Federal Government & Politics II

[lio45]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

In the long term, if Quebec insists on more control over immigration to Quebec and cuts immigration, it's share of the population over time will drop.

To preserve national unity in the long term, Quebec needs to be given as close to full control over immigration to Quebec as possible (given international law and freedom of migration it can never be 100% but it can come close) and immigration levels between Quebec & the ROC need to maintain a roughly 3:1 ratio of immigrants to the ROC vs. immigrants to Quebec. The problem is that this would mean the ROC having to cut immigration down to as low as 100k-150k a year which the ROC wouldn't like.

Yeah, the only way to preserve national unity in the long term is to “genocide” Quebec into becoming a standard Canadian province. It’s the only other realistic scenario than Quebec sovereignty.

(The scenario in which Anglo-Canada permanently caps itself at the yearly immigration volumes that Quebec can easily integrate is not realistic, but it’s also not technically impossible.)

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

In the long term, if Quebec insists on more control over immigration to Quebec and cuts immigration, it's share of the population over time will drop.

To preserve national unity in the long term, Quebec needs to be given as close to full control over immigration to Quebec as possible (given international law and freedom of migration it can never be 100% but it can come close) and immigration levels between Quebec & the ROC need to maintain a roughly 3:1 ratio of immigrants to the ROC vs. immigrants to Quebec. The problem is that this would mean the ROC having to cut immigration down to as low as 100k-150k a year which the ROC wouldn't like.

Well, Quebec's share of the national population will decline in any event, as it has been doing for decades. I was just wondering whether it might fall proportionately more quickly in the next couple of years due to the moratorium.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

In the long term, if Quebec insists on more control over immigration to Quebec and cuts immigration, it's share of the population over time will drop.

To preserve national unity in the long term, Quebec needs to be given as close to full control over immigration to Quebec as possible (given international law and freedom of migration it can never be 100% but it can come close) and immigration levels between Quebec & the ROC need to maintain a roughly 3:1 ratio of immigrants to the ROC vs. immigrants to Quebec. The problem is that this would mean the ROC having to cut immigration down to as low as 100k-150k a year which the ROC wouldn't like.

A lot of ROC would like it at this point and certainly for the next few years. Quebec may embrace French speaking immigration at some point as a clear language over colour trade-off. Quebec is well aware though that culture is more than language.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Well, Quebec's share of the national population will decline in any event, as it has been doing for decades. I was just wondering whether it might fall proportionately more quickly in the next couple of years due to the moratorium.

Concern in Quebec over immigration's impacts has almost completely shifted to concern about internal Quebec demographics as opposed to the traditional worry about Quebec's share of the Canadian population and accompanying political leverage.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Concern in Quebec over immigration's impacts has almost completely shifted to concern about internal Quebec demographics as opposed to the traditional worry about Quebec's share of the Canadian population and accompanying political leverage.

Of course, and that’s extremely logical: the only reason to bother worrying about Quebec’s relative weight is if there’s a distinct Quebec to preserve. There’s no urgency about relative weight when you’re a typical province and the rest of the country is like you anyway.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by lio45

Of course, and that’s extremely logical: the only reason to bother worrying about Quebec’s relative weight is if there’s a distinct Quebec to preserve. There’s no urgency about relative weight when you’re a typical province and the rest of the country is like you anyway.

Declining below a certain size within the federation isn't fatal for preserving culture. It is important for extracting maximum fiscal benefits for a region that wants to make choices about policy but not suffer the consequences but very small regions can easily preserve their culture. The only issue is national bilingualism which would ceast being palatable at some point but even 10% especially for a founding language is probably sufficient for the kind of bilingualism we have in Canada. Aland Islands in Finland operate entirely in Swedish as a 5% minority.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Average carbon tax is $600 per household.

"Average" is doing a lot work here. If Elon Musk walks into a bar, the average patron in there is a billionaire. An exaggerated example to make the point. But the median is probably lower than the mean here which is heavily driven up by the top 20% of households having much higher fossil fuel (not just electricity) consumption.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Declining below a certain size within the federation isn't fatal for preserving culture. It is important for extracting maximum fiscal benefits for a region that wants to make choices about policy but not suffer the consequences but very small regions can easily preserve their culture. The only issue is national bilingualism which would ceast being palatable at some point but even 10% especially for a founding language is probably sufficient for the kind of bilingualism we have in Canada. Aland Islands in Finland operate entirely in Swedish as a 5% minority.

If we get there, it wouldn't be hard to convince Quebec to accept a language territoriality model in place of official bilingualism - heck they'd probably prefer it even now. The main political obstacles are the Franco-Ontarians and Anglo-Quebecers who would scream blood murder about it.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

The daycare program has good intentions but has been completely bungled by a combination of excessive regulation, an ideological obsession with promoting one specific model of childcare (that of the not-for-profit institutional childcare centre), and insufficient funding to actually meet demand.

I don't think the CPC will cancel it, but they could probably get a lot of voter support by pledging to keep the same funding envelope but relaxing these rules to allow more flexibility with models of care and perhaps allowing the target price to be a bit higher (say $15 a day instead of $10 a day) to make the funding stretch to more spaces.

Last time around the CPC avoided national daycare program by starting up CCB. The whole argument was that parents who stay at home should be compensated and supported. And that families should have the choice between institutional care and a parent staying at home. People forget this part. Potentially, the CPC could argue this again. Though I have no idea how existing signed agreements with the provinces work.

$10/day is just ridiculously low for a program aiming to be universal. Most parents would be fine with $30/day and maybe some subsidies for really low income families. The bigger problem is availability. This is what killed the appeal of this program for the Liberals. They never succeeded in making it as widely available. Part of that was intrasigence from a lot of provincial Conservative governments. But we'll see if that changes.

On a macro level what is really unique this time around is older voters who don't have dependents are voting LPC. And younger voters with families are voting CPC. This is maybe the first time the CPC is seeing this much support from younger folks and those with young families. So there's incentive to actually cater to better family friendly policies. Whether they will seize the moment remains to be seen.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

"Average" is doing a lot work here. If Elon Musk walks into a bar, the average patron in there is a billionaire. An exaggerated example to make the point. But the median is probably lower than the mean here which is heavily driven up by the top 20% of households having much higher fossil fuel (not just electricity) consumption.

And that ignores the rebate even if many people haven't noticed it. It's a lot more than Ford is handing out for most households. The average NDP voter is very likely getting a lot more back than they are paying. Even the champagne socialists who live in the Annex, Glebe, Plateau, South End Halifax mostly drive little and live in small (ish) energy efficient housing.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Last time around the CPC avoided national daycare program by starting up CCB. The whole argument was that parents who stay at home should be compensated and supported. And that families should have the choice between institutional care and a parent staying at home. People forget this part. Potentially, the CPC could argue this again. Though I have no idea how existing signed agreements with the provinces work.

I don't really see what the problem with this is, personally. It should up to parents to decide what works best for them.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

On a macro level what is really unique this time around is older voters who don't have dependents are voting LPC. And younger voters with families are voting CPC. This is maybe the first time the CPC is seeing this much support from younger folks and those with young families. So there's incentive to actually cater to better family friendly policies. Whether they will seize the moment remains to be seen.

Definitely. We'll see how that changes traditional CPC messaging/policy. Pollievre is certainly not dumb; he knows who his voter base is.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Last time around the CPC avoided national daycare program by starting up CCB. The whole argument was that parents who stay at home should be compensated and supported. And that families should have the choice between institutional care and a parent staying at home. People forget this part. Potentially, the CPC could argue this again. Though I have no idea how existing signed agreements with the provinces work.

$10/day is just ridiculously low for a program aiming to be universal. Most parents would be fine with $30/day and maybe some subsidies for really low income families. The bigger problem is availability. This is what killed the appeal of this program for the Liberals. They never succeeded in making it as widely available. Part of that was intrasigence from a lot of provincial Conservative governments. But we'll see if that changes.

On a macro level what is really unique this time around is older voters who don't have dependents are voting LPC. And younger voters with families are voting CPC. This is maybe the first time the CPC is seeing this much support from younger folks and those with young families. So there's incentive to actually cater to better family friendly policies. Whether they will seize the moment remains to be seen.

Yes as much as we complain about generational fairness there is a lot more support than there was 20 years ago for those with children under 6. It would be hard to increase CCB much more to compensate for cancelling daycare. Even if they could unwind it with the provinces. Idealogically they might not be as opposed as they once were. A lot of small business owners probably like having their workforce have good childcare options. Especially if we are depriving them of cheap foreign labour.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

I don't really see what the problem with this is, personally. It should up to parents to decide what works best for them.

That was the excuse used to avoid a national daycare program. As in we will pay parents and they can pay for daycare if they want. The problem is that some services do require at least some government intervention. And daycare is probably one of them. The Liberal failing, in some ways, is probably because their daycare was a bit too free market or at least not generous enough to work with the free market.

Personally, I wish daycare was just part of the school system with daycare attached to every elementary school. Just give me a place where I can drop off my kid every workday from 1 till 10. I don't care how they figure out the billing. I'll pay a bit more in taxes to make that universal and consistent.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Concern in Quebec over immigration's impacts has almost completely shifted to concern about internal Quebec demographics as opposed to the traditional worry about Quebec's share of the Canadian population and accompanying political leverage.

Indeed, it's just the "tick, tick, tick" in the background these days. We're a long way from it making a practical difference, if it ever does. I suppose number of MPs is one practical difference.