2017 Canadian Politics Megathread - Sesquicentennial Edition

[Liberated Territories]

Canada has the shittiest candidates for PM I've ever seen

you have a liberal who want's to demographically replace natives
*snip*

Huh? Is Trudeau secretly planning a quiet genocide of some kind, which you are somehow privy to?

genocide of the canadian taxpayer maybe

[Camicon]

Huh? Is Trudeau secretly planning a quiet genocide of some kind, which you are somehow privy to?

genocide of the canadian taxpayer maybe

What is it with people these days, and their conflating things with genocide?

For the record, it doesn't do you any favours.

[Old Tyrannia]

Canada has the shittiest candidates for PM I've ever seen

you have a liberal who want's to demographically replace natives

a cuckservative

a centrist

and a seperatist


Canada, YES!

New Pantuxia: *** Warned for trolling. ***

[Liberated Territories]

Canada has the shittiest candidates for PM I've ever seen

you have a liberal who want's to demographically replace natives

a cuckservative

a centrist

and a seperatist


Canada, YES!

Yeah its unfortunate.

[Ragusan North America]

Do we really need to spend another $15b/yr on "defence" when we can have oceans for free?

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/liberals ... -1.3447743

Why are we still going along with this whole NATO thing anyway? I mean at this point it's obviously just a scam to fund the US military-industrial complex, and on the world stage it only serves to antagonize non-NATO powers (esp. Russia). If you don't believe me here are a couple of facts:

- NATO currently has 29 members, 13 of which joined after the end of the Cold War
- No NATO operations were conducted before 1990; since then there have been at least 17, most notably in the former Yugoslav countries, Afghanistan and Libya
- Article 5 of NATO has only been invoked once, following the 9/11 attacks, leading to the War in Afghanistan which is still ongoing
- The United Nations is a thing

Anyway I fail to see what Canada is getting out of the deal. Feel free to enlighten me if you wish.

[MERIZoC]

Trump says jump we say how high...

[Camicon]

Do we really need to spend another $15b/yr on "defence" when we can have oceans for free?

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/liberals ... -1.3447743

Why are we still going along with this whole NATO thing anyway? I mean at this point it's obviously just a scam to fund the US military-industrial complex, and on the world stage it only serves to antagonize non-NATO powers (esp. Russia). If you don't believe me here are a couple of facts:

- NATO currently has 29 members, 13 of which joined after the end of the Cold War
- No NATO operations were conducted before 1990; since then there have been at least 17, most notably in the former Yugoslav countries, Afghanistan and Libya
- Article 5 of NATO has only been invoked once, following the 9/11 attacks, leading to the War in Afghanistan which is still ongoing
- The United Nations is a thing

Anyway I fail to see what Canada is getting out of the deal. Feel free to enlighten me if you wish.

For the defence of Canada, we don't need NATO; the USA is big enough and powerful enough to protect us, and our proximity makes their protecting us a necessity. However, NATO is useful for curbing the imperial ambitions of Russia, which will become increasingly important as polar ice melts and previously unreachable resources in the Arctic become more readily available. Unlike national security we can't rely on the US when it comes to our best economic interests, so having NATO in Europe to keep Russia's attention there will give Canada a leg-up when it comes to protecting our northern waters and the resources they contain. When Russia's ambitions come at that cost of ours, "antagonizing" them isn't necessarily a bad thing.

And the US military-industrial complex would exist with or without NATO. The lion's share of US arms exports don't go to NATO members, who can often support a domestic industry. European NATO members that don't have a domestic industry generally purchase military equipment from European arms manufacturers, like France and Germany.

Anyways, NATO's greatest asset is as a deterrent. The fact that Article 5 has only been invoked once is a good thing, it means the whole "if you attack one of us then you've attacked all of us, prepare yourself for an unholy fucking" thing is doing its job. If Article 5 was being invoked every few years than the effectiveness of NATO as a deterrent would be very questionable, and it's usefulness as a military alliance only slightly less so.

And the UN is toothless when it comes to security, which is what NATO concerns itself with.

Trump says jump we say how high...

Canada has needed to boost its defence spending for some time. If Trump is what motivated the Liberals to get serious about that, so be it.

[Ragusan North America]

For the defence of Canada, we don't need NATO; the USA is big enough and powerful enough to protect us, and our proximity makes their protecting us a necessity. However, NATO is useful for curbing the imperial ambitions of Russia, which will become increasingly important as polar ice melts and previously unreachable resources in the Arctic become more readily available. Unlike national security we can't rely on the US when it comes to our best economic interests, so having NATO in Europe to keep Russia's attention there will give Canada a leg-up when it comes to protecting our northern waters and the resources they contain. When Russia's ambitions come at that cost of ours, "antagonizing" them isn't necessarily a bad thing.

I refuse to believe that Russia has imperialist ambitions; what they're doing now in the Arctic, Ukraine, Syria etc. is out of self-preservation. Russia is actually a fragile country and were Putin to drop dead tomorrow, there's a good chance it would collapse again like in '91. Putin gets his legitimacy from pushing Russian interests on the world stage since he can't get it from strengthening the weak economy anymore. Maybe if countries like Canada were sympathetic to this, then there wouldn't be so much confrontation.

As for strengthening our military to protect our "economic interests"... yeah, that's not what a military's for, at least not in a liberal democracy. Questions concerning the Arctic claims or the Northwest Passage won't be answered militarily, but in international court. Canada does have a reputation to uphold after all.

[Camicon]

For the defence of Canada, we don't need NATO; the USA is big enough and powerful enough to protect us, and our proximity makes their protecting us a necessity. However, NATO is useful for curbing the imperial ambitions of Russia, which will become increasingly important as polar ice melts and previously unreachable resources in the Arctic become more readily available. Unlike national security we can't rely on the US when it comes to our best economic interests, so having NATO in Europe to keep Russia's attention there will give Canada a leg-up when it comes to protecting our northern waters and the resources they contain. When Russia's ambitions come at that cost of ours, "antagonizing" them isn't necessarily a bad thing.

I refuse to believe that Russia has imperialist ambitions;

what they're doing now in the Arctic, Ukraine, Syria etc. is out of self-preservation.

Crimea wasn't about self-preservation. If Russia was only interested in self-preservation then it wouldn't be throwing it's military in the USA's face and pulling it's dick out every chance it gets.

Russia is actually a fragile country and were Putin to drop dead tomorrow, there's a good chance it would collapse again like in '91. Putin gets his legitimacy from pushing Russian interests on the world stage since he can't get it from strengthening the weak economy anymore. Maybe if countries like Canada were sympathetic to this, then there wouldn't be so much confrontation.

"Stop standing up to the bully and maybe they'll stop bullying people"? When has that strategy ever worked?

As for strengthening our military to protect our "economic interests"... yeah, that's not what a military's for, at least not in a liberal democracy.

For a liberal democracy, the primary purpose of your military should be defence. That includes protecting your exclusive economic zone.

Questions concerning the Arctic claims or the Northwest Passage won't be answered militarily, but in international court. Canada does have a reputation to uphold after all.

Yeah, that's why Israel's no longer occupying the West Bank. Oh, wait...

International courts are useful, in certain circumstances, but they're not going to stop Russian naval vessels or jets from making illegal incursions into Canadian territory, or other parties from operating illegally inside our EEZ.

[The Widening Gyre]

I refuse to believe that Russia has imperialist ambitions; what they're doing now in the Arctic, Ukraine, Syria etc. is out of self-preservation. Russia is actually a fragile country and were Putin to drop dead tomorrow, there's a good chance it would collapse again like in '91. Putin gets his legitimacy from pushing Russian interests on the world stage since he can't get it from strengthening the weak economy anymore. Maybe if countries like Canada were sympathetic to this, then there wouldn't be so much confrontation.

Well, an imperialist would tell you that the actions they advocate are motivated by that same sense of self-preservation. America needs Hawaii so that it can protect against another power like the German Empire using it as a springboard for invasion. Germany needs to invade and partition Poland to restore its integrity and allow it to defend itself against the Soviets. etc etc. Doesn't make their actions any less imperialist. That said I'm not sure what being 'sympathetic' to them would actually accomplish. Doubly so since doubtless they'd continue right on doing things like flybys and targeting political parties, since the niceness or lack thereof of our press releases doesn't change the fact that they have an interest in doing it.

[Saint-Thor]

Trudeau to Couillard: "We are not opening the Constitution." My goodness, finally some good policy decision from Trudeau.

TLDR Quebec wants to begin national negotiations for amendments before they finally sign on to the Constitution. The position document leaked to the Canadian Press and Radio-Canada a few days ago. It apparently draws heavily on Bourassa's "five conditions":

• Recognition of Quebec as a distinct society.
• Limits on federal spending power.
• Guaranteed Quebec representation on the Supreme Court.
• A constitutional veto right.
• Increased control over immigration.

Though tbh the only parts that I have issue with is the veto and increased control over immigration, since Quebec already exercises far more power than any other province in immigration and no province should be allowed to veto laws. Other than that... Parliament already recognized Quebec as "a nation within Canada" so some similar platitude in the Constitution isn't going to do much harm, guaranteed Quebec representation on the Supreme Court is already de facto a thing since the Court needs to have judges with knowledge of Quebec's civil law system so formalizing it is not a huge issue (we could even formalize requirements for other regions' representation too), and I don't really know what they mean by "limits to federal spending power".

Couillard's desire for constitutional talks was just a diversion after the press revealed his ties with Marc-Yvan Côté, a notorious fraudster who used to fundraise for the QLP. Marc-Yvan Côté was banned for life from the LPC in 2005 after the Gomery comission but still very active in the QLP until recently (illegal fundraising, fraud, and other corruptions). I'm not sure Couillard is really serious about it. HOWEVER, it's too late now, the Pandora's box is open. It's everywhere in the newspapers, people talk about it on radio call-in shows and Facebook and it's even debated at the Assemblée nationale. After Trudeau's refusal to re-open the constitution, people have suggested that Québec should draft its own constitution. Something unthinkable just 3 weeks ago.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Do we really need to spend another $15b/yr on "defence" when we can have oceans for free?

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/liberals ... -1.3447743

Why are we still going along with this whole NATO thing anyway? I mean at this point it's obviously just a scam to fund the US military-industrial complex, and on the world stage it only serves to antagonize non-NATO powers (esp. Russia). If you don't believe me here are a couple of facts:

- NATO currently has 29 members, 13 of which joined after the end of the Cold War
- No NATO operations were conducted before 1990; since then there have been at least 17, most notably in the former Yugoslav countries, Afghanistan and Libya
- Article 5 of NATO has only been invoked once, following the 9/11 attacks, leading to the War in Afghanistan which is still ongoing
- The United Nations is a thing

Anyway I fail to see what Canada is getting out of the deal. Feel free to enlighten me if you wish.

I am actually all for spending more on defence.

Canada has one of the best trained armies in the world, if it gets bigger, then we can kick all sorts of ass.

We need NATO to be strong, we need a good defence army.

Trump says jump we say how high...

The defence of our great nation is always a good thing.

No one wants to fight Canada, our northern border will be defended. This deters Putin if he does anything stupid.

[Ainin]

All I'll say is that I hope Trudeau spends his new defence piggybank on rebuilding the peacekeeping and coastal defence capabilities that were allowed to rot away under Harper, and not on useless boondoggles like Super Hornets or expansion of the regular army.

I have a feeling that I'm going to be disappointed.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

All I'll say is that I hope Trudeau spends his new defence piggybank on rebuilding the peacekeeping and coastal defence capabilities that were allowed to rot away under Harper, and not on useless boondoggles like Super Hornets or expansion of the regular army.

I have a feeling that I'm going to be disappointed.

That would be nice, but I would rather like both.



If we can have peacekeeping, coastal defence , and a good stronger better army, that would be good with me.

[MERIZoC]

The idea that Canada would be invaded by Russia is a laughable fantasy.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

The idea that Canada would be invaded by Russia is a laughable fantasy.

Our air space gets intruded on by Russia everyday.

I trust Putin as far as I can throw him.

Besides, I never said he would invade, only that if he gets that shit idea this will make him think more then twice about it.

[MERIZoC]

Ah yes, we'll own Putin by wasting a ton of money on things we don't need. That'll really show him.

[Ainin]

That would be nice, but I would rather like both.



If we can have peacekeeping, coastal defence , and a good stronger better army, that would be good with me.

What, pray tell, are we going to do with a larger army? The only reason the Canadian Army has historically been rather outsized is that it needed to ship to Europe and fight a Soviet invasion of West Germany (and no, Putin isn't going to invade Poland or Germany any time soon - the Russian Army is in no state to). It is rather hard to conceive what good reactivating a brigade or regiment would do for Canada's modern, manpower-light military commitments. Defence expansion should be in terms of technology (especially in the RCAF and RCN, both of which operate loads of quasi-obsolescent equipment by now), not manpower.

Unless you really just want to reactivate a regiment and garrison it in northern Manitoba in the highly unlikely event that the Spetznaz comes riding across the Arctic sea ice in their BMPs.

Our air space gets intruded on by Russia everyday.

This has been happening for 60 years, they're not going to stop anytime soon. It's Russia's way of probing NORAD's readiness.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Ah yes, we'll own Putin by wasting a ton of money on things we don't need. That'll really show him.

It makes people think twice about doing anything stupid anywhere on the planet.

Well trained troops now even more well funded ready to defend or attack anyone else who does something stupid somewhere.

That would be nice, but I would rather like both.



If we can have peacekeeping, coastal defence , and a good stronger better army, that would be good with me.

What, pray tell, are we going to do with a larger army? The only reason the Canadian Army has historically been rather outsized is that it needed to ship to Europe and fight a Soviet invasion of West Germany (and no, Putin isn't going to invade Poland or Germany any time soon - the Russian Army is in no state to). It is rather hard to conceive what good reactivating a brigade or regiment would do for Canada's modern, manpower-light military commitments. Defence expansion should be in terms of technology (especially in the RCAF and RCN, both of which operate loads of quasi-obsolescent equipment by now), not manpower.

Unless you really just want to reactivate a regiment and garrison it in northern Manitoba in the highly unlikely event that the Spetznaz comes riding across the Arctic sea ice in their BMPs.

Our air space gets intruded on by Russia everyday.

This has been happening for 60 years, they're not going to stop anytime soon. It's Russia's way of probing NORAD's readiness.

Defending our northern border, getting that field hospital up and running and, getting new technology for the RCAF and RCN like you said.

And now we can be even more ready.

[MERIZoC]

Ah yes, we'll own Putin by wasting a ton of money on things we don't need. That'll really show him.

It makes people think twice about doing anything stupid anywhere on the planet.

Everyone will tremble in fear at the might of the Canadian military.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

It makes people think twice about doing anything stupid anywhere on the planet.

Everyone will tremble in fear at the might of the Canadian military.

They already do.

You know you have a kickass military when weekend warriors can beat US marines.

[Camicon]

The idea that Canada would be invaded by Russia is a laughable fantasy.

It's about protecting our economic interests in the region, more than it is about defending from an invasion. If Russia tried to invade Canada then the US would have to treat that as an invasion of themselves, even if we weren't both NATO members. An invasion from Russia is something we don't need to fear.

[Geilinor]

The idea that Canada would be invaded by Russia is a laughable fantasy.

NATO is not only for defense against Russia.

[Oneracon]

I don't see an issue with the revamp of military spending, even increases in regular standing army will be important as we experience more severe weather disasters influenced by climate change at home and abroad. It would support increased operations for DART, for example.

Freeland, while being a bit hyperbolic in her speech, is generally on the right track when she says we are on our way to a "post-American" world.

[Olerand]

Trudeau to Couillard: "We are not opening the Constitution." My goodness, finally some good policy decision from Trudeau.

TLDR Quebec wants to begin national negotiations for amendments before they finally sign on to the Constitution. The position document leaked to the Canadian Press and Radio-Canada a few days ago. It apparently draws heavily on Bourassa's "five conditions":

• Recognition of Quebec as a distinct society.
• Limits on federal spending power.
• Guaranteed Quebec representation on the Supreme Court.
• A constitutional veto right.
• Increased control over immigration.

Though tbh the only parts that I have issue with is the veto and increased control over immigration, since Quebec already exercises far more power than any other province in immigration and no province should be allowed to veto laws. Other than that... Parliament already recognized Quebec as "a nation within Canada" so some similar platitude in the Constitution isn't going to do much harm, guaranteed Quebec representation on the Supreme Court is already de facto a thing since the Court needs to have judges with knowledge of Quebec's civil law system so formalizing it is not a huge issue (we could even formalize requirements for other regions' representation too), and I don't really know what they mean by "limits to federal spending power".

Couillard's desire for constitutional talks was just a diversion after the press revealed his ties with Marc-Yvan Côté, a notorious fraudster who used to fundraise for the QLP. Marc-Yvan Côté was banned for life from the LPC in 2005 after the Gomery comission but still very active in the QLP until recently (illegal fundraising, fraud, and other corruptions). I'm not sure Couillard is really serious about it. HOWEVER, it's too late now, the Pandora's box is open. It's everywhere in the newspapers, people talk about it on radio call-in shows and Facebook and it's even debated at the Assemblée nationale. After Trudeau's refusal to re-open the constitution, people have suggested that Québec should draft its own constitution. Something unthinkable just 3 weeks ago.

So... What does this mean for Québec?

Also, I was very surprised to learn that Québec hadn't ratified (?) the constitution. Seems like... A very odd thing... Sort of leaves Québec in limbo in Canada, no?