Canadian Politics Redux

Zod

PJ_Soul said:

Parksy said:

Just watching another Pierre speech...   And with the purpose in mind of giving him the benefit of the doubt here, I'm hoping some good people on here who might be knowledgeable can help me out. 

His hammer has been pounding on housing from the day he was made leader of the opposition.  Trudeau announces a plan to generate housing in London and immediately following, Pierre has his speech rebutting that announcement. 

In his speech he lays out his plan (Hey! Awesome!) to generate affordable housing. He claims that the liberal government have been ballooning bureaucracies and making it difficult to build houses with regulation (gatekeepers).  Same ole story.  So as part of his plan he says that he will penalize those municipalities who do not speed up the process of building and he will reward those municipalities that do.  

In particular with regards to the CHMC he said and I quote:

'But do you know who won't be getting bonuses? CMHC bureaucracies that delay approval for housing financing. The Trudeau government has ballooned the bureaucracy at the CMHC paying out millions of dollars in bonuses for the very bureaucrats who have doubled the cost of housing. I will be slashing their bonuses and they will be getting pay cuts unless they meet the target of approving financing for affordable housing in under 60 days." 

Now in complete fairness to Pierre, he's not wrong in my opinion about the CMHC bonuses.  That's remarkable.  All CMHC bonuses should have been frozen in the past 4 years for sure.  

The kicker to me though in all this rhetoric .. quite possibly from Trudeau as well.... but in this instance with Pierre in his fight for affordable housing.  When he says he will reward those in the CMHC who hit their targets for approving financing for affordable housing....   how exactly do they determine if housing is affordable? 

For example... I believe he's talking about developers who submit applications to CMHC for financing and approval to build housing (correct me if I'm wrong).   If that's the case, what metric is used in determining if housing is affordable or not?  This question has been on my mind for months now with regards to the housing 'crisis'.  

It also makes me ponder the dynamic between public and private sector. The 'gatekeepers' (public) set out where units can be built and I'm assuming set taxes, and safety regulations.  But at what point is 'affordability' even a consideration with this?  Is there some sort of process by which a developer must indicate before they build how much they will charge for a house or a unit?  My understanding is that it fluctuates with the market?   

Any input is appreciated. 

What I find really "interesting" is the fact that, since the Conservative passed the responsibility of housing over to the provinces in the '80s, something that the Libs did not support, Pierre acts like Trudeau is so totally responsible for the housing crisis. I also find it hilarious that anyone would believe that frozen salaries for CMHC employees would somehow put a dent in the housing market. Pierre fans seem really dumb TBH.

What Trudeau should do is restore what Canada had going on with building affordable housing before Mulroney ruined it.

I mean, I'm not sure if people can tell, but I think governments have run out of money.  They blew so much in covid, and interest rates are now the highest in over 20 years.  The capacity to borrow is greatly diminished.   We've got an aging population, and a stressed out health care system, probably needs more funding.  We have a housing crisis, needs more funding.  We have mental health, drug, homelessness crisis' need more funding, we're not building infrastructure to keep up with population increases, needs more funding, and the list goes on.

Except, where do they get the $$?  Each younger generation keeps having less and less.  It's going to be like squeezing water from a rock. 

In an ideal world we would figure out and fund these programs that all got stopped or reduce, but we seem to be at a limit of how much we can borrow, and possibly how much we can tax to fund them.

Whatever flexibility we had, was largely eroded when the national debit more than double in the last 3 years, followed by a massive increase in interest rates.

Zod

Also I think the word some people are looking for is "tact".   We have to deal with sketchy world superpowers all the time, but as politician your expected to be diplomatic and tactful about it to maintain internal relations.  Not call them out in a fight like it's the WWE

I was also wondering how this impacts many of my coworkers that moved here from India and obtained Canadian citizenship.   I guess they can't go back home to visit anymore, that's got to be tough :(

Parksy

PJ_Soul said:

I have no issue with how it was expressed to the public. Bluntly is the way I want it done. I also have no reason to think that Trudeau would casually make such an accusation, which is SO serious, for no reason. And if I'm going to choose a government to trust over the other, you can be sure that I'm trusting ours over India's!! And I think this kind of thing is EXACTLY they kind of thing India would do right now over the "Sikh issue", so I find the accusation extremely believable. Until I hear otherwise, I'm trusting Trudeau and our intelligence services on this one.

agreed. 

When it came out, there was a day of political solidarity. The next day Polievre is 'demanding' evidence.  

Now I'm generally in favour of 100% transparency.  But when it comes to national security and our intelligence branches... you have to be careful.  I'm shocked Pierre called Trudeau out on this.  

Shoe on the other foot, I would be saying the exact same thing if Pierre was PM and Trudeau was leader of opposition. 

Too much is at stake here and I'll admit that it wouldn't shock me if Trudeau did things for pure political gain, but if he was outright lying about this in the commons, it would be political suicide and his legacy (what's remotely left of it)  would be absolutely done. And a lie that large would need an awful lot of collusion with his own party and with CSIS. 

Parksy

I'd like to say under these India circumstances... 

When you operate as greasy as Trudeau does.  

When you lie and mislead as often as Trudeau does....

And then something major happens... and doubt is being cast on basically anything you have to say...  there is only one person to blame and one person only.. and that is Trudeau. 

This is exactly why he should have resigned a while ago after the first 3 or 4 scandals. 

There is a reason why  a lot of people can't take him seriously and can't believe him. He brought this on himself. 

My personal dilemma is believing with an amount of proof that a Pierre Polievre wouldn't be much different unfortunately. 

Parksy

Shifting gears to another remarkable dumb politician... Doug Ford. 

He has said he's sorry (ahh good on ya, bud!) and he has admitted that he broke his green belt promise (ahhh good on ya bud!) and he is reversing his decision. (ahhhhhhh  good on ya bud!) 

So... all is well now?   No.  He needs to resign immediately. 

All of this came out because of calls from opposition to launch an investigation.   It's not like he woke up one day and thought to himself "Boy, I sure did mislead the public for votes that time I said I wouldn't touch the greenbelt."

He's still quite obviously corrupt and could (and should)  face legal trouble. Actions have consequences.  

After the report came out, he clamored and argued that it was the right decision for the benefit of the public. (Housing, Housing, Housing.)  OK, so you admitted you broke your promise,   Do you want to go back on all the other bullshit you spouted off? 

He went after a journalist about this. Do you intend to apologize to him as well? 

If Doug Ford were an ice cream flavour, he'd be pralines and dick. 

DarthMaeglin

Zod said:

Also I think the word some people are looking for is "tact".   We have to deal with sketchy world superpowers all the time, but as politician your expected to be diplomatic and tactful about it to maintain internal relations.  Not call them out in a fight like it's the WWE

I was also wondering how this impacts many of my coworkers that moved here from India and obtained Canadian citizenship.   I guess they can't go back home to visit anymore, that's got to be tough :(

Tact, thank you. Something I could personally work on, admittedly.

DarthMaeglin

A bit of a different story than we were told at the time. I don’t know if a group has a legal right to dispute a proposed injunction but it would seem reasonable, something that was clearly denied the protesters.

https://torontosun.com/news/national/freedom-convoy-trial-resumes-with-questions-for-mayors-chief-of-staff

Parksy

DarthMaeglin said:

A bit of a different story than we were told at the time. I don’t know if a group has a legal right to dispute a proposed injunction but it would seem reasonable, something that was clearly denied the protesters.

https://torontosun.com/news/national/freedom-convoy-trial-resumes-with-questions-for-mayors-chief-of-staff

These were not protesters.  Full stop. 

DarthMaeglin

Parksy said:

DarthMaeglin said:

A bit of a different story than we were told at the time. I don’t know if a group has a legal right to dispute a proposed injunction but it would seem reasonable, something that was clearly denied the protesters.

https://torontosun.com/news/national/freedom-convoy-trial-resumes-with-questions-for-mayors-chief-of-staff

These were not protesters.  Full stop. 

That is your opinion and we are both correct. Full stop.

It is interesting that the mischief trial is scheduled to take longer than many murder trials.

As far as I’ve been able to figure out the only way to dispute a court injunction is to appeal it after the fact.

Parksy

It's not opinion though.  

When they decided to stay (FOR THREE WEEKS) they stopped protesting.  

When they issued a list of demands and an ultimatum to the government, they stopped protesting. 

There are many things that can be mulled over and opined on, this is not one of them. 

HughFreakingDillon

isn't that what many protesters do though?

DarthMaeglin

Parksy said:

It's not opinion though.  

When they decided to stay (FOR THREE WEEKS) they stopped protesting.  

When they issued a list of demands and an ultimatum to the government, they stopped protesting. 

There are many things that can be mulled over and opined on, this is not one of them. 

Based on what I have read from sources outside the mainstream media we are both espousing opinions,  there has yet to be any legal rulings labeling them anything other than protesters,  but you are entitled to label them as you please in the interim.  What do you call them then?

It's a good thing I aligned with the convoy because my neighbor regularly erects a bouncy castle in their backyard for their kids.  I am able to manage to not be triggered by signs of the revolution so close to home,  lol.

Zod

DarthMaeglin said:

Parksy said:

It's not opinion though.  

When they decided to stay (FOR THREE WEEKS) they stopped protesting.  

When they issued a list of demands and an ultimatum to the government, they stopped protesting. 

There are many things that can be mulled over and opined on, this is not one of them. 

Based on what I have read from sources outside the mainstream media we are both espousing opinions,  there has yet to be any legal rulings labeling them anything other than protesters,  but you are entitled to label them as you please in the interim.  What do you call them then?

An occupation?

DarthMaeglin

Zod said:

DarthMaeglin said:

Parksy said:

It's not opinion though.  

When they decided to stay (FOR THREE WEEKS) they stopped protesting.  

When they issued a list of demands and an ultimatum to the government, they stopped protesting. 

There are many things that can be mulled over and opined on, this is not one of them. 

Based on what I have read from sources outside the mainstream media we are both espousing opinions,  there has yet to be any legal rulings labeling them anything other than protesters,  but you are entitled to label them as you please in the interim.  What do you call them then?

An occupation?

That’s not inaccurate, but isn’t that simply one form/style of protest (that I unfortunately feel compelled to point out we’ve been tolerant of previous occupation protests)?

DarthMaeglin

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_movement

I love that this labels the movement “populist” (isn’t it a dirty word, lol?). Here in Toronto the city quickly worked with the group and shunted them into a sort-of-out-of-the-way neighbourhood (residents inevitably complained about some of what they had to deal with/endure), where they stayed for a full month if I remember correctly. I also remember that police action is what ultimately shut down the Toronto chapter.

There were also the rail blockades leading into covid that were just as much a grassroots movement as the convoys.

 I completely understand how some/many would find what happened in Ottawa unseemly (to be mild), however at the end of the day what actually happened was a complete failure by local authorities, and that shouldn’t be held against the protesters especially when ultimately it was a peaceful group. Many of the incidents used to demonize the group (to this day) have been debunked to my own satisfaction at least.

Edit:

 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_Toronto

Parksy

A protest.. as borderline useless it may be...  is your right to voice your opinion or concern.

The uselessness point here is key. 

As soon as you start impeding people, business, roads, etc. you are no longer protesting. 

The idea of an 'occupation' .... technically speaking, I'm not sure there is anything legally against someone standing outside of the parliament buildings with a sign for days and weeks or months on end should they choose to do so. They may be there for a long time (theoretically occupying the space they're in), but they are still protesting. 

Seeing as it's mostly useless, organizations and people go beyond protesting to make a point (blockades, convoys, etc.).  Still, not protesting. This is why injunctions occur and arrests are made... because more often than not, laws are broken. Greta Thunberg (sp?) is a good example. 

@Darth .. we're getting into the 'what aboutisms' here...  occupy wall street, rail blockades, etc.  And  you're not wrong... all of them are not protests.  I'm not sure anyone has coined a term for what they are doing... but they are not protesting, that's a certainty.  For the most part, however you want to slice it,  it becomes 'illegal activity' in most jurisdictions. 

Our justice system then has the ability to use the force of law at their discretion... something that I can totally see having negative affects based on the circumstances of the situation. We can get into the whole 'why and how police can pick and choose which laws to enforce and when'  but that's another long (albeit interesting) topic. 

LeafsJaysCubsRaptorsFan

Didn’t pp come out against the rail blockades but was for the Ottawa protests? 

Parksy

LeafsJaysCubsRaptorsFan said:

Didn’t pp come out against the rail blockades but was for the Ottawa protests? 

Yes.  This happens all the time... it's the hypocritical nature of our society these days. 

The same people in the US who railed against BLM demonstrations (Fox News)  were suspiciously quiet for the Jan 6 riot. 

Parksy

Overall thoughts on the Nazi that was saluted in the House of Commons? 

Without a doubt, shameful and embarrassing..... Opposition is blaming Trudeau (because, of course)  Liberals are blaming the Speaker. 

HughFreakingDillon

Parksy said:

Overall thoughts on the Nazi that was saluted in the House of Commons? 

Without a doubt, shameful and embarrassing..... Opposition is blaming Trudeau (because, of course)  Liberals are blaming the Speaker. 

I've also read that he wasn't actually a nazi; that he was fighting communism in ukraine more than fighting for naziism. but the fact remains, he swore allegiance to hitler. that makes you a freaking nazi. 

how incredibly embarrassing. the speaker doesn't answer to JT, so if the speaker really is allowed to invite someone without the current government vetting them prior to, JT isn't responsible, and the speaker should resign.