, a key component of Quebec sovereignty. You'd be better served by voting PPC after Bloc in my opinion since you'd also be voting for a Francophone leader. He'd also allow Quebec to retain provincial control over things like education; a promise that not even the Liberals would dare make in fear of alienating their base.

Other things you missed:

1. Until recently, the debate commission went out of its way to block the PPC from engaging in the federal debates under restrictions that should have also stopped the Bloc and the Greens from participating... if the standards were consistent for everyone. But, the PPC has now been given permission to join and Jagmeet Singh (leader of the NDP) has formally asked the debate commission to bar the PPC on the grounds that they offend his morality. If he gets his wish, then Canada is in a much worse position regarding individual rights and freedoms than I had thought.

2. It is important to realize that no matter which of the three major parties that gains control (NDP/Conservative/Liberal), the budget will not be balanced. This means that the country will accrue heavy debt that will lead to higher taxes across the board. I can say this because the Liberals lied about their intention to balance the budget, the Conservatives have promised a balanced budget in five years minimum as opposed to their original promise of two and the NDP are economically illiterate (this applies both at the provincial level and federal).

3. Trudeau's finally worn out his welcome and even the Globe & Mail has started to nail his political corpse to the post. From the SNC-Lavalin scandal to the new "brownface" picture to Trudeau's general inability to understand the purpose and function of government, this party is going into freefall quickly. What do you expect from a leader who was elected solely on his flowing mane of hair and name?

Edited by Life

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Life said:

You missed the People's Party of Canada (PPC) who are a cross between the old Reform Party and the Libertarian Party. The modern day Conservatives are nothing more than what the Liberal Party used to be like when Chretien was running it.

I grew up in Toronto in a Liberal stronghold (provincial riding just flipped to NDP which is shocking) but my family always empathized more with the Conservatives. However, both my father and one of my sisters are probably going to vote PPC this time round because Maxime Bernier is the only leader who seems relatively sane. Considering that my father is an immigrant, even he has no issue with turning around and saying "look, mass immigration is a bad idea, let's pump the brakes on that train and reform the country's immigration policy to revolve around Canada's needs instead of blindly accepting everyone just because".

I also find it strange that you would side with the NDP after the Bloc. The NDP as they stand today would be firmly against things such as Quebec sovereignty on sheer principle because they fundamentally oppose nationalism, a key component of Quebec sovereignty. You'd be better served by voting PPC after Bloc in my opinion since you'd also be voting for a Francophone leader. He'd also allow Quebec to retain provincial control over things like education; a promise that not even the Liberals would dare make in fear of alienating their base.

Other things you missed:

1. Until recently, the debate commission went out of its way to block the PPC from engaging in the federal debates under restrictions that should have also stopped the Bloc and the Greens from participating... if the standards were consistent for everyone. But, the PPC has now been given permission to join and Jagmeet Singh (leader of the NDP) has formally asked the debate commission to bar the PPC on the grounds that they offend his morality. If he gets his wish, then Canada is in a much worse position regarding individual rights and freedoms than I had thought.

2. It is important to realize that no matter which of the three major parties that gains control (NDP/Conservative/Liberal), the budget will not be balanced. This means that the country will accrue heavy debt that will lead to higher taxes across the board. I can say this because the Liberals lied about their intention to balance the budget, the Conservatives have promised a balanced budget in five years minimum and the NDP are economically illiterate (this applies both at the provincial level and federal).

3. Trudeau's finally worn out his welcome and even the Globe & Mail has started to nail his political corpse to the post. From the SNC-Lavalin scandal to the new "brownface" picture to Trudeau's general inability to understand the purpose and function of government, this party is going into freefall quickly. What do you expect from a leader who was elected solely on his flowing mane of hair and name?

Yes, as I said at the beginning I didn’t mention the PPC because it doesn’t have enough traction yet with a possibility of winning only one seat.

I agree that most of our immigration policies are a train wreck and we need reforming there. The thing with immigration is that we need the balance between getting main-d’Œuvre which is lacking more and more because people are getting old and birth rates are low, and also having immigrants who will integrate quickly. That’s why, although I am very leftist myself, I do agree with certain immigration policies of more right wing parties that encourage immigrants needing to learn the main language of the province they wish to immigrate to (and for refugees, since they don’t always have the possibility to learn a new language, I believe we need to make drastically better integration programs). I believe that the future of this country lies with immigrants and it is up to them to become the next generation of Canadians.

But I still have a few major problems with Bernier. First I really dislike his provocative, un exemplary, attitude and as long as he continues to act like an immature teenager I can’t support him, although I do agree he deserves a place on the debate, no matter Singh’s opinion, it’s a question of free speech and not censoring different opinions, even those we don’t agree with at all. Second, his opinion on climate change is dangerous and denying clear scientific evidence is a slippery slope. And third his variant of populism seems unstable, letting any deputy inscribe their on law idea to the party’s program could quickly cause in-party division, but only time will tell for this.

As for the NPD I understand that this isn’t Mulclair’s party anymore, the one that got 45 seats in Quebec, but Singh did say that he would at least respect Quebec’s decision making and officially recognizes Quebec as different entity to Canada, which is already better than both the Libs and the Tories. My obvious problem with the NPD really is the typical problems linked to left populism, telling people what they want to hear while not explaining properly how they’ll achieve their goals while respecting the limits of our economy and the bonus that yeah his breed of left populism is opposed to divisive opinions in general which is really dumb and a dysfunctional way to see politics since it’s always divisive. 

 

Also, Fuck the name Trudeau in general, I don’t think I have to explain to you why this name is considered as a traitor’s name to us nationalists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know exactly why you consider Trudeau a traitor. PET fucked you guys hard. Like father, like son.

As for the climate change stuff and Bernier, there are a few things to understand:

Canada's carbon footprint is 1.6% of the entire world's output. We could multiply our oil production in Alberta tenfold and this number would still remain under 2% of the world's emissions. Climate policy in Canada is like shooting yourself in the foot in order to sympathize with people in wheelchairs. If you want to do something meaningful in the climate debate, then convince China to stop polluting (who contribute 26% of the world's carbon emissions as of 2014 so this number could be sitting at 30% today).

What you are trying to do is to put a band-aid on a near fully decapitated leg and pretend that the leg is now healed while it hangs on by a tendon. It's laughable due to how incredibly futile the effort is.

And regarding Bill 21 (which is important to you), here's Bernier's statement vs. Singh's.

Quote

When asked about the bill on CTV’s Power Play, People’s Party of Canada Leader Maxime Bernier said he, like Scheer, would not intervene in the matter.

“The Quebec government will have to be judged from Quebecers at the next election, so I won’t interfere in that, it’s in the constitution,” he said.  “It is not something that I can speak about because I’m respecting the constitution and I respect the decision from the Quebec government. They will have to live with it.”

Quote

In a campaign advertisement released last week, NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh addressed the discrimination he would face as a turbaned Sikh in Quebec. Under the legislation, he would have to remove his turban to work as a police officer or school teacher.

“I think about all the people I’ve met in Montreal – the young women who I met who love science and teaching but can’t because of the bill. It’s a divisive law,” said Singh in his campaign launch speech in London, Ont.

“We say don’t discriminate someone by the way they look, there’s a law that says we’re allowed to. I’m hoping my presence in Quebec as someone who wears a turban is a way to show people that I believe in fighting for your identity.”

Singh has a vested interest in removing Bill 21 because it would affect him personally. Bernier will let you keep it on the basis that it's a Quebec law. One of the two is working on principle and it's not Singh.

Edited by Life

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Life said:

I know exactly why you consider Trudeau a traitor. PET fucked you guys hard. Like father, like son.

As for the climate change stuff and Bernier, there are a few things to understand:

Canada's carbon footprint is 1.6% of the entire world's output. We could multiply our oil production in Alberta tenfold and this number would still remain under 2% of the world's emissions. Climate policy in Canada is like shooting yourself in the foot in order to sympathize with people in wheelchairs. If you want to do something meaningful in the climate debate, then convince China to stop polluting (who contribute 26% of the world's carbon emissions as of 2014 so this number could be sitting at 30% today).

What you are trying to do is to put a band-aid on a near fully decapitated leg and pretend that the leg is now healed while it hangs on by a tendon. It's laughable due to how incredibly futile the effort is.

And regarding Bill 21 (which is important to you), here's Bernier's statement vs. Singh's.

Singh has a vested interest in removing Bill 21 because it would affect him personally. Bernier will let you keep it on the basis that it's a Quebec law. One of the two is working on principle and it's not Singh.

Yeah I am aware of every party’s opinion on bill 21 as it is something I care about. Everyone except Trudeau basically said that if the Supreme Court doesn’t rule it as unconstitutional they won’t do anything further, the only difference is that Singh said that he “obviously didn’t agree with it” but showed great integrity by saying he would respect the decision of the court.

 

As for petrol and oil sand  it’s not so much about CO2 emissions, but more about the damage it does to our forests and land as well as the agressive tactics the government employs when building pipelines. I would much rather Canada go for a Nuclear based energy (which we could do) economy than petroleum. Also, I believe we need to set an exemple to other country that switching out of a fossil fuel economy is viable long term, as it is one of the main worries that prevent a lot of right wingers from supporting major environmental action. Obviously a day will come when we’ll run out of petroleum and that day must not be a fatal blow to our economy. I don’t believe in an immediate stop to petroleum exploitation, unlike certain ideologists, it obviously is very profitable and gives thousands of Albertans solid jobs, but we need to reduce it just a little every year to make sure we can keep a functional economy 50 years in the future.

Also it’s interesting to see people outside the province understand and sympathize with the nationalist movement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In all honesty, I don't Singh would respect the decision of the court. Singh has caused the downfall of the Alberta NDP by attempting to gut their economy for environmental purposes. Oil is the only thing that keeps Alberta afloat and accounts for 10% of the country's GDP. Is it worth a 10% drop in the national economy when we are already spiraling into debt? No. But Singh has already admitted that he would do this by mandate if the NDP were in power. Do you really think the NDP would let Bill 21 go if they got into power? Not a chance. You're all just racists to them. Their words, not mine.

I'd love nuclear power to also be the main base of Canadian energy but that is not feasible as it stands due to the stigma it has.

For the record, I'm hardcore right-wing Libertarian and I'll push the PPC hard. Nationalism only has a bad connotation by way of narrative. It literally means "love for one's nation". The trick is to not substitute any flawed religious diety with the nation-state and since Bernier is a Libertarian at heart, I would be shocked if he did that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Life said:



Canada's carbon footprint is 1.6% of the entire world's output. We could multiply our oil production in Alberta tenfold and this number would still remain under 2% of the world's emissions. Climate policy in Canada is like shooting yourself in the foot in order to sympathize with people in wheelchairs. If you want to do something meaningful in the climate debate, then convince China to stop polluting (who contribute 26% of the world's carbon emissions as of 2014 so this number could be sitting at 30% today).

As far as convincing China goes, I'm not sure how could this possibly be done without preaching by example first. Canada's efforts make sense if it is part of a global effort. 

That said, I certainly won't fault Alberta for using it's resources fully and I'd certainly back Quebec using it's own even if it meant a larger carbon footprint.

I don't vote though, it feels like an absolute waste of my time  and the one time I did these past 10 years was for a fringe party at the provincial level and to pay back a favor.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Life said:

In all honesty, I don't Singh would respect the decision of the court. Singh has caused the downfall of the Alberta NDP by attempting to gut their economy for environmental purposes. Oil is the only thing that keeps Alberta afloat and accounts for 10% of the country's GDP. Is it worth a 10% drop in the national economy when we are already spiraling into debt? No. But Singh has already admitted that he would do this by mandate if the NDP were in power. Do you really think the NDP would let Bill 21 go if they got into power? Not a chance. You're all just racists to them. Their words, not mine.

I'd love nuclear power to also be the main base of Canadian energy but that is not feasible as it stands due to the stigma it has.

For the record, I'm hardcore right-wing Libertarian and I'll push the PPC hard. Nationalism only has a bad connotation by way of narrative. It literally means "love for one's nation". The trick is to not substitute any flawed religious diety with the nation-state and since Bernier is a Libertarian at heart, I would be shocked if he did that.

I agree that my perception of the NPD as it stands is based on Mulclair’s time, and that from the look of things Singh has been mostly a detriment to the party and especially it’s provincial branches, but I’ll keep faith that the NPD will rebuild itself by going back to what made them a great option. And yes as I said earlier we need to accept that, for now, Alberta’s petroleum industry is extremely important to our economy and putting the axe in it now is suicide. What I believe should be done, after reflecting on this for the entire day, is continuing to match our petroleum production with the demand, while investing the profit obtained from the sale of that petroleum into durable development in other field. My line of thought is that Russia and Saudi-Arabia have the ability to double their production at anytime they want, so if we were to back out of the competition, they would be the ones to profit from it and the world would still be as polluted, we only would have the illusion that we did something “good”. As much as I hate having Oil exploitation in Canada the demand isn’t going away anytime soon and it’s MUCH better if the money from that petroleum goes into our economy instead of fueling the repressive government of Putin or MBS. We, as a society, depend way too much on petroleum and that’s what need to change, then the law of supply demand will fix things by itself.

As for libertarianism I believe it is, currently, unviable for two reasons. The first is that people are not disciplined enough when it comes to consommation, just take a look at the US. As long as people continue creating a demand that shouldn’t exist, companies need to be kept in check by a strong government. The second is that we absolutely need to steer away from the iceberg that is climate change, again if we let companies do their things, we’ll see a lot more like the Koch industries sprouting up and accelerating warming tenfold if it turns a profit. Once those issues are resolved, my only concern is the same as with communism, will human nature make it fail any way?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Vaieti said:

We believe that employees of the government should represent religious neutrality or secularism, especially those in position of authority. I understand that some people still give great importance to religion, but I believe that we should learn to set it aside to show that our social responsibility goes before religion. This was my hot take on law 21, thank you for reading.

While I understand the hostility towards religion, as an American, I see banning government employees from displaying their beliefs as a violation of their free speech. In my opinion, encouraging religious neutrality or secularism is just as bad as encouraging religiosity. I think the best way to handle religion is to not have any policy or stance on religion at all. Religion is a private matter, just like sexul orientation and ethnic backgound and cultural practices, and I do not think it is right for the government to dictate matters that are personal and private. As long as whatever outfit government employees are wearing do not interfere with their work, putting in a new dress code just seems like a petty move to get back at the church.

To truly separate the church and the state, I believe the best way to go about it is for the church and the state to pretend the other does not exist. We should still have laws protecting people's right to believe in what they want and have anti-discrimination laws cover religion, but outside of things like that, the government ideally should not have any policy or stance on religion.

Edited by XRay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, XRay said:

While I understand the hostility towards religion, as an American, I see banning government employees from displaying their beliefs as a violation of their free speech. In my opinion, encouraging religious neutrality or secularism is just as bad as encouraging religiosity. I think the best way to handle religion is to not have any policy or stance on religion at all. Religion is a private matter, just like sexul orientation or ethnic backgound, and I do not think it is right for the government to dictate matters that are personal and private. As long as whatever outfit government employees are wearing do not interfere with their work, putting in a new dress code just seems like a petty move to get back at the church.

To truly separate the church and the state, I believe the best way to go about it is for the church and the state to pretend the other does not exist. We should still have laws protecting people's right to believe in what they want and have anti-discrimination laws cover religion, but outside of things like that, the government ideally should not have any policy or stance on religion.

To be fair a large part of my stance on this issue probably stems from being strongly anti-clerical myself, but I truly believe that people in a position of authority  should not display their religious beliefs. In my opinion they have the duty to show total neutrality, and to me, showing religious signs is not what I would call total neutrality. It is my stance, and I do recognize it is bias, but it is what it is. And I should add that I completely understand the other side of the argument, I understand why people believe it is a violation of free speech, I just believe it is a necessary one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, XRay said:

While I understand the hostility towards religion, as an American, I see banning government employees from displaying their beliefs as a violation of their free speech. In my opinion, encouraging religious neutrality or secularism is just as bad as encouraging religiosity. I think the best way to handle religion is to not have any policy or stance on religion at all. Religion is a private matter, just like sexul orientation and ethnic backgound and cultural practices, and I do not think it is right for the government to dictate matters that are personal and private. As long as whatever outfit government employees are wearing do not interfere with their work, putting in a new dress code just seems like a petty move to get back at the church.

To truly separate the church and the state, I believe the best way to go about it is for the church and the state to pretend the other does not exist. We should still have laws protecting people's right to believe in what they want and have anti-discrimination laws cover religion, but outside of things like that, the government ideally should not have any policy or stance on religion.

I back this 100%. I just also understand that this is reality and I try to understand Quebec's position.

Don't get me wrong. I think Quebec separatism is a terrible idea. But Quebec nationalism? Let Quebec be Quebec instead of forcing our beliefs on them? You guys don't force anything on Ontario. Why shouldn't we do the same?

Edited by Life

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Life said:

I back this 100%. I just also understand that this is reality and I try to understand Quebec's position.

Don't get me wrong. I think Quebec separatism is a terrible idea. But Quebec nationalism? Let Quebec be Quebec instead of forcing our beliefs on them? You guys don't force anything on Ontario. Why shouldn't we do the same?

Yeah, to me, and probably a lot of separatists, independence is what we see as our only option, because of how the federal treats us. I would much rather stay and benefit from all the advantages that the redistribution of definitely not Alberta’s extra revenue from richer province. The thing is that right now all the partys don’t even want to recognize our rights.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Liberals are red.

Conservatives are blue.

Both parties care about themselves,

and don't give a shit about you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Vince777 said:

Why?

You can't support yourself financially. You require the equalization formula for money. If you guys separate, you'll be asking to rejoin within 10 years due to being dead broke with no actual resources to call your own.

That's from your side. From our side, we lose lose easier access to the Maritimes. Nobody gains anything from Quebec separatism.

I'm all for keeping Quebec Quebec. But I'm also a realist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Life said:

You can't support yourself financially. You require the equalization formula for money. If you guys separate, you'll be asking to rejoin within 10 years due to being dead broke with no actual resources to call your own.

That's from your side. From our side, we lose lose easier access to the Maritimes. Nobody gains anything from Quebec separatism.

I'm all for keeping Quebec Quebec. But I'm also a realist.

Independence shouldn't be achieved solely for economical reasons and isn't sought for those reasons anyway so there wouldn't be any asking to join the confederation back after 10 years, nor would Canada allow it anyway.

It is silly to believe Quebec lacks resources of it's own. It stands on the Canadian shield, which is minerals heavy, it is nearly completely electricity-energy efficient and independent, and it is pretty much enjoying a nearly full-employement climate at we stand. Best it's been in decades. 

The benefits from equalization payments, which is only a small part of transfer payments to the provinces and some of which is Quebec money coming back, stand against Canada and it's government's priorities, which do not always align with Quebec's. When Canada bailed out the Ontario's auto industry from collapse, for example, we didn't benefit from that and yet still contributed to the pot. Oil producing provinces (basically what you need to be to be an "have" province, ask Newfoundland) rave about their revenues but it is still an industry that's yet still subsidized and was developped largely thanks to investments by the government, which mostly came from eastern Canada. For thanks, we had the industry denationalized and now there are complaints about the formula. 

Quebec managing it's own economy means managing it's finance with itself alone as focus. It would invest in it's own strenghts and industries. Besides, nothing stops Quebec from scaling back some of our numerous social programs if ever it is required to do so. Of course it could support itself. The only argument you could have is that you believe it would fare worse and that's in my opinion debatable.

Under any free trade agreement, and why wouldn't there be one, western Canada would still have full access to the Maritimes and the eastern ports, just as well as the St Lawrence river, which Ontario is dependent on.

 

Edited by Vince777

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Vince777 said:

Independence shouldn't be achieved solely for economical reasons and isn't sought for those reasons anyway so there wouldn't be any asking to join the confederation back after 10 years, nor would Canada allow it anyway.

It is silly to believe Quebec lacks resources of it's own. It stands on the Canadian shield, which is minerals heavy, it is nearly completely electricity-energy efficient and independent, and it is pretty much enjoying a nearly full-employement climate at we stand. Best it's been in decades. 

The benefits from equalization payments, which is only a small part of transfer payments to the provinces and some of which is Quebec money coming back, stand against Canada and it's government's priorities, which do not always align with Quebec's. When Canada bailed out the Ontario's auto industry from collapse, for example, we didn't benefit from that and yet still contributed to the pot. Oil producing provinces (basically what you need to be to be an "have" province, ask Newfoundland) rave about their revenues but it is still an industry that's yet still subsidized and was developped largely thanks to investments by the government, which mostly came from eastern Canada. For thanks, we had the industry denationalized and now there are complaints about the formula. 

Quebec managing it's own economy means managing it's finance with itself alone as focus. It would invest in it's own strenghts and industries. Besides, nothing stops Quebec from scaling back some of our numerous social programs if ever it is required to do so. Of course it could support itself. The only argument you could have is that you believe it would fare worse and that's in my opinion debatable.

Under any free trade agreement, and why wouldn't there be one, western Canada would still have full access to the Maritimes and the eastern ports, just as well as the St Lawrence river, which Ontario is dependent on.

 

So, regarding equalization, it's mostly Ontario (sad to say but I blame the OLibs for that) and BC who screwed everyone else.

Alberta has the same case for separatism as you, even moreso since they have a neighbouring province who goes out of their way to cripple their economy (read up on how BC has treated Alberta in the past 5 years, it's rather shocking). But the major difference is that you've failed two referendums on the issue and they haven't even had one (but that would also fail if you ask me).

As for social programs, I don't think Quebec would scale back their social programs since those are already conducted at the provincial level. Education is provincial, health care is provincial, most taxes and tariffs regarding inter-country trade are provincial... What would you legitimately scale back? I'm actually curious about this.

Would you go the Ontario Conservative route of cutting major social benefits and STILL end up with a deficit (Doug Ford's government reported a $7.4 billion deficit in its first year, half of the projected number)? Or do you rack up the costs early and hope to pay back heavy debts with revenues from your mineral depositories (which may take over a generation to realize a profit for the province)? I get that you only have exploration rights to 5% of the land but the cost to set up mines and communities will be incredibly high at the start and won't pay for themselves overnight.

Don't get me wrong; I think Quebec has been screwed and it has come from the hands of my province. I just don't think burning down the house is the right option and we should rather change things like the equalization formula and inter-province trade.

 

I know a lot more about Ontario politics than Quebec so I don't think I'm ever going to convince you of anything. But the same people who put the screws to you did the same to us and we just kicked them out of Queen's Park last year (I didn't, I spoiled my ballot because I did not believe in the Conservatives actually being even relatively honest about their priorities). A Conservative Ontario and the PPC at the federal level (hopefully in 5 years) can surely help change and heal some of the relationship that Kathleen Wynne spat on for years.

Edited by Life

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Life said:

So, regarding equalization, it's mostly Ontario (sad to say but I blame the OLibs for that) and BC who screwed everyone else.

Alberta has the same case for separatism as you, even moreso since they have a neighbouring province who goes out of their way to cripple their economy (read up on how BC has treated Alberta in the past 5 years, it's rather shocking). But the first difference is that you've failed two referendums on the issue and they haven't even had one (but that would also fail if you ask me).

As for social programs, I don't think Quebec would scale back their social programs since those are already conducted at the provincial level. Education is provincial, health care is provincial, most taxes regarding inter-country trade are provincial... What would you legitimately scale back? I'm actually curious about this.

Would you go the Ontario Conservative route of cutting major social benefits and STILL end up with a deficit (Doug Ford's government reported a $7.4 billion deficit in its first year, half of the projected number)? Or do you rack up the costs early and hope to pay back heavy debts with revenues from your mineral depositories (which may take over a generation to realize a profit for the province)? I get that you only have exploration rights to 5% of the land but the cost to set up mines and communities will be incredibly high at the start and won't pay for themselves overnight.

Don't get me wrong; I think Quebec has been screwed and it has come from the hands of my province. I just don't think burning down the house is the right option and we should rather change things like the equalization formula and inter-province trade.

I've never equated Alberta's separatism movement with Quebec's because it just seems very fringe. Major provincial political parties support it here and I don't think anything of the sort exists in Alberta. It's mainly driven by the idea that Quebecois are a people whereas Alberta's seems only driven by taxation arguments. I don't think that's enough to ever get popular traction. Hasn't been thus far.

I'm not proposing anything specific, I'm just saying scaling back on cost can be done here and there. It will always remain an option if budgets become more difficult to balance. There are some things I believe we could save on however by repatriating federal taxes, such as military costs, scaling back the number and size of embassies and the absurd amounts we spend on the otherwise mostly useless northern territories.  Until we drill there for anything or start being paid for ships to go through, they are a drain on our economy and one Quebec would not have.

I don't think Quebec will get most of it's revenues from it's natural resources. It does not at the moment and the economy is decently diversified. It would I assume continue to concentrate on it's strenghts and already most contributing sectors, like pharmaceuticals, biotechnology and aerospace. 

I've no desire to burn a house, or destroy anything, I just find it tragic that a people wouldn't give themselves their own country. I don't get it. Being in Canada feels like vassalage to me. A people should want to be on the world map. They should want to be a speaking member on international summits. They should want a voice of their own.

Regardless, I love Canadians, I think they're great and will always wish them all the best but they just feel as foreign to me as Americans do. 

Edited by Vince777

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, since Quebec sovereignty is off of the table (and it is until another referendum is announced), put on your Canadian hat and realize that you and I are actually both equal citizens of this country and the coming election is fascinating.

Edited by Life

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I moved to a non-competitive riding in the past few years (actaully to one of the few safe NDP seats left in the country) so I'm pretty free to just vote my conscience this election. I'll probably read up on the candidates before making a final decision. I've never voted for the NDP before (I'm relatively centrist economically) but if I like the incumbent's record I may consider it, otherwise it'll probably be Liberals or Greens. I'm not a super-huge fan of our system in which my vote doesn't actually matter much, I wish we would allot at least some seats based on popular vote. But I'm very aware that all democratic systems have flaws, and I'll grant that ours has generally produced pretty good governments compared to some countries. It's really hard not to look across the border, or to the United Kingdom, and be grateful for what we have here these days.

It seems like the overall election is very competitive between the Liberals and Conservatives. I'd certainly prefer the Liberals out of those two: they haven't been perfect, but Scheer hasn't done enough to assure me he wouldn't just be a continuation of the Harper regime, and as 2011-2015 was the worst period of Canadian government in my lifetime, I'm not eager to see that. I would actually be quite pleased if we got a minority government, since I don't think the Canadian system puts enough checks on majority governments and we've learned that the hard way over the past 8 years. Unfortunately the weaker NDP (and Bloc, for all that I have no love for them) makes that less likely even in a neck-and-neck situation like we have.

On 9/19/2019 at 6:50 AM, Life said:

Considering that my father is an immigrant, even he has no issue with turning around and saying "look, mass immigration is a bad idea, let's pump the brakes on that train and reform the country's immigration policy to revolve around Canada's needs instead of blindly accepting everyone just because".

Are you kidding me? I have no trust for candidates who seek to demonize immigration as one of our main problems, and nor should you. I live in one of the parts of the country with the highest immigration rates (Vancouver) and highest levels of immigrant population. If immigration was a problem, surely you'd see the problems manifest here first, but instead we're doing very well, thank you. And you don't have to take my word for it: the party which flirted with anti-immigration rhetoric last cycle (the Conservatives) got wiped out here. You're from Toronto so I don't want to speak for that city, but from a distance I observe a similar pattern there, and there's absolutely a similar pattern in the US, the UK, and various other nations. Anti-immigrant sentiment is most easily stoked in rural places which hardly have to deal with immigrant population at all because it's simply playing to a very natural human fear of the unknown.

The Canadian level of immigration isn't a problem. What's a problem is candidates who wish to make it one in order to win votes by appealing to the darker natures of people, who would foment social tension in the name of winning a vote (see also: Le Pen, Farage, Trump). I had really hoped Bernier would be better than this (I'm on the libertarian side of the spectrum myself); he seemed decent at a first glance but I haven't really heard much from him of late that I like. The comments about Thunberg were also embarrassing. You seem like a fan and I admit I haven't heard much else beyond these two things, so by all means fill me in on the good aspects I may be missing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Dark Holy Elf said:

I moved to a non-competitive riding in the past few years (actaully to one of the few safe NDP seats left in the country) so I'm pretty free to just vote my conscience this election. I'll probably read up on the candidates before making a final decision. I've never voted for the NDP before (I'm relatively centrist economically) but if I like the incumbent's record I may consider it, otherwise it'll probably be Liberals or Greens. I'm not a super-huge fan of our system in which my vote doesn't actually matter much, I wish we would allot at least some seats based on popular vote. But I'm very aware that all democratic systems have flaws, and I'll grant that ours has generally produced pretty good governments compared to some countries. It's really hard not to look across the border, or to the United Kingdom, and be grateful for what we have here these days.

It seems like the overall election is very competitive between the Liberals and Conservatives. I'd certainly prefer the Liberals out of those two: they haven't been perfect, but Scheer hasn't done enough to assure me he wouldn't just be a continuation of the Harper regime, and as 2011-2015 was the worst period of Canadian government in my lifetime, I'm not eager to see that. I would actually be quite pleased if we got a minority government, since I don't think the Canadian system puts enough checks on majority governments and we've learned that the hard way over the past 8 years. Unfortunately the weaker NDP (and Bloc, for all that I have no love for them) makes that less likely even in a neck-and-neck situation like we have.

Are you kidding me? I have no trust for candidates who seek to demonize immigration as one of our main problems, and nor should you. I live in one of the parts of the country with the highest immigration rates (Vancouver) and highest levels of immigrant population. If immigration was a problem, surely you'd see the problems manifest here first, but instead we're doing very well, thank you. And you don't have to take my word for it: the party which flirted with anti-immigration rhetoric last cycle (the Conservatives) got wiped out here. You're from Toronto so I don't want to speak for that city, but from a distance I observe a similar pattern there, and there's absolutely a similar pattern in the US, the UK, and various other nations. Anti-immigrant sentiment is most easily stoked in rural places which hardly have to deal with immigrant population at all because it's simply playing to a very natural human fear of the unknown.

The Canadian level of immigration isn't a problem. What's a problem is candidates who wish to make it one in order to win votes by appealing to the darker natures of people, who would foment social tension in the name of winning a vote (see also: Le Pen, Farage, Trump). I had really hoped Bernier would be better than this (I'm on the libertarian side of the spectrum myself); he seemed decent at a first glance but I haven't really heard much from him of late that I like. The comments about Thunberg were also embarrassing. You seem like a fan and I admit I haven't heard much else beyond these two things, so by all means fill me in on the good aspects I may be missing.

Toronto, ironically, is a relatively conservative city overall. In the last provincial election (where the Liberals got wiped), the central city went NDP but once you start moving to the suburbs and heavy immigrant areas (the Philippeano community is a great example), they actually vote Conservative.

The NDP don't seem to actually realize that immigrants from non-Anglo Saxon countries don't actually support their cause, which I find hilarious.

As for Bernier, where do you want to start? Thunberg and climate change? Immigration reform? Supply management? Defunding the CBC? Or the fact that the other parties are so scared of him that Jagmeet Singh is trying to have him muzzled by publicly asking the debate commission to rescind Bernier's invitation to the debates on the ground that he offends Singh's moral compass?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/24/2019 at 2:45 PM, Life said:

As for Bernier, where do you want to start? Thunberg and climate change? Immigration reform? Supply management? Defunding the CBC? Or the fact that the other parties are so scared of him that Jagmeet Singh is trying to have him muzzled by publicly asking the debate commission to rescind Bernier's invitation to the debates on the ground that he offends Singh's moral compass?

Immigration would be a good start, since you ignored my comments there.

BTW, I just looked it up, and Toronto voted almost entirely Liberal in the last federal election. The provincial results feel less relevant here since immigration is not a provincial matter. I brought it up just because I know Toronto is, along with Vancouver (and Montreal to a slightly lesser extent), the most immigrant-dense part of the country... yet parties which promise to be tougher on immigration have very little success in either, and basically none at all in 2015 when the issue came up (I don't recall it being an issue in 2011, when the Conservatives did relatively better in those cities). So as I said, the places most likely to be negatively affected by immigration don't seem to mind it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have this whole big answer typed on my computer and the capcha system is blocking me from posting it. This is frustrating, give me a moment.

It's actually blocking me on both my phone and computer when I try to copy/paste. And it answers your question perfectly. Want it in email form, @Dark Holy Elf?

 

 

Second paragraph first.

I like to disregard federal results when the provincial were much more recent and were very drastically different. My parents riding (St. Paul's) has been a heavy Liberal riding in both Federal and Provincial elections and is the same size for both. Last provincial election, it went NDP. The swing? 26%, gained entirely from the Liberals. It's actually worrying since it is a pretty affluent area with a lot of rich Jews (Spadina Village). Here's the ethnic/religious breakdown as of 2006.

Ethnic groups: 76.08% White, 5.31% Black, 4.04% Filipino, 3.73% Chinese, 2.85% Latin American, 2.46% South Asian


Languages: 67.47% English, 1.87% French, 30.47% Others
Religions (2001): 29.28% Catholic, 25.01% Protestant, 19.60% Non religious, 14.03% Jewish, 4.18% Christian Orthodox, 2.62% Other Christian, 2.52% Muslim, 1.35% Buddhist
Average income: $34,617

The NDP MPP (Jill Andrew) is a social justice acolyte. For St. Paul's to vote for her rather than even the Conservatives was a complete shock to just about everyone so the shift wasn't based on immigration, it was entirely ideological. That's the same across all of metropolitan Toronto. It will go NDP despite the last federal results.

Now, immigration. Wasn't ignoring you; it's that Bernier has fleshed out his position on each issue so thoroughly that I wanted to know if immigration was the only topic you wanted to delve into.

First off, the People's Party of Canada is against mass immigration, not all immigration. And what is mass immigration defined as, you ask? ~350,000 immigrants per year with a rising quota, regardless of whether the immigrant is going to contribute to the economy or not.
 

What Bernier points out is this: Only 26% of immigrants to Canada are economic migrants who have skilled wanted by the Canadian economy and are ready to jump right in to work. That is about 90,000 of the 350,000. What about the rest? Well, another 25~30% is immediate family (spouse and children), another ~30% are extended family that make the jump via family re-unification (a process which allows many people to simply jump the queue) and the remainder are refugees and asylum seekers. It is important to note that while the number of immigrants who actively find and go onto hold full time jobs jumps from 26% up to 55%, we are still looking at nearly ~165,000 immigrants per year who cannot/do not contribute to the labour force at all while we have a labour shortage.

Or as my dad puts it, he could legally bring his 93 year old mother into Canada by way of family re-unification and she would require immediate state care without ever contributing a net positive to Canadian society due to the fact that she weighs about 35 kilograms and cannot walk without assistance.

So what changes does Bernier want to do?

In short, he'd cut family re-unification so that having a cousin in Canada no longer fast-tracks your way into the country. Another way of describing family re-unification in its effect is "immigration nepotism". This would not affect bringing spouses and children in (immediate family) but it would limit immigrants to that. He would also cut immigration to somewhere between 100,000 and 150,000 per year, with the number subject to change depending on economic circumstances. He is open that his goal is to turn immigration into a net economic boon for Canada and his goal is +50% economic migrants.

Where does that leave refugees and asylum seekers? Glad you asked. Bernier plans to focus on actual persecuted minorities around the world even though it wouldn't be the ~50,000 refugees we currently take in. Examples would be the Yazidis (Christians) and the Uighars (Muslims) who face actual persecution from religious majorities across the world.

Lastly, the social justice arguments of "Bernier just wants to bring in more white people because he's a racist" are bullshit arguments from racial collectivists. I don't why we need to take racial collectivists seriously in 2019 but sure, here we go. The PPC does not give a shit about race. Based on the numbers alone, the PPC would be happy to only bring in Nigerian economic migrants because they have the most chance of succeeding in both the Canadian economy and society... period. It's an incredibly hard working culture that fundamentally agrees with Canadian values that based off of British Common Law due to heavy British influence from the past century. But only racial collectivists are going to see "less mass immigration" and jump to "you must hate black and brown people coming to the country!" because they don't realize that black and brown people can be successful on their own without sympathy and help from the white man.

I cannot believe that I actually had to say this in 2019. Racism is fucking stupid and racial collectivists are bad people.

Anyway, hope that answers your questions on the PPC's immigration policies. Any other policy concerns with the PPC that you'd like to discuss?

Edited by Life

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...