2017 Canadian Politics Megathread - Sesquicentennial Edition

[Geilinor]

So much for commitment to electoral reform it seems...

He didn't say it's been abandoned. He's done this before, like saying that he wouldn't necessarily choose someone from Atlantic Canada for the Supreme Court and then doing it anyway.

[MERIZoC]

So much for commitment to electoral reform it seems...

He didn't say it's been abandoned. He's done this before, like saying that he wouldn't necessarily choose someone from Atlantic Canada for the Supreme Court and then doing it anyway.

Whether or not a judge is from atlantic Canada is not of as much consequence as this, nor was it his central election promise.

[Auralia]

Thoughts on Andrew Scheer as leader of the Conservative Party? Respected former Speaker of the House, fluently bilingual, not too close to Harper, Catholic family man, socially conservative but politically savvy about it... he's certainly my preferred candidate at the moment.

[The Liberated Territories]

Thoughts on Andrew Scheer as leader of the Conservative Party? Respected former Speaker of the House, fluently bilingual, not too close to Harper, Catholic family man, socially conservative but politically savvy about it... he's certainly my preferred candidate at the moment.

Bernier or bust.

[Barrera]

I like Trudeau, but not being Canadian, I'm not familiar with his economic or domestic policies. I think it's good Harper went. He seemed to friendly with big business and seemed quite keen on looking good to US presidents.

I could be wrong. Just the impression I got.

Edit: I do find it a little...hypocritical...how the few Canadians I do know all almost universally moaned about how Harper won a majority on 2011 on 39.6% of the vote (one citing it as proof of Canada needing electoral reform) and yet none of them complaining when Trudeau won an even bigger majority (proportionally; as I know the number of seats rose) on 39.5% of the vote in 2015 indeed, the same person who called for electoral reform 4 years earlier said she didn't think it was totally needed and that she didn't want Trudeau "to be too radical" about it.

[Bogdanov Vishniac]

Thoughts on Andrew Scheer as leader of the Conservative Party? Respected former Speaker of the House, fluently bilingual, not too close to Harper, Catholic family man, socially conservative but politically savvy about it... he's certainly my preferred candidate at the moment.

Sure why not. I can think of few things that would be better than having a social conservative go head to head with Trudeau in the next election. I can just imagine him trying to talk his way out of the 'I'd repeal same sex marriage laws if I could but that would be really unpopular so I won't push it' paradox his wing has got themselves into in the middle of a debate.

[Camicon]

He didn't say it's been abandoned. He's done this before, like saying that he wouldn't necessarily choose someone from Atlantic Canada for the Supreme Court and then doing it anyway.

Whether or not a judge is from atlantic Canada is not of as much consequence as this, nor was it his central election promise.

Trudeau has neither said nor done anything to suggest that he and the Liberals are not going to pursue electoral reform.

He said that it's challenging to find a consensus among the public on what electoral reforms should be taken. That division existed well before the Liberals won the election, and it isn't going to change any time soon.

He said that the desire for electoral reforms among Canadians has dropped since the election. If only because some people are going to tune out of the political discourse when there isn't an election on the horizon, this is completely true.

The committee which was tasked with studying this issue is due to report their findings on December 1st. Until then there is nothing more to be done; so, how about we withhold our judgement until there are are some actions, or a conspicuous absence of action, to criticize.

Getting after a man for stating facts is ridiculous.

[MERIZoC]

Whether or not a judge is from atlantic Canada is not of as much consequence as this, nor was it his central election promise.

Trudeau has neither said nor done anything to suggest that he and the Liberals are not going to pursue electoral reform.

He said that it's challenging to find a consensus among the public on what electoral reforms should be taken. That division existed well before the Liberals won the election, and it isn't going to change any time soon.

He said that the desire for electoral reforms among Canadians has dropped since the election. If only because some people are going to tune out of the political discourse when there isn't an election on the horizon, this is completely true.

The committee which was tasked with studying this issue is due to report their findings on December 1st. Until then there is nothing more to be done; so, how about we withhold our judgement until there are are some actions, or a conspicuous absence of action, to criticize.

Getting after a man for stating facts is ridiculous.

Indeed. And given that nothing has changed, why was he so enthusiastic and optimistic about it before? Because back then he didn't have a crazy-large majority, and now he's perfectly fine with the way the Parliament is composed.

[Camicon]

Trudeau has neither said nor done anything to suggest that he and the Liberals are not going to pursue electoral reform.

He said that it's challenging to find a consensus among the public on what electoral reforms should be taken. That division existed well before the Liberals won the election, and it isn't going to change any time soon.

He said that the desire for electoral reforms among Canadians has dropped since the election. If only because some people are going to tune out of the political discourse when there isn't an election on the horizon, this is completely true.

The committee which was tasked with studying this issue is due to report their findings on December 1st. Until then there is nothing more to be done; so, how about we withhold our judgement until there are are some actions, or a conspicuous absence of action, to criticize.

Getting after a man for stating facts is ridiculous.

Indeed. And given that nothing has changed, why was he so enthusiastic and optimistic about it before? Because back then he didn't have a crazy-large majority, and now he's perfectly fine with the way the Parliament is composed.

Enthusiasm is how you get people to the polls, and getting people to the polls is how you win elections. I mean, Christ, you see politicians talking about the economy like that want to make love to it and that shit is boring as fuck. A change in tone indicates nothing more than the fact that the Liberals don't need to get people excited and motivated to do something, it's a pattern you see in literally every issue, and you're acting like it's a sign from the heavens that forming a government has turned Trudeau and the party into a bunch of power-crazed morons who get off by screwing people.

I have news for you: every single MP in Canada knows how FPTP electoral systems deliver majority governments on a minority of the popular vote, Liberals included. If they never had any intention of changing the electoral system to something other than FPTP then they never have promised to.

Wholesale change of the electoral system is not the only reform that can be made, and, looking at provincial attempts to do so, it isn't even a popular course of action. There is public desire for electoral reform, but the Liberals could have capitalized on that just as well without committing themselves so far, and if they never intended to do away with our FPTP electoral system that would have been the far more intelligent campaign message and platform position. Taking and following through on a campaign promise will piss of your hard-line opponents, but making and then never following through on a campaign promise is going to piss of your supporters and gives all of your opponents ammunition with which to tear you down.

[MERIZoC]

If they never had any intention of changing the electoral system to something other than FPTP then they never have promised to.

Or they lied or reversed their position. You know. Like they've done with climate action, Afghan detainees, CSIS torture case, etc.

[Camicon]

If they never had any intention of changing the electoral system to something other than FPTP then they never have promised to.

Or they lied or reversed their position. You know. Like they've done with climate action, Afghan detainees, CSIS torture case, etc.

My point was that making a campaign promise you never intended to keep is a lose-lose situation, and the Liberals aren't stupid enough to do that. And they've said nothing to suggest that they've revered their position. All evidence suggests that they want, and intend, to replace our FPTP system.

Be upset with them that they aren't meeting your expectations when it comes to climate change, or their hypocritical stance on the Afghan detainee issue, or their lack of transparency on the CSIS torture issue; but also, recognize that those are separate issues from electoral reform.

We can point to specific things that the Liberals have or have not done on a plethora of issues, and we can level justified criticisms against them based on those things. Come December 1st we should be able to do the same on the issue of electoral reform, but we aren't there yet, and stomping forward anyways does a disservice to the matter.

[MERIZoC]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/steven-blaney-conservative-leadership-niqab-ban-1.3818673

Oh, wouldn't it be wonderful to have such a moron as head of the tories?

[Oneracon]

Thoughts on Andrew Scheer as leader of the Conservative Party? Respected former Speaker of the House, fluently bilingual, not too close to Harper, Catholic family man, socially conservative but politically savvy about it... he's certainly my preferred candidate at the moment.

The last thing the Conservative Party needs right now is a social conservative at the helm. It will solidify the base of people who already vote Conservative (perhaps even drawing back some disenchanted socons from the CHP), but it won't do anything to increase their electability and form a legitimate challenge to the Trudeau Liberals in 2019. What the Tories need is to move away from the Alliance/Reform side (aka Scheer, Trost) and get someone like Michael Chong.

Also, Golob's idea of a PM stacking the Supreme Court with justices of a particular ideological bent strictly to overturn R v Morgentaler (and likely several successor cases including Tremblay v Daigle) gives me serious pause. The last thing any Canadian should want is for our court to turn into a duplicate of SCOTUS.

[Napkiraly]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/steven-blaney-conservative-leadership-niqab-ban-1.3818673

Oh, wouldn't it be wonderful to have such a moron as head of the tories?

Well, I certainly agree with banning it for federal employees but I agree Blaney would make a poor choice for leader.

[Bogdanov Vishniac]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/steven-blaney-conservative-leadership-niqab-ban-1.3818673

Oh, wouldn't it be wonderful to have such a moron as head of the tories?

Well, I certainly agree with banning it for federal employees but I agree Blaney would make a poor choice for leader.

I really don't see why it's necessary, seeing as I'm almost 100% certain there are no federal employees who are wearing niqabs. According to the Toronto Star there are an estimated total of 12 niqabis in Montreal, which probably has one of the largest total Muslim populations in Canada. Take a stand against 'barbaric practices' all you like, but something like this is a pretty pointless way of going about it.

[Napkiraly]

Well, I certainly agree with banning it for federal employees but I agree Blaney would make a poor choice for leader.

I really don't see why it's necessary, seeing as I'm almost 100% certain there are no federal employees who are wearing niqabs. According to the Toronto Star there are an estimated total of 12 niqabis in Montreal, which probably has one of the largest total Muslim populations in Canada. Take a stand against 'barbaric practices' all you like, but something like this is a pretty pointless way of going about it.

I'm for it because I'm for banning all overt religious or irreligious displays of affiliation for public employees altogether.

[Camicon]

I really don't see why it's necessary, seeing as I'm almost 100% certain there are no federal employees who are wearing niqabs. According to the Toronto Star there are an estimated total of 12 niqabis in Montreal, which probably has one of the largest total Muslim populations in Canada. Take a stand against 'barbaric practices' all you like, but something like this is a pretty pointless way of going about it.

I'm for it because I'm for banning all overt religious or irreligious displays of affiliation for public employees altogether.

Canada has no "separation of church and state" clause. In fact, our constitution includes accommodations which run quite contrary to that idea. Banning all religious displays from public employees is never going to happen.

It's not something I understand, personally. As long as someone is professional about their job what do I care if they wear a crucifix, a niqab, etc.?

[Napkiraly]

I'm for it because I'm for banning all overt religious or irreligious displays of affiliation for public employees altogether.

Canada has no "separation of church and state" clause. In fact, our constitution includes accommodations which run quite contrary to that idea. Banning all religious displays from public employees is never going to happen.

It's not something I understand, personally. As long as someone is professional about their job what do I care if they wear a crucifix, a niqab, etc.?

I'm perfectly aware, considering I have read the constitution on more than one occasion. The "supremacy of God" bit is part of the constitution still, after all. I'm perfectly aware that Canada needs a total overhaul of the relationship between the government and religion to one that is actually secular. I would hope that attempts such as this would be enough to bring up the topic and then galvanize enough people to push for secularism finally being introduced into Canada.

Because I do not think representatives of the state should be seen only as representatives of the state. In my opinion, over religious or irreligious affiliation in contrary to that. It's part of the package of one's secularism being influenced by laicite.

[Freefall11111]

I really don't see why it's necessary, seeing as I'm almost 100% certain there are no federal employees who are wearing niqabs. According to the Toronto Star there are an estimated total of 12 niqabis in Montreal, which probably has one of the largest total Muslim populations in Canada. Take a stand against 'barbaric practices' all you like, but something like this is a pretty pointless way of going about it.

I'm for it because I'm for banning all overt religious or irreligious displays of affiliation for public employees altogether.

An overt irreligious display? I'm not even sure how that would work. A t-shirt with the words "I'm an atheist" on it?

[Napkiraly]

I'm for it because I'm for banning all overt religious or irreligious displays of affiliation for public employees altogether.

An overt irreligious display? I'm not even sure how that would work. A t-shirt with the words "I'm an atheist" on it?

I suppose. I'm not sure how it would work either, but I'm sure someone could find a way. It's about the spirit of it more than anything since it is mainly overt religious display to worry about.

[Camicon]

Canada has no "separation of church and state" clause. In fact, our constitution includes accommodations which run quite contrary to that idea. Banning all religious displays from public employees is never going to happen.

It's not something I understand, personally. As long as someone is professional about their job what do I care if they wear a crucifix, a niqab, etc.?

Because I do not think representatives of the state should be seen only as representatives of the state. In my opinion, over religious or irreligious affiliation in contrary to that. It's part of the package of one's secularism being influenced by laicite.

You've explained that you do care, but not why. "It's a part of laicite" is a crap reason, because that's not in the constitution.

I want to know why. Why should Canada change it's constitution and formally adopt a secular stance, and why should I care whether or not a government bureaucrat is wearing a niqab?

[The Liberated Territories]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/steven-blaney-conservative-leadership-niqab-ban-1.3818673

Oh, wouldn't it be wonderful to have such a moron as head of the tories?

The progressives would be screaming out of their heads, but with Trudeau-Do-Right hardly a peep is made.

[Cymrea]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/steven-blaney-conservative-leadership-niqab-ban-1.3818673

Oh, wouldn't it be wonderful to have such a moron as head of the tories?

The progressives would be screaming out of their heads, but with Trudeau-Do-Right hardly a peep is made.

I'd think Canada's had her fill of moron Tories.

[South Park Labourite]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau ... -1.3820153

Stupid Trudeau voters vent their frustrations. Really they should hang their heads in shame for not voting Mulcair.

[Cymrea]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-protesters-young-workers-event-1.3820153

Stupid Trudeau voters vent their frustrations. Really they should hang their heads in shame for not voting Mulcair.

NDP seems particularly unpopular in Alberta. Notley's government might be providing a negative influence for the Dippers nationally.