2025 Federal Election - 28 Apr 25

[Humphrey Bogart]

Blanchet calls Canada ‘an artificial country with very little meaning’

Bloc Quebecois Leader Yves-Francois Blanchet issued a scathing assessment Friday of Canada as a country, and Quebec’s place in it as he made his case to Quebecers that only he would protect their interests.

www.ctvnews.ca

It really blows my mind that Quebec separatists just don't understand how screwed they would be if they separated from Canada. The First Nations territories have already stated that if Quebec separated from Canada then they could separate from Quebec. That would mean that Quebec would have to import the electricity it uses to power its heavy industry and lose much of the land where it extracts natural resources.

Also, rather than being a province with 7 million francophones in a bilingual country of 40 million they would be an island of 7 million francophones surrounded by 370 million non-francophones. Nobody outside Quebec will want to accommodate their language and all their trade will have to be in English out of necessity.

Separation from Canada would greatly accelerate the destruction of Quebecois culture and language. I think the Bloc and PQ realize that but leverage the fear of separation in the rest of Canada to get accommodations that the rest of the Provinces would have a much more difficult time getting.

Ever been to the James Bay Hydro Project?

I drove the Trans-Taiga highway a few years ago and there is ZERO chance Québec would cede control of that territory. The Hydro Projects themselves are patrolled and garrisoned by a Surete Police Force that is far larger than what the area actually calls for. Québec would occupy and defend it with whatever newly formed Military Force is formed in Québec.... GUARANTEED.

Everyone always seems to assume that separation and a breakdown of the Canadian Federation would be peaceful. I seriously doubt it would be.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Ever been to the James Bay Hydro Project?

I drove the Trans-Taiga highway a few years ago and there is ZERO chance Québec would cede control of that territory. The Hydro Projects themselves are patrolled and garrisoned by a Surete Police Force that is far larger than what the area actually calls for. Québec would occupy and defend it with whatever newly formed Military Force is formed in Québec.... GUARANTEED.

Everyone always seems to assume that separation and a breakdown of the Canadian Federation would be peaceful. I seriously doubt it would be.

Eastern Canada would Balkanize.

 

[Halifax Tar]

This crew keeps producing bangers

 

[brihard]

When I was living in Victoria, I met a lot of people that wanted this. I found it weird and I'll be honest, I think it's a manufactured want. When someone mentions the 15 minute city, this is what I think of:

View attachment 92931

I’m very much a comfortable suburban guy; nice house on a modest lot, commute to work and back home after. But I know plenty of people who are happy living walkably close to work and stores. Lots of people are happy living in a condo that affords them this, and that doesn’t eat up their time with all the home maintenance stuff (or commuting). To each their own. Closest I can think of is a brief bit of urban living when I was in school full time. My then girlfriend and I lived in an apartment above a store on Bank Street in Ottawa; I was a 15 minute walk to class, ten minutes to the grocery store, three minutes from my local pub, and an easy commute by bus to my regiment on parade nights or training weekends. Obviously that was at a simpler stage in my life, but I was comfortable and happy then. I could imagine circumstances work wise where I could be happy with that again.

There’s nothing inherently nefarious about living walkably close to the places your day to day life takes you, and depending on your lifestyle there can be advantages to it.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Eastern Canada would Balkanize.

100%

You would have a bunch of other mini-crisis erupt elsewhere. There would be a call in the Maritimes to throw its lot in with New England and the Americans. The Acadians in NB would be displeased with this and this would trigger a crisis there.

Then you've got large parts of Eastern and Northern Ontario with substantial resource wealth. I'm thinking Timmins, Kapuskasing, Sudbury, etc Franco populations make a pitch to throw their lot in with Québec.

You would probably have a bunch of insurgencies and purges take place in various places with ethnic divisions.

The Americans would see their opportunity and the 10th Mountain Division would drive across the border in no time and take anything of value in the parts of Canada they could control for themselves.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I’m very much a comfortable suburban guy; nice house on a modest lot, commute to work and back home after. But I know plenty of people who are happy living walkably close to work and stores. Lots of people are happy living in a condo that affords them this, and that doesn’t eat up their time with all the home maintenance stuff (or commuting). To each their own. Closest I can think of is a brief bit of urban living when I was in school full time. My then girlfriend and I lived in an apartment above a store on Bank Street in Ottawa; I was a 15 minute walk to class, ten minutes to the grocery store, three minutes from my local pub, and an easy commute by bus to my regiment on parade nights or training weekends. Obviously that was at a simpler stage in my life, but I was comfortable and happy then. I could imagine circumstances work wise where I could be happy with that again.

There’s nothing inherently nefarious about living walkably close to the places your day to day life takes you, and depending on your lifestyle there can be advantages to it.

You're absolutely correct. People should be able to adapt to the life style that suits them.

I think the concern is that dense urban living will forced on people. Either by direct force or by legislation and economy that makes it the only viable option.

Keep it an option and you have my support. Make it the only option and you don't.

 

[Halifax Tar]

100%

You would have a bunch of other mini-crisis erupt elsewhere. There would be a call in the Maritimes to throw its lot in with New England and the Americans. The Acadians in NB would be displeased with this and this would trigger a crisis there.

Then you've got large parts of Eastern and Northern Ontario with substantial resource wealth. I'm thinking Timmins, Kapuskasing, Sudbury, etc Franco populations make a pitch to throw their lot in with Québec.

You would probably have a bunch of insurgencies and purges take place in various places with ethnic divisions.

The Americans would see their opportunity and the 10th Mountain Division would drive across the border in no time and take anything of value in the parts of Canada they could control for themselves.

Does NFLD go back to the UK ? I have a feeling it might.

 

[IKnowNothing]

You're absolutely correct. People should be able to adapt to the life style that suits them.

I think the concern is that dense urban living will forced on people. Either by direct force or by legislation and economy that makes it the only viable option.

Keep it an option and you have my support. Make it the only option and you don't.

Frankly, I think that concern is a strawman manufactured by the nimby's to scare you.

We have decades of housing stock, literally millions of homes. The decision to densify isn't like sim city where a couple of mouse clicks flips that over, its a decision to end exclusionary zoning so the infill in those existing areas uses the land more efficiently, and making it so the areas being newly developed include density blends and various types of housing.

Even if 100% of the 2-3 million homes all parties are targetting is built as stacked townhomes and lowrise apartments (it wont be) that would only represent like 10% of total stock. That doesnt takeaway choice, it creates it.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Frankly, I think that concern is a strawman manufactured by the nimby's to scare you.

We have decades of housing stock, literally millions of homes. The decision to densify isn't like sim city where a couple of mouse clicks flips that over, its a decision to end exclusionary zoning so the infill in those existing areas uses the land more efficiently, and making it so the areas being newly developed include density blends and various types of housing.

Even if 100% of the 2-3 million homes all parties are targetting is built as stacked townhomes and lowrise apartments (it wont be) that would only represent like 10% of total stock. That doesnt takeaway choice, it creates it.

You say that. In my neighborhood in Halifax a developer has come forward and released a development plan where all the single family homes are torn down and replaced by condo and apartment buildings.

It's not me this will effect though. I will take the buy out and run further out of the city. I have the social and monetary mobility to keep it away for at least my lifetime.

For me it's about those who don't have my ability.

 

[GR66]

Does NFLD go back to the UK ? I have a feeling it might.

You think the US would allow that?

 

[IKnowNothing]

You say that. In my neighborhood in Halifax a developer has come forward and released a development plan where all the single family homes are torn down and replaced by condo and apartment buildings.

But how many of the 91,000+ SDH's in Halifax does that represent?

 

[brihard]

You're absolutely correct. People should be able to adapt to the life style that suits them.

I think the concern is that dense urban living will forced on people. Either by direct force or by legislation and economy that makes it the only viable option.

Keep it an option and you have my support. Make it the only option and you don't.

I don’t see much forced urbanization. Mostly it seems that municipalities are opening up zoning to allow for densification in already built up areas. It’s then a question of market dynamics; people find themselves living in an old and modest house on a patch of land that suddenly is much more valuable due to development potential, and they choose to sell. Someone buys two old detached houses, joins the lots, and puts six or eight stacked townhomes in. Or they buy six or eight such houses, joins the lots, gets the servicing in and builds an eight or ten story residential tower where allowed. But there’s choice there. Plenty of people choose not to, and the houses don’t get bought by developers until the residents move to assisted living.

The area I live right now is a newer subdivision straddling an arterial, formerly rural road. The road itself is being expanded and the area is ripe for commercial and institutional development. A lot has already happened. A few hold outs have chosen not to sell their homes and land, and so densification is happening around them. Not because anyone forced it, but because one company bought several parcels and is putting up a few dozen three story condos, and another company bought a few parcels and is building a retirement residence. Nobody is forcing those people out of their homes, but nobody restricted their neighbours from selling to developers who got zoning amendments either.

I like looking to the Lower Mainland BC suburbs as an interesting example. My wife’s from there, and I’ve been travelling to Coquitlam and area for probably a dozen years now. Long enough to have watched a lot of densification happen clustered around mass transit hubs. Now BC has done something different in terms of levying property tax on commercial land based on its assessed value if used to allowed potential, so small buildings on land that would now permit much larger ones are in some cases getting ‘taxed out’, with the result being knock-down-and-build; often residential towers on top of street level shops. But I distinguish between commercial and residential.

Simply looking at the reality of Canadian urbanities, the majority of our urban and vast majority of our suburban space is still single family residences. Significant densification is usually pretty focused in specific areas.

 

[Halifax Tar]

You think the US would allow that?

No idea.

 

[Halifax Tar]

But how many of the 91,000+ SDH's in Halifax does that represent?

No idea. But roughly 8K people live in my neighborhood according to Wikipedia.

I don’t see much forced urbanization. Mostly it seems that municipalities are opening up zoning to allow for densification in already built up areas. It’s then a question of market dynamics; people find themselves living in an old and modest house on a patch of land that suddenly is much more valuable due to development potential, and they choose to sell. Someone buys two old detached houses, joins the lots, and puts six or eight stacked townhomes in. Or they buy six or eight such houses, joins the lots, gets the servicing in and builds an eight or ten story residential tower where allowed. But there’s choice there. Plenty of people choose not to, and the houses don’t get bought by developers until the residents move to assisted living.

The area I live right now is a newer subdivision straddling an arterial, formerly rural road. The road itself is being expanded and the area is ripe for commercial and institutional development. A lot has already happened. A few hold outs have chosen not to sell their homes and land, and so densification is happening around them. Not because anyone forced it, but because one company bought several parcels and is putting up a few dozen three story condos, and another company bought a few parcels and is building a retirement residence. Nobody is forcing those people out of their homes, but nobody restricted their neighbours from selling to developers who got zoning amendments either.

I like looking to the Lower Mainland BC suburbs as an interesting example. My wife’s from there, and I’ve been travelling to Coquitlam and area for probably a dozen years now. Long enough to have watched a lot of densification happen clustered around mass transit hubs. Now BC has done something different in terms of levying property tax on commercial land based on its assessed value if used to allowed potential, so small buildings on land that would now permit much larger ones are in some cases getting ‘taxed out’, with the result being knock-down-and-build; often residential towers on top of street level shops. But I distinguish between commercial and residential.

Simply looking at the reality of Canadian urbanities, the majority of our urban and vast majority of our suburban space is still single family residences. Significant densification is usually pretty focused in specific areas.

Like I said, as long as it's an option I'm very cool with it.

And I am definitely observing from outside as I won't be part of it.

 

[MilEME09]

You're absolutely correct. People should be able to adapt to the life style that suits them.

I think the concern is that dense urban living will forced on people. Either by direct force or by legislation and economy that makes it the only viable option.

Keep it an option and you have my support. Make it the only option and you don't.

Housing zoning is largely set by cities, many like calgary require a percentage of developments to be medium density and high density, thus you get a couple condo buildings smack dab in the middle. Part of the reason I moved out of calagry to small town when I bought a new build was in calgary the lot size was 36' wide, go 20 min outside the city and its 48', and 0 requirement for medium and high density housing. I get why cities do it, they are running out of space the city owns so trying to get more bang for the buck.

I agree we can't force it on people, but we also have to strike a balance on what we take away to gain those houses. Where I bought, one whole farm was bought out to make way for development,over the next 50 years two more will disappear too

 

[The Bread Guy]

When I was living in Victoria, I met a lot of people that wanted this. I found it weird and I'll be honest, I think it's a manufactured want. When someone mentions the 15 minute city, this is what I think of:

View attachment 92931

Remember that map of Canada showing 50-75% of people living in densely-populated areas? That’s why that’s all they know.

Living in a rural/sorta-kinda remote-ish area, all my voting life, when the periphery got screwed by the centre, people who liked gov’t of the day would tell me, “majority rules - suck it up,” while those who hated the Gov’t of the day would say, “a nation is judged by how it it treats its minorities.” Or the old, “don’t like it where you are? Move then.”

See how that feels now?

 

[mariomike]

Statistics Canada put Toronto’s lack of affordable housing in perspective,

After growing by a record 268,911 people in a single year (+3.9%), the population of the Toronto CMA has passed the 7-million mark, reaching 7,106,379 on July 1, 2024. To put this into perspective, the whole of Canada grew on average by around 400,000 people annually from 2010 to 2019.

This is a significant increase
Data from the last five years shows a slow, gradual increase in the Toronto region’s population between 2019 and 2022, from around 6.4 million to around 6.5 million.
But last year, the numbers skyrocketed with an increase of over 250,000 leading people.
The latest data suggests than more than 500,000 people have moved to the Toronto CMA in just two years.

Helps explain why detached housing is so expensive in Toronto.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Remember that map of Canada showing 50-75% of people living in densely-populated areas? That’s why that’s all they know.

Living in a rural area, all my voting life, when the periphery got screwed by the centre, people who liked gov’t of the day would tell me, “majority rules - suck it up,” while those who hated the Gov’t of the day would say, “a nation is judged by how it it treats its minorities.” Or the old, “don’t like it where you are? Move then.”

See how that feels now?

I really don't want to open up this can of worms, but it doesn't have to be this way. There are electoral systems that give an overall better representation than what we have now. And would make every vote count.

I think also think either a redistribution of seats by geography or a a rework and restrengthening of the Senate would help.

I can't help myself.

 

[FSTO]

Why good people do not enter federal politics.

You have run a successful business, or charity, or you have been the mayor or reeve of a prosperous municipality or city. You have made important decisions and have taken risks to move your entity to the next level. You have mentored young entrepreneurs or guided at risk youth through a tough period in their lives. You’ve had to fire people for poor performance or maybe you had to stand in front of a board or tribunal and justified your actions. You yourself may have been knock hard on your ass, done some time in the justice system, survived a health scare. These are all things that have made you a prime target for a national political party to judge you appropriate for their team.

But you are not a “star” candidate, or you are from a riding that is either rural or reliably votes for the party you have joined. So, you have to do your time on the backbench before you can get a coveted cabinet or parliamentary secretary position. You think, oh well I will work for my constituents and make sure their voices are heard at Parliament.

Then you realize that the only place you can speak “freely” is in cabinet. And even then, there are PMO staff who are in the room scrutinizing every word. You are expected to be a “Team Player” and parrot every word from the PM or leader as if its gospel from the mount. You are forced to stand behind the leader and nod your head at all the pronouncements even though you have fundamental questions about the direction of the government.

Or you get a seat on one of the committees and it’s a subject you are knowledgeable about and directly affects your constituents. But once again you are under the whip of the party and if you are part of the government caucus you can only ask inane questions to the cabinet minister or their deputy. And even if you are a member of the opposition your questions are vetted by the Opposition Leader’s staff.

So, your choices are, swallow your pride and be the trained seal to get a seat in cabinet to make your voice heard or be the rebel, represent your riding and last for one government cycle. The system is soul sucking for the MPs and make Parliament irrelevant to a majority of Canadians.

But this can be fixed, it’ll only take bold action by the PMO, Parties, and the Media.

First:
- Free the backbench!
o Government caucus only needs to be whipped for money and confidence bills;
o Allow backbencher to ask questions in the HoC, Committee, and to the media without fear of retribution from the PMO; and
o MP’s do not need the leader to sign their nomination papers, if the Party Board thinks they are of good character, then that should suffice.

- Cabinet Minsters do their jobs!
o They are the only ones who are required to show total loyalty to the Government of the Day. If they don’t like the direction they can resign;
o Be accountable for their decisions. Going to the penalty box shouldn’t be the end of the world. People screw up and some of them actually learn from their mistakes; and
o Answer questions in HoC, Committee, and with the media. The Canadian populace will respect you much more if you are open and honest. They can always smell bullshit.

- PMO back off!
o You are staff to support the PM, you are not spies for the Chief of Staff to stab “problem” MPs in the back.

- Media be a little forgiving to the “Mavericks”
o Don’t go running to the PMO staff when a backbencher is not parroting the party line. Find out why they feel this way.

Many people will say that these moves would cause chaos to reign on Parliament Hill and it would. For a while until all parties involved find their footing. The Canadian Armed Forces lifted the restrictions on grooming styles in 2024. For about 6 months it was a plethora of wild hair styles, multicoloured nail polish, and neck tattoos. But then it settled down as the boundary pushers found that their antics were not getting the reaction they wanted, and the traditionalist found that long hair on men was not harbinger of doom.

I predict the same would happen on the Hill. There would be bozo eruptions as the outer limit mavericks sowed their wild oats, gnashing of teeth in Langevin Block as the staffers lose control of the back benchers, and media running about being overwhelmed by the amount of work they had to do reporting on the openness.

But eventually things will settle down as all parties found their footing. The PMO would concentrate on supporting the policy of the government instead of spying on party members. Cabinet Minister would know their files better because they would be expected to answer, really answer questions in the Commons, Committee, and in the scrums. Backbenchers would work on knowing their constituents, do research to ensure their questions are probing and substantive, and make committee a forum where all the parties involved are working to make government really open and honest. The media would be more interested in the substantive answers they get from Ministers and PM vice trying to find “gotcha” quotes from Parliamentarians. The Canadian public would finally get honesty from the government, real representation from their MPs.

But best of all, even the lowliest MP from a non sexy riding would be able to express their constituents concerns in a mature and substantive manner. In my opinion this is the only way to get good people into federal politics. Because the way we are doing things now, with the iron grip of the PMO on everything facet of Parliament Hill is turning every Canadian off of politics.

 

[YZT580]

Does NFLD go back to the UK ? I have a feeling it might.

would they want NFLD back? After all they rejected Malta's application