Canadian Politics Thread

[bolt]

1 hour ago, RupertKBD said:

 

Somebody saw the word "Narcissist" somewhere....didn't know what it meant, but it sounded cool, so he decided throw it out there every other post....

I wonder why polls suggest most people want Trudeau gone even Liberals themselves. Your defense of Trudeau is laughable and sad.  Are you saying he's not a narcissist who refuse to resign despite driving the Liberals into the toilet?

Edited July 7 by bolt

[RupertKBD]

4 minutes ago, bolt said:

I wonder why polls suggest most people want Trudeau gone even Liberals themselves. Your defense of Trudeau is laughable and sad.  Are you saying he's not a narrccist despite driving the Liberals into the toilet?

 

Wrong, as usual.

 

My comment had nothing to do with Trudeau. It was a comment on how you don't understand what narcissist means......

[Pears]

7 minutes ago, bolt said:

The kids are still playing at the playground, it's not broken yet.

 

2 hours ago, bolt said:

Sorry to tell you Trudeau already destroyed it that's why people are calling for his resignation.

 

[RupertKBD]

Just now, Pears said:

The kids are still playing at the playground, it's not broken yet.

 

Sorry to tell you Trudeau already destroyed it that's why people are calling for his resignation.

 

It doesn't have to make sense, Pears.....just so long as it's Trudeau's fault.....

[Bob Long]

1 minute ago, RupertKBD said:

 

It doesn't have to make sense, Pears.....just so long as it's Trudeau's fault.....

 

Trudeau moved his cheese.

 

[Elias Pettersson]

Wow, even the immigrants want to leave...

 

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/money/finance-real-estate/nearly-40-of-new-canadians-are-considering-moving-due-to-housing-costs/ar-BB1pyumX?ocid=msedgntp&pc=HCTS&cvid=29b12d14d81a418a8766eaad55f4e561&ei=48

 

Nearly 40 per cent of recent immigrants to Canada are considering moving to another province or leaving the country altogether due to a lack of housing affordability , a recent poll conducted by the Angus Reid Institute suggests.

 

“If you are a young person who has arrived in Canada in the last 10 years, who is renting in one of Canada’s biggest cities, you know, life is not very happy at the moment,” said Shachi Kurl, president of Angus Reid.

 

Thirty-nine per cent of immigrants who have arrived in Canada within the past 10 years are thinking of relocating, with 25 per cent citing the cost of housing as the culprit.

 

Of the remaining respondents, finding a better quality of life was the biggest factor, along with others such as cost of living, access to healthcare and being closer to family.

 

According to the poll, 28 per cent of Canadians overall are considering leaving the province that they reside in due to soaring housing costs. Most live in either Ontario (39 per cent) or British Columbia (36 per cent), where high housing costs have persisted for longer compared to other regions.

 

Across Canada, 42 per cent of 18- to 24-year-olds say they are considering moving from their current province. According to the poll, renters are more likely to consider moving than those who own their dwellings with or without a mortgage .

 

Canada’s annual immigration target stands at approximately 500,000 people, making it one of the highest in the world relative to the population .

 

Among those who want to move but stay in Canada, the poll found the majority — 18 per cent — said they would like to relocate to Alberta.

 

“We can speculate that people who are thinking of (moving to) Alberta either have a perception that housing is more affordable in Alberta, or is more available or abundant in Alberta or that the jobs available to them in the province will enable them to afford the cost of living ,” Kurl said.

 

According to a recent BMO report, net interprovincial migration out of Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver was collectively over 130,000 people between 2022 and 2023.

Canada's population tops 41M. Is this the rise before the fall?

 

 

[Optimist Prime]

15 minutes ago, bolt said:

No the amount of homes and doctors nice trying to paint me as a racist.  That's your first thought? shame on you

I don't think you are racist, being Faire though with the Opposition Party being the party of the "barbaric practices snitchline" and the "good European stock immigrants" phrasing from the government Poilievre was a minister in the cabinet of, it isn't so big a leap as you may think for folks to suspect it of rigorous P.P supporters.

[RupertKBD]

31 minutes ago, bolt said:

No the amount of homes and doctors nice trying to paint me as a racist.  That's your first thought? shame on you

 

Oh, I see.... "smart immigration" is only allowing in people who already have homes and doctors in Canada? Gotcha....

[Bob Long]

14 minutes ago, Optimist Prime said:

I don't think you are racist, being Faire though with the Opposition Party being the party of the "barbaric practices snitchline" and the "good European stock immigrants" phrasing from the government Poilievre was a minister in the cabinet of, it isn't so big a leap as you may think for folks to suspect it of rigorous P.P supporters.

 

Don't forget all the new flags we see at con rallies now... Should we go over those again?

[Master Mind]

3 hours ago, DSVII said:

 

One side is stoking anti immigration and anti-DEI sentiments and it ain't Trudeau.

 

Why is it a negative to be against DEI? People should be hired based on merit, not to fill a quota.

 

When diversity happens naturally that's great, but forcing it is just causing the same problem it claims to fix.

[4petesake]

24 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

Wow, even the immigrants want to leave...

 

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/money/finance-real-estate/nearly-40-of-new-canadians-are-considering-moving-due-to-housing-costs/ar-BB1pyumX?ocid=msedgntp&pc=HCTS&cvid=29b12d14d81a418a8766eaad55f4e561&ei=48

 

Nearly 40 per cent of recent immigrants to Canada are considering moving to another province or leaving the country altogether due to a lack of housing affordability , a recent poll conducted by the Angus Reid Institute suggests.

 

“If you are a young person who has arrived in Canada in the last 10 years, who is renting in one of Canada’s biggest cities, you know, life is not very happy at the moment,” said Shachi Kurl, president of Angus Reid.

 

Thirty-nine per cent of immigrants who have arrived in Canada within the past 10 years are thinking of relocating, with 25 per cent citing the cost of housing as the culprit.

 

Of the remaining respondents, finding a better quality of life was the biggest factor, along with others such as cost of living, access to healthcare and being closer to family.

 

According to the poll, 28 per cent of Canadians overall are considering leaving the province that they reside in due to soaring housing costs. Most live in either Ontario (39 per cent) or British Columbia (36 per cent), where high housing costs have persisted for longer compared to other regions.

 

Across Canada, 42 per cent of 18- to 24-year-olds say they are considering moving from their current province. According to the poll, renters are more likely to consider moving than those who own their dwellings with or without a mortgage .

 

Canada’s annual immigration target stands at approximately 500,000 people, making it one of the highest in the world relative to the population .

 

Among those who want to move but stay in Canada, the poll found the majority — 18 per cent — said they would like to relocate to Alberta.

 

“We can speculate that people who are thinking of (moving to) Alberta either have a perception that housing is more affordable in Alberta, or is more available or abundant in Alberta or that the jobs available to them in the province will enable them to afford the cost of living ,” Kurl said.

 

According to a recent BMO report, net interprovincial migration out of Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver was collectively over 130,000 people between 2022 and 2023.

Canada's population tops 41M. Is this the rise before the fall?

 

 

 

Wow!

 

Oh wait Provincial retention rates for immigrants has always been that way. Retention rates  are rising significantly in Atlantic Canada because of quality of life, affordable housing, etc. and declining in perennial powerhouses like BC and Ontario in 2023.

 

Atlantic Canada has seen more retention of newcomers since the Atlantic Immigration Pilot Program (AIPP) was launched in 2017. The jump in retention rates is exponential. Nova Scotia saw the highest increase from a one-year retention rate of 21.5 percent for the 2016 cohort to 63.9 percent in 2020 – a jump of over 42 percentage points.

New Brunswick saw its retention rate jump from 50 per cent for immigrants admitted in 2016 to 65.8 per cent in 2020.

The increase in Newfoundland and Labrador’s one-year retention rate was even higher, from 31.3 per cent for skilled immigrants admitted in 2016 to 50 per cent for those admitted in 2020.

Gupta said there are many factors behind the rising popularity of Atlantic provinces among newcomers.

“Some newcomers with families don’t want the hustle that comes with life in the Greater Toronto Area or B.C.’s Lower Mainland. For such people, the Atlantic provinces offer good quality of life. Besides, the Atlantic Immigration Program has helped the Maritimes increase immigration.”

[Bob Long]

11 minutes ago, Master Mind said:

 

Why is it a negative to be against DEI? People should be hired based on merit, not to fill a quota.

 

When diversity happens naturally that's great, but forcing it is just causing the same problem it claims to fix.

 

But you know better than this. It's not really a level playing field out there.

[Bob Long]

6 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

But you know better than this. It's not really a level playing field out there.

 

@Master Mind can you please just stop with this facey crap? It makes you look moronic.

[Master Mind]

4 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

@Master Mind can you please just stop with this facey crap? It makes you look moronic.

 

Complaining about a react looks much more moronic.

[Elias Pettersson]

28 minutes ago, 4petesake said:

 

Wow!

 

Oh wait Provincial retention rates for immigrants has always been that way. Retention rates  are rising significantly in Atlantic Canada because of quality of life, affordable housing, etc. and declining in perennial powerhouses like BC and Ontario in 2023.

 

 

Atlantic Canada has seen more retention of newcomers since the Atlantic Immigration Pilot Program (AIPP) was launched in 2017. The jump in retention rates is exponential. Nova Scotia saw the highest increase from a one-year retention rate of 21.5 percent for the 2016 cohort to 63.9 percent in 2020 – a jump of over 42 percentage points.

New Brunswick saw its retention rate jump from 50 per cent for immigrants admitted in 2016 to 65.8 per cent in 2020.

The increase in Newfoundland and Labrador’s one-year retention rate was even higher, from 31.3 per cent for skilled immigrants admitted in 2016 to 50 per cent for those admitted in 2020.

Gupta said there are many factors behind the rising popularity of Atlantic provinces among newcomers.

“Some newcomers with families don’t want the hustle that comes with life in the Greater Toronto Area or B.C.’s Lower Mainland. For such people, the Atlantic provinces offer good quality of life. Besides, the Atlantic Immigration Program has helped the Maritimes increase immigration.”

 

2016?  That was 8 years ago Pete.  Is there any more recent data, like since Trudeau took office?

[Bob Long]

27 minutes ago, Master Mind said:

 

Complaining about a react looks much more moronic.

 

The really sad part is you actually have good ideas sometimes.

 

[Elias Pettersson]

Oh wait, I found more recent data....

 

'Record spike' in immigrants leaving Canada in recent years | Financial Post

 

There was a “record spike” in the number of immigrants who left Canada between 2016 and 2019, according to a new study that urged the government to make retaining newcomers a top priority to boost the economy.

 

On average, 0.9 per cent of people who were granted permanent residence in or after 1982 left Canada each year, according to the study conducted by the Institute for Canadian Citizenship (ICC) and the Conference Board of Canada.

 

Nearly 40% of new Canadians are considering moving due to housing costs

 

However, in 2019, that figure went up to 1.18 per cent, which is 31 per cent higher than the average. There was also a spike in 2017, with the migration rate increasing by 43 per cent, to 1.15 per cent from 0.8 per cent in 2016. Put another way, about 67,000 people left Canada in 2019 and nearly 60,000 in 2017, the report’s researchers said at a press conference on Oct. 31.

 

This means that an abnormally high number of immigrants who were granted permanent residence between 1982 and 2018 preferred to leave the country between 2016 and 2019. The study also said the number of immigrants leaving the country has generally been on the rise since the 1990s.

 

“We are now seeing people who are coming to Canada and then saying, ‘Ah, no thanks,’ and moving on,” Daniel Bernhard, ICC’s chief executive, said. “And the number of those people are increasing. We have to believe that the lack of availability of housing, of health care, of other types of services are part of it.”

 

The study included people who were granted permanent residence between 1982 and 2018 and those who filed taxes in Canada at least once after landing.

 

People were counted as onward migrants — immigrants who have left the country — if they didn’t have a T1 Family File for two consecutive years and didn’t file one again by 2020, which is when the study period ends.

 

For example, people who become permanent residents in 2017, but didn’t have the T1 tax document in 2018 and 2019 would be considered onward migrants. The researchers used this method since the Canadian government doesn’t collect data on the number of immigrants leaving the nation, they said.

 

Bernhard said data for the past three years — when rising prices and the housing crisis started to dominate discussions — won’t be available for a few more years, but he expects the numbers to be “much worse” when they do arrive.

 

“These huge spikes (2016 to 2019) took place before anyone knew inflation was an issue, before anyone knew affordability was an issue, before housing became considered a crisis,” he said. “Immigrants were already reacting. This is what happened when Canada was sleeping.”

 

Immigration has traditionally played a role in boosting the economy. But with Canada battling rising prices and a housing crisis, some economists have urged the federal government to provide clear plans on how it intends to accommodate the thousands of newcomers it hopes to welcome in the next few years.

 

So, basically the number of immigrants leaving Canada SPIKED in 2016, coincidentally the year after Trudeau took office.  It has gotten worse every years since.  According to this article, the numbers after 2019 which they haven't accumulated yet are even worse...

[4petesake]

22 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

 

2016?  That was 8 years ago Pete.  Is there any more recent data, like since Trudeau took office?

 

But that’s the point…provincial retention has always been difficult in some provinces, no matter the party or the pm.

 

Nova Scotia’s one year retention rate rose from 21.5% in 2016 to 63.9% in 2020. New Brunswick went from 50% to 65.8%, Newfoundland & Labrador jumped from 31.3% to 50% in 2020. So the Maritimes have risen substantially under Trudeau, although I don’t credit him for the rises. Along with some provincial programs to retain immigrants, people are starting to appreciate a simpler life away from big cities and high housing costs. 
 

 

The highest one year retention rates have always been led by Ontario, BC & Quebec, then Alberta so it’s not surprising that cities in these provinces with the highest housing costs are seeing rates drop. 
 

People moving for better opportunities is not new nor a story really. I left BC in ‘79 for better job opportunities in Alberta so to me it’s a bigger mystery why more people don’t move away.

[DSVII]

1 hour ago, Master Mind said:

 

Why is it a negative to be against DEI? People should be hired based on merit, not to fill a quota.

 

When diversity happens naturally that's great, but forcing it is just causing the same problem it claims to fix.

 

I'm in favor of meritocracy and in certain instances it's a bit more nuanced where the 'quota' as you said, may be done to make up for a multi-generational imbalance to give them an equal chance to succeed. The effects of residential schools for example are still with us, this isn't a scenario where you tell people to get over it because it happened a thousand years ago. They need that extra help today to ensure they get back on their feet.

 

So yes I believe in equal chances, not equal outcomes. I'll acknowledge that some programs may go too far on the latter part, but the intent is worthwhile to pursue.

 

I fear the anti-DEI/Woke crowd is priming people to feel good about denying those vulnerable people representation and eventually their rights. There's a lot of rage bait media right now that instantly brings the word 'woke'  or 'forced diversity' out whenever something they see features a minority or LGBTQ+ person or viewpoint. When you're immersed in that world long enough, you will get to the point where you feel their voices and rights are infringing onto yours. It is culture war bullshit that is designed to keep us distracted. 

 

It concerns me, because even though I'm not a member of those groups, a segment of the population is being trained to be opposed to anything helping those groups and it is normalizing taking away rights and representation from them. What's to stop them from eventually casting a wider net to distract us even more from the issues and it eventually affecting you and me? Because make no mistake, populism will eventually devour itself.

 

I'll reiterate it many times, populism never leads to anywhere good. We've seen the effect the provincial conservatives have taken to dismantle healthcare and public services in order to privatize them, while elected on a platform of 'we are not corrupt like the liberals'.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 8 by DSVII

[Bob Long]

19 minutes ago, 4petesake said:

 

But that’s the point…provincial retention has always been difficult in some provinces, no matter the party or the pm.

 

Nova Scotia’s one year retention rate rose from 21.5% in 2016 to 63.9% in 2020. New Brunswick went from 50% to 65.8%, Newfoundland & Labrador jumped from 31.3% to 50% in 2020. So the Maritimes have risen substantially under Trudeau, although I don’t credit him for the rises. Along with some provincial programs to retain immigrants, people are starting to appreciate a simpler life away from big cities and high housing costs. 
 

 

The highest one year retention rates have always been led by Ontario, BC & Quebec, then Alberta so it’s not surprising that cities in these provinces with the highest housing costs are seeing rates drop. 
 

People moving for better opportunities is not new nor a story really. I left BC in ‘79 for better job opportunities in Alberta so to me it’s a bigger mystery why more people don’t move away.

 

Inter provincial mobility has always been high.

 

This recent stuff Petey is trying to spin as a disaster is actually good news for places like Saskatoon.

[The Arrogant Worms]

'There is a trend here': Experts celebrate as French left wing appears to beat far right

 

https://www.rawstory.com/trend-experts-celebrate-french-left-wing-win/

[Satchmo]

1 hour ago, Master Mind said:

 

Complaining about a react looks much more moronic.

Who was it again that railed at me for a 'react' I left on a post?

[Master Mind]

7 minutes ago, DSVII said:

 

I'm in favor of meritocracy and in certain instances it's a bit more nuanced where the 'quota' as you said, may be done to make up for a multi-generational imbalance to give them an equal chance to succeed. The effects of residential schools for example are still with us, this isn't a scenario where you tell people to get over it because it happened a thousand years ago. They need that extra help today to ensure they get back on their feet.

 

I also fear the anti-DEI/Woke crowd is priming people to feel good about denying those vulnerable people representation and eventually their rights. There's a lot of rage bait media right now that instantly brings the word 'woke'  or 'forced diversity' out whenever something they see features a minority or LGBTQ+ person or viewpoint. When you're immersed in that world long enough, you will get to the point where you feel their voices and rights are infringing onto yours. It is culture war bullshit that is designed to keep us distracted. 

 

It concerns me, because even though I'm not a member of those groups, a segment of the population is being trained to be opposed to anything helping those groups and it is normalizing taking away from them.

 

It feeds into the populism platform, and I'll reiterate it many times, populism never leads to anywhere good. We've seen the effect the provincial conservatives have taken to dismantle healthcare and public services in order to privatize them, while elected on a platform of 'we are not corrupt like the liberals'.

 

If someone is denied a job because of their sex, ethnicity, etc, that shouldn't be acceptable.

 

There are some in higher up positions that gloat about not hiring men, white people, or straight white men. This is just racism/sexism plain and simple.

 

There is a lot of rage bait, and some take it too far, but many cases their criticism is justified. Most won't complain about a black person being the lead actor in a movie, but if a historically white person is race swapped in a movie, this is certainly to fulfill a quota or ideology, and people will call it out.

 

If you're in favour of meritocracy, I'm surprised you would speak negatively about anti-DEI sentiments when DEI naturally goes against meritocracy.

[Optimist Prime]

1 hour ago, Master Mind said:

 

Why is it a negative to be against DEI? People should be hired based on merit, not to fill a quota.

 

When diversity happens naturally that's great, but forcing it is just causing the same problem it claims to fix.

 

14 minutes ago, DSVII said:

 

I'm in favor of meritocracy and in certain instances it's a bit more nuanced where the 'quota' as you said, may be done to make up for a multi-generational imbalance to give them an equal chance to succeed. The effects of residential schools for example are still with us, this isn't a scenario where you tell people to get over it because it happened a thousand years ago. They need that extra help today to ensure they get back on their feet.

 

So yes I believe in equal chances, not equal outcomes. I'll acknowledge that some programs may go too far on the latter part, but the intent is worthwhile to pursue.

I was going to reply to Master Mind, with some agreement going his way, decided to keep reading down thread and glad i did. Your post sums it up well.
I am somewhat in agreement with the idea of equality of chances not necessarily equality of outcomes, but my caveat to that is we do need to continuously strengthen our social safety nets for when those unequal outcomes are too far unbalanced and the most at risk in our society are pushed out to the fringes. In society as in nature, those too maimed, slow or old end up on the fringe and that is where the rigours of life trim the herd down to size. I don't want any one to be living on the edge so much so that their very lives are in danger. Think about homeless, sex workers, addicts all the various kinds of humanity that live in the danger zone, usually due to mental health issues, including addiction. 

 

So as I was reading Master Mind's post I was thinking of my cousin who wanted to run for the BC NDP locally, in the riding that is currently held by The Green Party: He talked to the NDP local executive group about his thoughts of seeking the nomination and was told a man ran last time, and so this time the nominee to run for the BC NDP in the riding had to be a woman. That is a great example of terrible..i can't recall the exact phrase but the DEI concept i think you guys are talking about. it solved a problem that didn't exist. Forcing half the population based on gender NOT to be allowed to run is a massive problem relative to the other open nomination processes other parties use where the best candidate for nominee will generally be voted in by the members of the party locally. 
Now, lets change tacks to the federal public service: where three applicants all have merrit and credentials to fill a vacancy, I have no issue with the edge going to under represented folks in that department and pay grade. Be it a first nations applicant, a person of colour, a disabled person or in male heavy or female heavy roles and positions, the opposite gender of the overly represented one: i am in favour of spreading the union jobs around to all of the various demographics of our nation. 

It is two ways to look at the issue: diverse hiring from among the finalists who all qualified for the position I feel is good and just, the phrase my brother in law would use, he was a Jamaican immigrant, was this "You gonna be all right anyhow man, you all white" (he said it jokingly but it sort of fits. My friend Danika survived growing up on reserve in Alberta on one of the worst set of circumstances in the nation, and became a lawyer and works with the UN on indigenous rights and water rights, she would be one of a few dozen First Nations Lawyers from Canada working in the international community: of course I think where her niche of specialty fits that she should be hired before Rudy Guliani. (a reach but i needed a rich white old guy example)

But I am also against the arbitrary "girl, boy, girl" back and forth of NDP candidates in a riding. I dunno if they changed the rule but if a man ran last time and lost, a woman will be the candidate next time, was the rule when my cousin wasn't allowed to run for the nomination because he had a penis. That is just plain dumb. 

[Bob Long]

2 minutes ago, Master Mind said:

 

If someone is denied a job because of their sex, ethnicity, etc, that shouldn't be acceptable.

 

But this happens. This is what dei is trying to eliminate.

 

2 minutes ago, Master Mind said:

There are some in higher up positions that gloat about not hiring men, white people, or straight white men. This is just racism/sexism plain and simple.

 

There is a lot of rage bait, and some take it too far, but many cases their criticism is justified. Most won't complain about a black person being the lead actor in a movie, but if a historically white person is race swapped in a movie, this is certainly to fulfill a quota or ideology, and people will call it out.

 

If you're in favour of meritocracy, I'm surprised you would speak negatively about anti-DEI sentiments when DEI naturally goes against meritocracy.

 

I think you are reacting to the  right wing spin on dei, not what the reality of people in the regular job market are facing.