Canadian Politics Thread

[Satchmo]

7 minutes ago, Ricky Ravioli said:

It's not a solution though. It's just a bandaid. Look at food bank usage and how that's exploded in the last year or two. It's great that it's there to help people but the demand is only getting worse while more and more people rely on them. Without looking at what's causing peoples needs to rely on food banks we will never truly help these people. It's not any different when you look at lunch programs 

It's a solution to the problem of kids not getting enough to eat at school. Right now. That is my one and only point despite your raising of other points and listing other problems to tackle.  

 

[the destroyer of worlds]

1 minute ago, Ricky Ravioli said:

So we just not even gonna ask why these kids aren't eating at home?

Let's just immediately throw money at the problem and not even bother into looking at the why and how? 

 

I also never said "can't feed the kids until we tackle inflation"...

What I said is that alone is not going to solve the problem 

It's the first line of the Quote you shared.

 

Making sure kids get fed is a separate issue to getting food prices under control.  Thing is, if the Libs are asleep at the wheel, what exactly are the CONs going to do?  They have a top adviser who has ties to Loblaws.  Loblaws is guilty of a bread price fixing scandal.  Tell me what steps can be taken to bring prices under control and that list ain't happening with a CON government,

[King Heffy]

9 minutes ago, Ricky Ravioli said:

So we just not even gonna ask why these kids aren't eating at home?

Let's just immediately throw money at the problem and not even bother into looking at the why and how? 

 

I also never said "can't feed the kids until we tackle inflation"...

What I said is that alone is not going to solve the problem 

https://fshn.illinois.edu/news/what-are-benefits-free-school-meals-heres-what-research-says

 

Personally, I view this as an investment in our future rather than an expense.  Research seems to support this.

Edited September 9 by King Heffy

[Ricky Ravioli]

8 minutes ago, Satchmo said:

It's a solution to the problem of kids not getting enough to eat at school. Right now. That is my one and only point despite your raising of other points and listing other problems to tackle.  

 

I'll concede there. See we can agree once in a while

[Ricky Ravioli]

23 minutes ago, the destroyer of worlds said:

It's the first line of the Quote you shared.

 

Making sure kids get fed is a separate issue to getting food prices under control.  Thing is, if the Libs are asleep at the wheel, what exactly are the CONs going to do?  They have a top adviser who has ties to Loblaws.  Loblaws is guilty of a bread price fixing scandal.  Tell me what steps can be taken to bring prices under control and that list ain't happening with a CON government,

https://breachmedia.ca/grocery-giants-paid-for-friendly-liberal-tory-policy-with-decades-of-donations/

 

Families and CEOs behind Loblaw, Empire, Metro have donated $150,000 to two main parties

 

The families and CEOs behind Canada’s largest grocery retailers have donated more than $150,000 to the Liberal and Conservative Party over the last two decades, data from Elections Canada shows.

 

That puts the owners of Loblaw and Empire among the top political donors in the country, according to a political financing expert.

 

Corporations have been banned from giving to federal parties since 2004, but that hasn’t stopped billionaire families like the Westons (owners of Loblaw) and Sobeys (owners of Empire) from frequently giving the maximum annual amount allowed.

 

While Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and opposition leader Pierre Poilievre have taken turns accusing each other of cozying up to the corporate elite, Conservatives and Liberals have both consistently obliged their grocery donors.

 

The Liberal government forked over $26 million to Loblaw and Costco for new fridges and appliances. Under the former Conservative government of Stephen Harper, grocery retailers started pocketing tens of millions of dollars in subsidies intended to make food more affordable in Canada’s north.

 

Neither party has advocated for stricter rules to ensure Loblaw can’t repeat its tax evasion scheme of the 2000s, when it deprived the federal government of nearly $400 million in revenue by stashing money in Barbados. 

 

 

You seriously don't think Loblaws has their hands in the pockets of the liberals as well?

 

Edited September 9 by Ricky Ravioli

[aGENT]

1 hour ago, Ricky Ravioli said:

That's a great question. Let me hit you with a question. After 9 years of liberal government. What have they done to combat rising food costs and associated costs to transportation of goods and such?

I understand where you are coming from but the liberals shouldn't get a pass here.

 

Who's giving them a pass? Both parties are guilty of pro corporate Neo Con/Neo Liberal issues. Who do you think funds both their campaigns and gives them cushy advisory/board etc appointments when they're out of politics? 

 

All I'm pointing out is that if you have issues with things like wage gaps, affordability, profiteering, monopolies etc, replacing the current moderately bad party with an even worse one, is not going to improve those things.

[aGENT]

4 hours ago, Ricky Ravioli said:

https://breachmedia.ca/grocery-giants-paid-for-friendly-liberal-tory-policy-with-decades-of-donations/

 

Families and CEOs behind Loblaw, Empire, Metro have donated $150,000 to two main parties

 

The families and CEOs behind Canada’s largest grocery retailers have donated more than $150,000 to the Liberal and Conservative Party over the last two decades, data from Elections Canada shows.

 

That puts the owners of Loblaw and Empire among the top political donors in the country, according to a political financing expert.

 

Corporations have been banned from giving to federal parties since 2004, but that hasn’t stopped billionaire families like the Westons (owners of Loblaw) and Sobeys (owners of Empire) from frequently giving the maximum annual amount allowed.

 

While Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and opposition leader Pierre Poilievre have taken turns accusing each other of cozying up to the corporate elite, Conservatives and Liberals have both consistently obliged their grocery donors.

 

The Liberal government forked over $26 million to Loblaw and Costco for new fridges and appliances. Under the former Conservative government of Stephen Harper, grocery retailers started pocketing tens of millions of dollars in subsidies intended to make food more affordable in Canada’s north.

 

Neither party has advocated for stricter rules to ensure Loblaw can’t repeat its tax evasion scheme of the 2000s, when it deprived the federal government of nearly $400 million in revenue by stashing money in Barbados. 

 

 

You seriously don't think Loblaws has their hands in the pockets of the liberals as well?

 

 

The difference isn't that one party is or isn't doing it. They both are. One just does it to a greater degree. And the other one at least gives us pleebs some scraps in social programs. They both bend us over while picking our pockets, one just uses a bit of lube.

Edited September 10 by aGENT

[RupertKBD]

1 hour ago, King Heffy said:

https://fshn.illinois.edu/news/what-are-benefits-free-school-meals-heres-what-research-says

 

Personally, I view this as an investment in our future rather than an expense.  Research seems to support this.

 

John Oliver did a deep dive on this very issue last night, and it appears that this is absolutely true.

 

Making sure kids are fed is a net benefit to society, rather than a burden.

 

And for those decrying the cost, or whingeing about "throwing money at the problem", I can only relate the experience of one of the teachers Oliver featured, who, when told that the school board had ended the lunch program at her school, described the responses from her students when she told them the bad news...."I could see from the looks on their faces.....some of those kids just realized they weren't going to eat today".....

 

The push to end these lunch programs across the US is generally described as "saving taxpayers money". I give you one guess which political party is at the forefront of those efforts....

[Ricky Ravioli]

49 minutes ago, aGENT said:

 

Who's giving them a pass? Both parties are guilty of pro corporate Neo Con/Neo Liberal issues. Who do you think funds both their campaigns and gives them cushy advisory/board etc appointments when they're out of politics? 

 

All I'm pointing out is that if you have issues with things like wage gaps, affordability, profiteering, monopolies etc, replacing the current moderately bad party with an even worse one, is not going to improve those things.

All the bolded translates to me is "keep your head buried in the sand and hope the liberal government may one day actually do something" They have had 9 years to address things you have listed.

[Ricky Ravioli]

48 minutes ago, aGENT said:

 

The difference isn't that one party is our isn't doing it. They both are. One just does it to a greater degree. And the other one at least gives us pleebs some scraps in social programs. They both bend us over while picking our pockets, one just uses a bit of lube.

You mean the social programs we wouldn't need if Canadians could afford the basic necessities? 

[Ricky Ravioli]

21 minutes ago, RupertKBD said:

 

John Oliver did a deep dive on this very issue last night, and it appears that this is absolutely true.

 

Making sure kids are fed is a net benefit to society, rather than a burden.

 

And for those decrying the cost, or whingeing about "throwing money at the problem", I can only relate the experience of one of the teachers Oliver featured, who, when told that the school board had ended the lunch program at her school, described the responses from her students when she told them the bad news...."I could see from the looks on their faces.....some of those kids just realized they weren't going to eat today".....

 

The push to end these lunch programs across the US is generally described as "saving taxpayers money". I give you one guess which political party is at the forefront of those efforts....

Guess what? They aren't going to eat at home either if their parents can't even afford the basic necessities or rely on a food bank because the amount of people forced to use them has dramatically increased. 

 

Again, let me make this abundantly clear.

I think breakfast and lunch programs are definitely something needed in the school systems. But they should be supplementary. Ignoring the root causes of poverty amongst families is only going to do more harm in the long run.

[Satchmo]

14 minutes ago, Ricky Ravioli said:

You mean the social programs we wouldn't need if Canadians could afford the basic necessities? 

Such as?

[RupertKBD]

52 minutes ago, Ricky Ravioli said:

Guess what? They aren't going to eat at home either if their parents can't even afford the basic necessities or rely on a food bank because the amount of people forced to use them has dramatically increased. 

 

Again, let me make this abundantly clear.

I think breakfast and lunch programs are definitely something needed in the school systems. But they should be supplementary. Ignoring the root causes of poverty amongst families is only going to do more harm in the long run.

 

You can "think" what you like....the fact is, the research supports mine and Heffy's position....

[Coconuts]

1 hour ago, Ricky Ravioli said:

You mean the social programs we wouldn't need if Canadians could afford the basic necessities? 

 

Social programming would be necessary regardless, Canadians should be provided with more than the bare minimum in regards to supports

 

Supporting the Canadians who need support, so more your lower to mid range earners, is worth doing 

 

Having a healthy social safety net is a good thing, we're better off not whittling away at what's left of it 

[aGENT]

2 hours ago, Ricky Ravioli said:

You mean the social programs we wouldn't need if Canadians could afford the basic necessities? 

 

No, social programs that people need regardless. The most in need people (pensioners, veterans, disabled, single mothers etc), that will get even less help under the Cons to lift themselves up.

 

2 hours ago, Ricky Ravioli said:

All the bolded translates to me is "keep your head buried in the sand and hope the liberal government may one day actually do something" They have had 9 years to address things you have listed.

 

Again, I'm in no way suggesting you vote for the Liberals. As I said, they both grift for corporations. I'm questioning why you think voting for the team with 40+ years of history of being even worse at the things you seem (rightfully) upset at is a smart or viable solution to those exact problems?

Edited September 10 by aGENT

[aGENT]

4 hours ago, EastCoastExpress said:

Both really good points.

The Profiteering is being done in the middle, not by the grocers, or the producers & farmers, but by the distributors. The "wholesalers" have deals in place with the producers and farmers that they cannot sell to anyone else.

When I failed to get re-hired after Covid, I wanted to start a food truck and had two company brands I needed to get costing from for my business plan.

Even though I wanted high volume and willing to pick up the items, they advised me I had to get pricing and delivery from the distributors.

 

The Diploma mills also affected me getting my old IT jobs back. They have created new credentials around IT security and certain employers dodge TFW rules and standards by asking for specifically those Credentials. Gives them the excuse to hire someone for less than half my previous wages, and custom training provided by the "Canadian" college that is owned and run by people from India.

 

Frequently the grocery chains also own the distribution chain, and the real estate company that owns the store they "lease", etc, etc. 

[EastCoastExpress]

11 minutes ago, aGENT said:

 

Frequently the grocery chains also own the distribution chain, and the real estate company that owns the store they "lease", etc, etc. 

Correct, the holding corp is in a tax free offshore I am sure. Or at least the employees of said distribution and real estate who earn over $1mil per year "work" and live offshore out of tax reach.

Edited September 10 by EastCoastExpress

[King Heffy]

36 minutes ago, aGENT said:

 

No, social programs that people need regardless. The most in need people (pensioners, veterans, disabled, single mothers etc), that will get even less help under the Cons to lift themselves up.

 

 

Again, I'm in no way suggesting you vote for the Liberals. As I said, they both grift for corporations. I'm questioning why you think voting for the team with 40+ years of history of being even worse at the things you seem (rightfully) upset at is a smart or viable solution to those exact problems?

It's the equivalent of hiring Mile Millbury as GM after your guy made a couple of bad trades.  The mental gymnastics needed to justify allowing Poilivre to intentionally destroy this country is beyond me.

[aGENT]

Wrong thread

 

 

Edited September 10 by aGENT

[aGENT]

8 hours ago, Ghostsof1915 said:

So all the folks dumping on immigration. So are you ok with Canadian fruit and veggies skyrocketing in price because farm workers might have to be paid a living wage for the hard work? Seems funny when farms exploit farm workers everyone seems to be ok with immigrants. 

 

 

 

F' ing corporations....

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Bure_Pavel]

20 hours ago, Ghostsof1915 said:

So all the folks dumping on immigration. So are you ok with Canadian fruit and veggies skyrocketing in price because farm workers might have to be paid a living wage for the hard work? Seems funny when farms exploit farm workers everyone seems to be ok with immigrants. 

 

 

Food and farming is very important but Canada should be targeting skilled workers as immigrants, most of these low wage labour jobs will be replaced by machines in the near future. In most cases these machines already exist, there just needs to be incentive for capital investment towards increased productivity. Cant keep immigration at current pace without a major increase in housing supply, which will take a few years to get back on track.  

[Bure_Pavel]

17 hours ago, RupertKBD said:

 

John Oliver did a deep dive on this very issue last night, and it appears that this is absolutely true.

 

Making sure kids are fed is a net benefit to society, rather than a burden.

 

And for those decrying the cost, or whingeing about "throwing money at the problem", I can only relate the experience of one of the teachers Oliver featured, who, when told that the school board had ended the lunch program at her school, described the responses from her students when she told them the bad news...."I could see from the looks on their faces.....some of those kids just realized they weren't going to eat today".....

 

The push to end these lunch programs across the US is generally described as "saving taxpayers money". I give you one guess which political party is at the forefront of those efforts....

The question is which is the most cost effective method to feeding the children, the government has shown time and time again its inability to roll out a program like this in a cost effective manner. Would it be better to just keep more money in the consumers pockets to feed their own kids or additional government rebates to the poorest 20% of families? It is a great program in theory but can it be implemented without a massive government admin cost.    

[RupertKBD]

5 minutes ago, Bure_Pavel said:

The question is which is the most cost effective method to feeding the children, the government has shown time and time again its inability to roll out a program like this in a cost effective manner. Would it be better to just keep more money in the consumers pockets to feed their own kids or additional government rebates to the poorest 20% of families? It is a great program in theory but can it be implemented without a massive government admin cost.    

 

Sounds great in theory, but the fact is, school lunch programs help kids who wouldn't normally get those meals. There are lots of other things that could be done, but the priority is making sure those kids get fed.

 

I can think of a thousand ways that the government spends my tax dollars.....and I'd cancel every one of them before I cancel school lunches.

[Satchmo]

4 minutes ago, Bure_Pavel said:

The question is which is the most cost effective method to feeding the children, the government has shown time and time again its inability to roll out a program like this in a cost effective manner. Would it be better to just keep more money in the consumers pockets to feed their own kids or additional government rebates to the poorest 20% of families? It is a great program in theory but can it be implemented without a massive government admin cost.    

You don't seem to have any answers here but sure ask some loaded questions.

 

Oliver's show gave some very plausible reasons why - in America at least - fully paid school lunches during the pandemic were a great success.   You should watch it if you can.

 

It costs.  There is also a cost to school kids being too hungry to learn.

[Coconuts]

Of all the matters one can quibble about regarding government spending, I'm not sure feeding school age children should be one of em

 

Just get it done