Canadian Politics Thread

[RupertKBD]

10 hours ago, Bob Long said:

I know, every time a democrat wins in the US Canadians on the left celebrate, but they just become more protectionist. Biden has also been happy to keep Canada on the sidelines of Pacific trade as well.

 

Is that right?

 

Was it Biden or Trump that imposed tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum....i can't recall....

 

Oh yes, and which of the two declared Canada a "threat to National Security", so he could get around NAFTA rules precluding such tariffs?

[Bob Long]

11 minutes ago, RupertKBD said:

 

Is that right?

 

Was it Biden or Trump that imposed tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum....i can't recall....

 

Oh yes, and which of the two declared Canada a "threat to National Security", so he could get around NAFTA rules precluding such tariffs?

 

Now do pacific trade and Biden 

[RupertKBD]

6 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

Now do pacific trade and Biden 

 

Since you're convinced that it's worse than Trump, maybe you could do it for me?

Edited November 24, 2023 by RupertKBD

[Elias Pettersson]

2 hours ago, the destroyer of worlds said:

Ya, f this moron.

 

 

 

 

PP: "Mr. Speaker, we just heard "media reports" of a terrorist attack", an explosion at the Niagara crossing of the Canada/US border..."

 

So, CTV reports that it may be a terrorist attack, CTV gets their sources from the Canadian government, but somehow it's PP who is the bad guy here?

 

 

 

 

Edited November 24, 2023 by Elias Pettersson

[Elias Pettersson]

5 hours ago, The Arrogant Worms said:

 

Maybe this dude should have also wrote a letter to CTV news...

 

[4petesake]

16 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

 

PP: "Mr. Speaker, we just heard "media reports" of a terrorist attack", an explosion at the Niagara crossing of the Canada/US border..."

 

So, CTV reports that it may be a terrorist attack, CTV gets their sources from the Canadian government, but somehow it's PP who is the bad guy here?

 

 

 

 

 

Maybe if he agreed to get his security clearance he could have had access to better information. I’d like to think the PM-in-waiting would be a little more circumspect than getting his intel from the same place as Joe Blow.

[Elias Pettersson]

3 minutes ago, 4petesake said:

 

Maybe if he agreed to get his security clearance he could have had access to better information. I’d like to think the PM-in-waiting would be a little more circumspect than getting his intel from the same place as Joe Blow.

 

CTV news gets their intel and sources from the Canadian government, i.e. Trudeau's posse.  Unless of course they just made their shit up like they do in the states with CNN and Fox News.  So, somebody needs to question where CTV got their information from...

[Super19]

17 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

 

CTV news gets their intel and sources from the Canadian government, i.e. Trudeau's posse.  Unless of course they just made their shit up like they do in the states with CNN and Fox News.  So, somebody needs to question where CTV got their information from...

 

[Bob Long]

1 hour ago, RupertKBD said:

 

Since you're convinced that it's worse than Trump, maybe you could do it for me?

 

When tf did I say he was worse? 

[the destroyer of worlds]

1 hour ago, Elias Pettersson said:

 

PP: "Mr. Speaker, we just heard "media reports" of a terrorist attack", an explosion at the Niagara crossing of the Canada/US border..."

 

So, CTV reports that it may be a terrorist attack, CTV gets their sources from the Canadian government, but somehow it's PP who is the bad guy here?

 

 

 

 

Again    f this guy.

 

He is all hat and no cattle. 

 

Had glhe got security clearance, he'd have way way more access to information that CTV would cream their pants if they had access to.  

 

He didn't get security clearance because then he couldn't run his mouth and get media hits.   He wants soundbites that he can then use to dupe people into thinking he's all that.  When he's right, he gets all kinds of praise.  When he's wrong, he gets all kinds of excuses. 

 

All you're doing is giving excuses.

[RupertKBD]

1 hour ago, Bob Long said:

When tf did I say he was worse? 

 

Sorry....did I read that wrong? I thought you said they got "more protectionist" whenever a Democrat gets elected.....

[Boudrias]

7 hours ago, RupertKBD said:

 

Sorry....did I read that wrong? I thought you said they got "more protectionist" whenever a Democrat gets elected.....

I don't think your progressive perspective should cloud the reality that Canada is faced with. American self interest is often not to the benefit of Canada. Both Republican and Democratic admins have ran rough shod over Canadian interests. Trump and Biden are only the most recent examples. Supposedly Linden Johnson grabbed PM Lester Pearson and pushed him up against the wall. John Kennedy supposedly read Diefenbaker the riot act in frank terms. 

 

Consider the Smoot-Hawley Tariffs of 1930 brought in by Herbert Hoover a Republican. Depression in the USA had the Americans bring in such high tariffs against Canadian goods that it drove Canada from their markets. Taken in context of the times all in North America had witnessed such activity in Europe and must have realized the risks they were taking. 

 

IMHO this is why Canada must debate and develop a serious industrial strategy. Costs and anticipated revenue has to be outlined and pursued. I certainly do not see that happening during the Trudeau tenure. Zero carbon by 2030 has cost this country huge revenue in forgone energy development. Transition to EV is a worthy cause but I suggest the associated costs and development timeline have never been debated in a serious way. Many pundits anticipate a serious recession in 2024-25. As a Canadian I fear a return of Smoot-Hawley type trade protectionism. America First legislation by Biden could be a sampler. Trump rammed a

Nafta 2 down our throats and then he and Biden ignored what they didn't like later. Canadians should be very scared of our very weak economic position.  

[RupertKBD]

48 minutes ago, Boudrias said:

I don't think your progressive perspective should cloud the reality that Canada is faced with. American self interest is often not to the benefit of Canada. Both Republican and Democratic admins have ran rough shod over Canadian interests. Trump and Biden are only the most recent examples. Supposedly Linden Johnson grabbed PM Lester Pearson and pushed him up against the wall. John Kennedy supposedly read Diefenbaker the riot act in frank terms. 

 

Consider the Smoot-Hawley Tariffs of 1930 brought in by Herbert Hoover a Republican. Depression in the USA had the Americans bring in such high tariffs against Canadian goods that it drove Canada from their markets. Taken in context of the times all in North America had witnessed such activity in Europe and must have realized the risks they were taking. 

 

IMHO this is why Canada must debate and develop a serious industrial strategy. Costs and anticipated revenue has to be outlined and pursued. I certainly do not see that happening during the Trudeau tenure. Zero carbon by 2030 has cost this country huge revenue in forgone energy development. Transition to EV is a worthy cause but I suggest the associated costs and development timeline have never been debated in a serious way. Many pundits anticipate a serious recession in 2024-25. As a Canadian I fear a return of Smoot-Hawley type trade protectionism. America First legislation by Biden could be a sampler. Trump rammed a

Nafta 2 down our throats and then he and Biden ignored what they didn't like later. Canadians should be very scared of our very weak economic position.  

 

I'm not "clouded" at all. I'm well aware that the US looks out for it's own interests and remember quite well how they ignored NAFTA rules when it came to softwood imports from Canada.

 

My point was (and is) that Trump is the more protectionist of the two options. If there is some actual evidence to refute that claim, I'm certainly willing to look at it.

[Bob Long]

Good for JT to point this out. He is probably too late in hammering this home, but people need to recognize PP for what he is:

 

Right-wing MAGA politics caused Conservatives to turn backs on Ukraine, Trudeau claims

PM says Conservative claim that trade deal would impose carbon tax on Ukraine is 'absurd'

 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-says-tories-turn-back-on-ukraine-1.7039122

 

[4petesake]

8 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

Good for JT to point this out. He is probably too late in hammering this home, but people need to recognize PP for what he is:

 

Right-wing MAGA politics caused Conservatives to turn backs on Ukraine, Trudeau claims

PM says Conservative claim that trade deal would impose carbon tax on Ukraine is 'absurd'

 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-says-tories-turn-back-on-ukraine-1.7039122

 

 

It’s worth noting that there is a significant Ukrainian population in rural areas across the prairies in traditionally strong Conservative voting communities.

 

Alberta 8.1%   Saskatchewan   12.2%   Manitoba   12.3%

[Bob Long]

1 minute ago, 4petesake said:

 

It’s worth noting that there is a significant Ukrainian population in rural areas across the prairies in traditionally strong Conservative voting communities.

 

Alberta 8.1%   Saskatchewan   12.2%   Manitoba   12.3%

 

I know it, one side of my family is in that group. Its also not going to matter to them at the end of the day sadly, the pull to vote CPC/prairie hate for Trudeau is just too strong. 

[bishopshodan]

19 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

I know it, one side of my family is in that group. Its also not going to matter to them at the end of the day sadly, the pull to vote CPC/prairie hate for Trudeau is just too strong. 

Thats amazing. I believe you  but wow.

Ukrainian heritage and they would still vote for a party that could turn away from their old country 

[UnkNuk]

2 hours ago, Bob Long said:

Good for JT to point this out. He is probably too late in hammering this home, but people need to recognize PP for what he is:

 

Right-wing MAGA politics caused Conservatives to turn backs on Ukraine, Trudeau claims

PM says Conservative claim that trade deal would impose carbon tax on Ukraine is 'absurd'

 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-says-tories-turn-back-on-ukraine-1.7039122

 

 

An excerpt from a related article:

 

The basis for Poilievre's concerns seems to be a clause in chapter 13 of the modernization agreement between Canada and Ukraine (the new agreement runs to 30 chapters, plus annexes).

 

"Consistent with Article 13.24, the Parties shall cooperate bilaterally and in international forums to address matters of mutual interest, as appropriate, to … promote carbon pricing and measures to mitigate carbon leakage risks," the agreement states.

 

On the face of it, that text does not appear to be particularly imposing — and the interested parties confirm it isn't. Testifying before a House of Commons committee earlier this month, the federal government's chief trade negotiator said the provisions weren't binding and were meant to promote discussion and co-operation.

On Thursday, a spokesperson for the Ukrainian embassy in Ottawa told the Globe and Mail the modernized agreement "does not include any specific instruments on decreasing carbon footprint, including specific taxation instruments."

 

Poileivre's insistence that this is meant to "impose" a carbon tax on Ukrainians is also hard to square with the fact that Ukraine has had a carbon tax since 2011.

 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/conservative-ukraine-poilievre-free-trade-carbon-tax-1.7038249

[JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo]

19 hours ago, Elias Pettersson said:

 

CTV news gets their intel and sources from the Canadian government, i.e. Trudeau's posse.  Unless of course they just made their shit up like they do in the states with CNN and Fox News.  So, somebody needs to question where CTV got their information from...

Like Pierre, it's always best to get the facts before you put your foot in your mouth. More in the link.

 

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/poilievre-rainbow-bridge-terrorist-attack-canada-reactions-213016476.html?guccounter=1Paola

 

Loriggio of the Canadian Press asked Poilievre if he thought "it was responsible for you to call yesterday's explosion by the checkpoint at the Rainbow bridge 'terrorism' when no U.S. or Canadian authorities said that was the case and when the New York governor also said there was no evidence to suggest terrorism activity?"

Poilievre explained that his remarks were based on a CTV report that claimed Canadian government officials were operating under the assumption that Wednesday's vehicle explosion was terror-related.

“What I said, and I was right, was that there were media reports of a terror-related event. By your admission there were media reports of a terror-related event.”

“And that media report, according to CTV, unless you are questioning their integrity now, came from security officials in the Trudeau government,” Poilievre admonished.

Following Poilievre's heated exchange with the Canadian Press reporter, CTV wrote in its coverage later that day that the information Poilievre claims to be citing was reported approximately 15 minutes after he rose in the House to ask Trudeau about "media reports about a terrorist attack."

[4petesake]

12 minutes ago, JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo said:

Like Pierre, it's always best to get the facts before you put your foot in your mouth. More in the link.

 

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/poilievre-rainbow-bridge-terrorist-attack-canada-reactions-213016476.html?guccounter=1Paola

 

Loriggio of the Canadian Press asked Poilievre if he thought "it was responsible for you to call yesterday's explosion by the checkpoint at the Rainbow bridge 'terrorism' when no U.S. or Canadian authorities said that was the case and when the New York governor also said there was no evidence to suggest terrorism activity?"

Poilievre explained that his remarks were based on a CTV report that claimed Canadian government officials were operating under the assumption that Wednesday's vehicle explosion was terror-related.

“What I said, and I was right, was that there were media reports of a terror-related event. By your admission there were media reports of a terror-related event.”

“And that media report, according to CTV, unless you are questioning their integrity now, came from security officials in the Trudeau government,” Poilievre admonished.

Following Poilievre's heated exchange with the Canadian Press reporter, CTV wrote in its coverage later that day that the information Poilievre claims to be citing was reported approximately 15 minutes after he rose in the House to ask Trudeau about "media reports about a terrorist attack."

 

Barney Fife…

 

 

 

 

 

[Elias Pettersson]

4 hours ago, JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo said:

Like Pierre, it's always best to get the facts before you put your foot in your mouth. More in the link.

 

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/poilievre-rainbow-bridge-terrorist-attack-canada-reactions-213016476.html?guccounter=1Paola

 

Loriggio of the Canadian Press asked Poilievre if he thought "it was responsible for you to call yesterday's explosion by the checkpoint at the Rainbow bridge 'terrorism' when no U.S. or Canadian authorities said that was the case and when the New York governor also said there was no evidence to suggest terrorism activity?"

Poilievre explained that his remarks were based on a CTV report that claimed Canadian government officials were operating under the assumption that Wednesday's vehicle explosion was terror-related.

“What I said, and I was right, was that there were media reports of a terror-related event. By your admission there were media reports of a terror-related event.”

“And that media report, according to CTV, unless you are questioning their integrity now, came from security officials in the Trudeau government,” Poilievre admonished.

Following Poilievre's heated exchange with the Canadian Press reporter, CTV wrote in its coverage later that day that the information Poilievre claims to be citing was reported approximately 15 minutes after he rose in the House to ask Trudeau about "media reports about a terrorist attack."

 

I agree.  Nobody should ever be relying on the fake news for accurate or factual information…

[Optimist Prime]

On 11/23/2023 at 5:22 PM, Gurn said:

It can't happen here, we aren't like the folk down south----until some of us are;

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/conservative-senator-from-manitoba-apologizes-for-losing-my-cool-on-senate-floor/ar-AA1kqzKN?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=7d413822f6304879a53ecd7293c97bbd&ei=67

"OTTAWA — Conservative Sen. Don Plett apologized Thursday after two female senators accused him of physical intimidation and verbal harassment in the Senate chamber during debate on a carbon pricing bill earlier this month.

With trembling hands and a voice shaking through tears, the Manitoba senator said his behaviour that day was not acceptable."

---------------------------------------------------------

"Saint-Germain and Clement also said some senators shared a social media post that they believe was the impetus for a barrage of hateful phone calls, including one that compelled Clement to leave her home on the advice of police."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Conservative House leader Andrew Scheer posted Clement's photo and contact information, along with the details of Sen. Chantal Petitclerc, on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter. The post urged people to call them to ask why they were shutting down debate."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

more at link!

It is a bit unstable of a grown man, a senator no less, rushing to impose his 'might' on the ladies across the isle.  I hope it is not the person he wants to be and that he can reign in his inner Old Angry White Man. 

 

I am generally gonna be okay if Peter Poutine is elected PM, but my gosh, it is NOT in this nations best interest. Not one iota. With him as the gatekeeper, Premier SMith will be gifted a plush red carpet for her walk to become Dear Leader of the Nation of Oilberta. 

 

I know I am never gonna get consensus on my opinion, but I think there are some nutters in the right wing corners of this nation and some of them are taking pages out of Trumps peoples playbook, and that is pretty scary. I was incredibly nerve wracked when Harper won the PM job in 2005ish and changed our mission in Afghanistan and cost us like 140 of the 158 lost souls there. We changed from winning the hearts and minds to being americans with a red patch on our arms in the eyes of the Afghan people. I am a bit more worried about P.P's vision for canada. He was elected in his early 20's and never did anything else but fight with left wing politicians for the vast majority of his adult life. I feel that is not the man or the experience for the job of keeping this nation going in the chaos that is 2023 and beyond. I would probably have voted for a PC federal party at some point in the last 20 years in Canada, but that option just doesn't exist thanks to benedict Mackay. He signed a promise never to merge with Reform and the first he did as leader was merge with reform. the Cons have been dead to me ever since. Again, i don't expect anyone to share my opinion, its just a sad situation when these kinds of folks ride popularism to the top and the citizens will suffer. 

[6of1_halfdozenofother]

39 minutes ago, Optimist Prime said:

I am a bit more worried about P.P's vision for canada. He was elected in his early 20's and never did anything else but fight with left wing politicians for the vast majority of his adult life. I feel that is not the man or the experience for the job of keeping this nation going in the chaos that is 2023 and beyond. 

 

Attack dogs never make good leaders.  The only thing attack dogs know how to do is attack - it's how they're bred and  trained, they rarely have the vision or wisdom to think before acting, and there is no long-term planning with them.

 

And yet somehow, the ignorant and wilfully blind choose to idolize them as their leaders. 

[Optimist Prime]

On 11/23/2023 at 8:03 PM, 4petesake said:

 

Maybe if he agreed to get his security clearance he could have had access to better information. I’d like to think the PM-in-waiting would be a little more circumspect than getting his intel from the same place as Joe Blow.

I have had the opportunity to be part of a briefing to two prime ministers, met a third and a fourth, you are bang on.

[Elias Pettersson]

2 hours ago, Optimist Prime said:

It is a bit unstable of a grown man, a senator no less, rushing to impose his 'might' on the ladies across the isle.  I hope it is not the person he wants to be and that he can reign in his inner Old Angry White Man. 

 

I am generally gonna be okay if Peter Poutine is elected PM, but my gosh, it is NOT in this nations best interest. Not one iota. With him as the gatekeeper, Premier SMith will be gifted a plush red carpet for her walk to become Dear Leader of the Nation of Oilberta. 

 

I know I am never gonna get consensus on my opinion, but I think there are some nutters in the right wing corners of this nation and some of them are taking pages out of Trumps peoples playbook, and that is pretty scary. I was incredibly nerve wracked when Harper won the PM job in 2005ish and changed our mission in Afghanistan and cost us like 140 of the 158 lost souls there. We changed from winning the hearts and minds to being americans with a red patch on our arms in the eyes of the Afghan people. I am a bit more worried about P.P's vision for canada. He was elected in his early 20's and never did anything else but fight with left wing politicians for the vast majority of his adult life. I feel that is not the man or the experience for the job of keeping this nation going in the chaos that is 2023 and beyond. I would probably have voted for a PC federal party at some point in the last 20 years in Canada, but that option just doesn't exist thanks to benedict Mackay. He signed a promise never to merge with Reform and the first he did as leader was merge with reform. the Cons have been dead to me ever since. Again, i don't expect anyone to share my opinion, its just a sad situation when these kinds of folks ride popularism to the top and the citizens will suffer. 

 

I agree with you on this.  The problem is there is not a good option on the Liberal side either.  People can defend Trudeau and Freeland until they are blue in the face, but the fact of the matter is that we are almost $1.3 trillion in debt and have a $50 billion interest payment due every year now just to pay the debt.  And that interest payment is growing each day and will be $60 billion in a couple of years.  That's money that we have to raise via taxes that won't be going to any social services or to medical care.  It's basically money thrown out the window.  It's like burning it in a fire pit.

 

All I see is people ragging on PP for things like quoting a CTV news article that there was a terrorist attack.  Like that is going to change people's minds on how they vote in the next election.  It isn't.  The ones who are going to vote for Trudeau/Freeland will vote for them no matter what.  However, the rest will be voting based on their need to put food on the table for their kids and for their ability to pay their mortgage and keep their house.

 

At the end of the day, it's all about the economy.  That's all the average Joe cares about.  The stuff that is talked about in this thread means nothing to the average person in terms of how they will vote.