Federal Government & Politics II

[casper]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Why are we giving one small segment of the Canadian population veto rights over prosperity for all of us?

That it is an interesting question to ask, especially from someone who lives in BC where there are no historical treaties with first nations.

The deals Canada has made with many of these nations in modern treaties provides direct control over a very small track of reserve land and a right to consult over a much larger track of land. In return the first nations communities have given away their property rights to that much larger territory.

If your suggesting Canada should adopt a different negotiation strategy that is fine. As a society that is a reasonable discussion to have.

If your suggesting we should ignore the agreement we have signed because some of us don't like them. Well the courts have already concluded you just can't do that.

[P'tit Renard]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Originally I mean newcomers. I was agreeing that migrant means anybody who has moved which is also very common. A lot of the homeless population in Vancouver was not born in Vancouver. They come from across the province and indeed the country. But for the most part that is irrelevant other than the fact that Canada's cities have to deal with the addiction and mental health issues that small town Canada does not. They claim it's because they take care of their own which is true to some extent but when the 30 year old addict or mentally ill resident of Timmins mom dies and can't pay the rent anymore they often move to a city.

You clearly need to get out of your Ottawa bubble, because in Ontario alone smaller cities and towns all over the province are forced to deal with skyrocketing homeless, addiction and mental health issues, but without the resources nor any federal/provincial support to tackle these issues. Doesn't matter if it's Niagara Falls, Welland, Owen Sound, Sault Ste Marie, Stratford, Sarnia, Timmins, Peterborough etc, there isn't a part of the province that isn't plagued by this social decay.

Originally Posted by Hecate

lol this guy has no idea what he’s talking about. Smaller communities all across manitoba are hit hard by addiction and drug problems. And they lack the resources to deal with it. Lack of councillors, poor employment options, lack of medical care and treatment centres. Lot of hopelessness in rural Canada. The Citiots should get out of their bubble more.

Clearly. He seems to be living in some JT induced lalaland.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Why are we giving one small segment of the Canadian population veto rights over prosperity for all of us?

As ssiguy says, if PP has the kind of mega majority he’s on track to get, he’ll have a pretty rare window (no Federal government has had one of these in my adult lifetime) to make deep changes / attack some problematic sacred cows. That rare window shouldn’t get wasted.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by Loco101

It makes me laugh when people accuse the JT government of being big spenders yet fail to realize what is going on outside of Canada and often with governments that are supposedly conservative.

We really should be meeting the 2% of GDP for defence spending immediately. Why not also include some infrastructure projects as part of it?

This chart is misleading and basically cherry picked because it aggregates federal and provincial deficits and it dates from 2022 when basically every province posted a surplus - a quirk caused by inflation raising revenue but not costs due to the latter consisting mostly of CBA-fixed public sector salaries, which affected the provinces much more because the latter is a bigger % of provincial spending. And this ended pretty quickly, the major provinces are back to big deficits.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Build.It

Where did I say that?

Your whole philosophy seems to be that the game is rigged, everyone is corrupt, so fuck it I'll be selfish too. Rather defeatist attitude.

Originally Posted by Build.It

You want the government to take even more money from hard working people who risked everything they owned to create businesses that employ the majority of Canadians.

What a talking point. No I don't want government to take more money from "hard working people" aka LABOUR. I want them to take it from CAPITAL.

Originally Posted by Build.It

And I'm the selfish prick? Grow up man.

I'm all grown up thanks. Just trying to help you see another perspective but it's clear you can't.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by lio45

As ssiguy says, if PP has the kind of mega majority he’s on track to get, he’ll have a pretty rare window (no Federal government has had one of these in my adult lifetime) to make deep changes / attack some problematic sacred cows. That rare window shouldn’t get wasted.

And fall right into the playbook of your party, the Bloc, which will then state "see? The feds are cutting social programs, you must vote chapeau-de-douche!!"

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by Loco101

Timmins is a city and a regional centre. And unfortunately we have a large homeless population with a lot of addicts. We attract a lot of people from the region and from larger cities throughout the province. On a per capita basis we are probably one of the worst in Ontario for homelessness and opioid addiction.

On a per capita basis, the opoid addiction is probably worse in the small towns and cities (at least from what I have seen on my travels around southwestern Ontario).

In any event, it seems much worse, proportionately, in London than it did in the previous two cities that I lived in (Montreal, Vancouver).

[lio45]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

What a talking point. No I don't want government to take more money from "hard working people" aka LABOUR. I want them to take it from CAPITAL.

Generally, that’s not going to work, as capital can easily be invested anywhere else.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by lio45

Generally, that’s not going to work, as capital can easily be invested anywhere else.

To a point. Pretty hard to relocate your house.

Taxing capital isn't necessarily just busines.

Admittedly third rail.

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

None of that is happening in any time period that is relevant to solving current budget problems. You're talking about something that could happen in the 2040s or beyond. The budget has to be balanced long before that.



Politicians in the 80s had rail lines to rip up and post offices to close. Today's governments have far fewer of those. So they will have to make difficult choices.

The better choice is to have economic growth. Cutting for the sake of just cutting doesn't normally make things better. The difficult choices will be about how much more to spend and not about cutting. Voters aren't in the mood for cuts to OAS/GIS, CCB and many other things. These things will likely be election issues that will awaken voters. There are always some things that can be cut but doing it immediately probably won't happen. It would be over a number of years.

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Why are we giving one small segment of the Canadian population veto rights over prosperity for all of us?

Well we have treaties in place for many areas and legal decisions that mean that Indigenous consultations and involvement must take place for anywhere in Canada. Treaties are legal documents and many haven't been properly followed since they were signed so that alone has hurt many.

Our Indigenous peoples are not simply "one small segment." They do have rights and special status for resources. A big myth out there is that most First Nations don't want resource development at all.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

And fall right into the playbook of your party, the Bloc, which will then state "see? The feds are cutting social programs, you must vote chapeau-de-douche!!"

I’d be surprised if PP can tie JT in terms of helping the PQ and Bloc these past few years. The shittier the Feds make Canada, the more appealing sovereignty will be, and vice versa.

PQ is polling at majority territory levels right now… that party was almost dead before JT’s pet Scheme.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Loco101

The better choice is to have economic growth. Cutting for the sake of just cutting doesn't normally make things better.

This was the Liberal 2015 argument. Unfortunately, they abused the hell of it and redefined all kinds of consumption as investment to justify running massive deficits.

Instead of infrastructure and housing and industrial investments with real economic payback, we got more social spending with some vaguely defined long term benefits.

Originally Posted by Loco101

The difficult choices will be about how much more to spend and not about cutting. Voters aren't in the mood for cuts to OAS/GIS, CCB and many other things. These things will likely be election issues that will awaken voters. There are always some things that can be cut but doing it immediately probably won't happen. It would be over a number of years.

Voters may not be in the mood for cuts. But that is what they will get. And given the mandate the CPC is about to get they will go for generational change that is irreversible. It's what I would do in their shoes. So I expect substantial privatization of healthcare. Complete dismantling of recent Liberal social programs like childcare and dental care, except for maybe seniors. They'll do what the British conservatives did and cover it all up with rhetoric.

Harper's tactic seems to have worked. He cut taxes. Even Trudeau wasn't willing to reverse those tax cuts and simply ran deficits instead. This tells conservatives they are right. The more taxes they cut the harder it will be for any future Liberal government to reverse it. They'll only ever put in programs that run on deficits, which can be cut later.

The 2029 election is going to be the really testy one. We're only talking about federal spending here. Wait till they try undoing all kinds of rights the courts have affirmed for Aboriginals or try ramming a pipeline through Quebec.

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

This was the Liberal 2015 argument. Unfortunately, they abused the hell of it and redefined all kinds of consumption as investment to justify running massive deficits.

Instead of infrastructure and housing and industrial investments with real economic payback, we got more social spending with some vaguely defined long term benefits.



Voters may not be in the mood for cuts. But that is what they will get. And given the mandate the CPC is about to get they will go for generational change that is irreversible. It's what I would do in their shoes. So I expect substantial privatization of healthcare. Complete dismantling of recent Liberal social programs like childcare and dental care, except for maybe seniors. They'll do what the British conservatives did and cover it all up with rhetoric.

Harper's tactic seems to have worked. He cut taxes. Even Trudeau wasn't willing to reverse those tax cuts and simply ran deficits instead. This tells conservatives they are right. The more taxes they cut the harder it will be for any future Liberal government to reverse it. They'll only ever put in programs that run on deficits, which can be cut later.

The 2029 election is going to be the really testy one. We're only talking about federal spending here. Wait till they try undoing all kinds of rights the courts have affirmed for Aboriginals or try ramming a pipeline through Quebec.

Do you really think that the CPC will run on the things you mentioned? They won't win if they do. PP will be like Tim Hudak in Ontario who tried convincing us that cuts and reducing social spending would somehow make things better. Do you really think that our federal deficits are massive? Look at the rest of the G7!

They won't be able to take away Indigenous rights unless they break laws and start a war. And a pipeline through Quebec would only happen if Quebecers can be convinced that it's worth their while. PP preaches that he is for Indigenous and provincial rights.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Loco101

Do you really think that the CPC will run on the things you mentioned? They won't win if they do. PP will be like Tim Hudak in Ontario who tried convincing us that cuts and reducing social spending would somehow make things better. Do you really think that our federal deficits are massive? Look at the rest of the G7!

They won't be able to take away Indigenous rights unless they break laws and start a war. And a pipeline through Quebec would only happen if Quebecers can be convinced that it's worth their while. PP preaches that he is for Indigenous and provincial rights.

Probably not, although in the current atmosphere a pledge of smaller, "less wasteful" government would resonate with many.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Loco101

Do you really think that the CPC will run on the things you mentioned? They won't win if they do. PP will be like Tim Hudak in Ontario who tried convincing us that cuts and reducing social spending would somehow make things better. Do you really think that our federal deficits are massive? Look at the rest of the G7!

They won't be able to take away Indigenous rights unless they break laws and start a war. And a pipeline through Quebec would only happen if Quebecers can be convinced that it's worth their while. PP preaches that he is for Indigenous and provincial rights.

They will absolutely learn the Hudak lesson of over-confidence and too much speficity. It will make the cuts when they come more controversial but I don't think Harris cuts weren't opposed any less because they were outlined in the platform.

There is also some logic in seeing what the 2026 election looks like before deciding specifics.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Loco101

Do you really think that the CPC will run on the things you mentioned? They won't win if they do.

Nobody has to bother with a platform these days except for token effort. Doug Ford proved that. And they don't have to bother doing things in their platform once they get elected. Justin Trudeau proved that. It's all vibes these days.

Originally Posted by Loco101

They won't be able to take away Indigenous rights unless they break laws and start a war. And a pipeline through Quebec would only happen if Quebecers can be convinced that it's worth their while. PP preaches that he is for Indigenous and provincial rights.

I expect insane court battles and efforts to outright ignore the law. It's working out right now for Saskatchewan who simply decided to ignored the law on remitting carbon taxes to Ottawa and dared Ottawa to prosecute their execs and ministers. If that can work provincially, it can work federally.

Maybe power will temper them. But I doubt it. I expect this lot is going for big and irreversible changes. And they will keep going till they get tossed. I think they get at least two terms in office. And Canada 2033 will be quite different.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Nobody has to bother with a platform these days except for token effort. Doug Ford proved that. And they don't have to bother doing things in their platform once they get elected. Justin Trudeau proved that. It's all vibes these days.

I expect insane court battles and efforts to outright ignore the law. It's working out right now for Saskatchewan who simply decided to ignored the law on remitting carbon taxes to Ottawa and dared Ottawa to prosecute their execs and ministers. If that can work provincially, it can work federally.

Maybe power will temper them. But I doubt it. I expect this lot is going for big and irreversible changes. And they will keep going till they get tossed. I think they get at least two terms in office. And Canada 2033 will be quite different.

Yes 100% all of this. He (PP) is a true believer. He might posture a bit and knows the housing crisis especially isn't Trudeau's fault but truly believes inflation is entirely because of government spending, gatekeepers and regulation is the main problem in our economy and people are better off not receiving cheques. Not just society is better off I think he actually believes that person who gets a $500 CCB cheque is better off without it as the whole economy will boom without government spending and the resulting lower taxes.

The GST is seen as the biggest victory because it's irreversible. I bet that is the tax he cuts when he gets around to tax cuts. It's the most economically efficient tax but hardest to change in the other direction. Trudeau actually raised tax rates on higher earners and nobody cared. Changing capital gains and rules on corporations was much more high profile.

At the end of the day I think making the government so starved of revenue will actually backfire and the next progressive government will go big bang on a wealth tax or at least an across the board increase in taxes on capital. But as you say thats a 2033 problem. I wonder if they will be given much of a honeymoon. Worldwide patience is waning for new govts to turn things around.

[MonctonRad]

Biden quits!!!

[Edmonton_Ian]

About time. He said he was going to be a one-term president and had he stuck to that his legacy would have been fine. Now it's worse than Bush and Trump and that says something... I have a feeling we'll see a Harris/Shapiro ticket as is rumored... Not my choice for President of the Free World by any means but better than the current option which is Weekend at Biden's for the next 4 years... Just like Ginsburg, sticking around only damages your legacy when everyone knows you are WELL past your prime...