Federal Government & Politics II

[MolsonExport]

Does PP have the support of a majority of Canadians?

[FactaNV]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Does PP have the support of a majority of Canadians?

Probably not but neither does Trudeau. At the moment, Poilievre probably has the plurality of support.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by Wigs

Israel has been selling American military tech or co-developed Israeli-USA military tech secrets to China for decades since at least the early 1980s.

A lot of this reflects earlier geopolitical realities. As you noted, they dropped this like a hot potato when the Americans asked them to. We're not exactly innocent on this front either.. we did sign that FIPA with China after all. (Again, in an earlier era).

At the moment, Israel is part of the US led security alignment that Canada is fundamentally part of. We can't meaningfully diverge from the US on this topic (which the political demands of the protestors here would have us do).

[Hecate]

Originally Posted by Tvisforme

Polls and statistics are wonderful things... a majority of Canadians also don't want Poilievre as their leader or the Conservatives as the government.

With that logic nobody should be governing. Trudeau doesn’t have a majority, nor does any party. First past the post mate.

[casper]

Originally Posted by Hecate

With that logic nobody should be governing. Trudeau doesn’t have a majority, nor does any party. First past the post mate.

well 70% of Canadian believe in Climate Change. in fact 6 out of 10 don't think we are doing enough and we need to do more to fight climate change.

A reference to the status: https://globalnews.ca/news/9932965/c...-economy-poll/
But there are others. This well proven year after year.

We can disagree on how effective a carbon tax is. The article from ScotiaBank I posted a few days ago provides a strong economic argument that it is highly effective.

It is hard to conclude the problem is fake. Even harder to conclude it is the result of some left wing global conspiracy.

Originally Posted by Hecate

With that logic nobody should be governing. Trudeau doesn’t have a majority, nor does any party. First past the post mate.

The Liberal and NDP coalition has a majority at the time of the last election.

[Hackslack]

338canada.com has the Cons at 98% odds of winning a majority government. For many weeks it had been >99%.

[theman23]

Originally Posted by casper

well 70% of Canadian believe in Climate Change. in fact 6 out of 10 don't think we are doing enough and we need to do more to fight climate change.

A reference to the status: https://globalnews.ca/news/9932965/c...-economy-poll/
But there are others. This well proven year after year.

We can disagree on how effective a carbon tax is. The article from ScotiaBank I posted a few days ago provides a strong economic argument that it is highly effective.

It is hard to conclude the problem is fake. Even harder to conclude it is the result of some left wing global conspiracy.



The Liberal and NDP coalition has a majority at the time of the last election.

Who is even talking about climate change? Why are you bringing this up?
This isn't going to be an election on climate change no matter how hard you try. It is not a priority for most Canadians and over half either think we can't do anything about it or it doesn't exist.

[caveat.doctor]

Originally Posted by casper

The Liberal and NDP coalition has a majority at the time of the last election.

As the Liberals and NDP didn't actually campaign saying they would form a coalition, it's not appropriate to say that a majority actually supported one just by adding up their numbers. Looking at how the 2021 election would have turned out with a single transferable vote, for example, you can see that there would be more voters who would vote Conservative as second choice rather than NDP, if they had to:


The Election Would Have Looked Much Different with Proportional Representation

In any case, what would be more reflective of what most Canadians want, would be of course to take the two most popular parties, the Liberals and Conservatives, and have some coalition where they find some middle ground between their platforms. (This is even more the case now, given the drop in NDP support [NDP support takes a dive in new national poll, as Conservatives maintain sizeable lead].) Instead we ended up with a more extreme version of the Liberals, enabled by a third party that even more Canadians rejected than the Conservatives.

Originally Posted by casper

well 70% of Canadian believe in Climate Change. in fact 6 out of 10 don't think we are doing enough and we need to do more to fight climate change.

Given that, some middle ground approach between the Liberal and Conservative platforms would have been better: likely would have been something incremental and sustainable, balanced between environmental concerns and our own national economic interest, no matter what future government was in power.

[casper]

Originally Posted by theman23

Who is even talking about climate change? Why are you bringing this up?
This isn't going to be an election on climate change no matter how hard you try. It is not a priority for most Canadians and over half either think we can't do anything about it or it doesn't exist.

Simple reason. That is the basis for the carbon tax. That is why it exists, the alternatives are more expensive to the average consumer. Don't believe me, a few days ago I posted a report by economists at ScotiaBank.

It's not clear where “axe the tax” leaves climate action. The federal carbon price represents a foundational pillar of a climate plan.
...
The federal “carbon tax” is technically two policies. First is a charge paid by fuel distributors based on the carbon content in a given fuel. Distributors then pass these added costs down to consumers. This is known as the retail carbon price.
...
Second is a separate system for industrial facilities that works somewhat similarly to a cap-and-trade program. A performance threshold is set, and any facility that emits over that threshold has to pay. Facilities who emit under their level can generate credits that can be sold, or used for compliance purposes in years where they emit over the threshold.
...
Clean energy spending now outpaces fossil fuel investment globally, climate change’s impacts have worsened, and apathy is no longer the dominant mood guiding this conversation.

https://www.scotiabank.com/ca/en/abo...13--2024-.html

Originally Posted by caveat.doctor

As the Liberals and NDP didn't actually campaign saying they would form a coalition, it's not appropriate to say that a majority actually supported one just by adding up their numbers. Looking at how the 2021 election would have turned out with a single transferable vote, for example, you can see that there would be more voters who would vote Conservative as second choice rather than NDP, if they had to:

We are talking about a parliamentary democracy. That is how these work. You have the election and the parties meet and try to form a coalition of MPs that through some formal or informal agreement agree to form government. While it is possible to end up with a majority of MPs in a coalition that does not total over 50% of voters it will be close.

Originally Posted by caveat.doctor

In any case, what would be more reflective of what most Canadians want, would be of course to take the two most popular parties, the Liberals and Conservatives, and have some coalition where they find some middle ground between their platforms. (This is even more the case now, given the drop in NDP support [NDP support takes a dive in new national poll, as Conservatives maintain sizeable lead].) Instead we ended up with a more extreme version of the Liberals, enabled by a third party that even more Canadians rejected than the Conservatives.

I don't disagree. That happens in parliamentary democracies. The more extreme parties on either the right or left get a say sometimes. It is one of the problems with our system.

Originally Posted by caveat.doctor

Given that, some middle ground approach between the Liberal and Conservative platforms would have been better: likely would have been something incremental and sustainable, balanced between environmental concerns and our own national economic interest, no matter what future government was in power.

The Liberals were quite balanced in their strategy. Provincially, in BC we had the NDP having to gain the support of the Greens a few years back. That is a far more environmentally aggressive setup.

Lets not forget, we are talking about a Liberal party that built actively had government build an oil pipeline. This past 10 years under the Liberals have resulted in breaking new records for Canadian oil production and export every single year. If that is not a sign that the environmental measures were balanced I am not certain what is.

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by Tvisforme

One thing that stood out for me was Poilievre's line "...you will forever be known as 'Sellout Singh". If that doesn't convince people that Poilievre and the Conservatives are copying reprehensible tactics from south of the border, I don't know what will.

I find that a big weakness of PP is that he can be very immature and condescending just like Trump often is. Some of the same people who support PP were the same ones who thought JT was not mature enough to be PM. PP may become PM but he won't last nearly as long as JT if he behaves so strangely.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

I guess they think Canada's policies have an impact on the world's policies or something. And they might see the EV and immigration would be neccessary tradeoffs in their mind. Immigration would remove emissions from somewhere else so on a world scale not sure that is inconsistent. For EVs we can't let others unfairly take our manufacturing capacity though the logic breaks down if they are subsidizing a product that supposedly will save the world why would we be against that?

Immigration removes people from countries with low per capita emissions and relocates them to the country with some of the highest per capital emissions on earth. It is a huge net loss for the earth.

If you believe 1) that climate is an existential threat 2) Canada’s 1% of global emissions has something to do with that existential threat and 3) EVs help emissions in a significant way then you absolutely want as many EVs on the road as possible. You aren’t going to fuss about future imaginary manufacturing capacity.

The Trudeau policies are only logical if they (correctly) believe Canada’s 1% emissions are a rounding error and instead see climate change hysteria as opportunity to advance social engineering objectives such as income distribution.

[casper]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Immigration removes people from countries with low per capita emissions and relocates them to the country with some of the highest per capital emissions on earth. It is a huge net loss for the earth.

If you believe 1) that climate is an existential threat 2) Canada’s 1% of global emissions has something to do with that existential threat and 3) EVs help emissions in a significant way then you absolutely want as many EVs on the road as possible. You aren’t going to fuss about future imaginary manufacturing capacity.

The Trudeau policies are only logical if they (correctly) believe Canada’s 1% emissions are a rounding error and instead see climate change hysteria as opportunity to advance social engineering objectives such as income distribution.

While this is a all true. I think it comes down to being balanced and pragmatic.

Canada 1% in isolation is a rounding error. Canada when combined with other countries starts to make a difference. If Canada adopts the position what we does not matter, Portugal does the same, Spain does the same, Mexico does the same and so on we are at at a standstill. We need to find a balance between being aggressive on climate change with protecting our economic future. Doing our part encourages other countries to do their part.

Largest contributor to Canada's CO2 emissions is the oil and gas sector. Increasing or lower immigration has zero impact on the CO2 from oil sands extraction. While immigration does have an impact on heating (we build more houses) or transportation long term those are moving away from fossil fuels in any case.

While I agree increasing the adoption of EVs is a positive, we need to balance that with the economic impact of protecting our industries. Same hold for the oil sands. No one (Conservative, Liberal or NDP) is proposing shutting down the oil sands, but that industry needs to be encouraged to reduce its CO2 emissions.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by theman23

Who is even talking about climate change? Why are you bringing this up?
This isn't going to be an election on climate change no matter how hard you try. It is not a priority for most Canadians and over half either think we can't do anything about it or it doesn't exist.

Which tax is Pierre Poilievre talking about when he says "axe the tax"? Hint: it ain't the GST.