Run Up to Election 2019

[Remius]

Even better, JT, as the PM of a self admitted state conducting "genocide" may now find himself arrested for crimes against humanity next time he travels internationally and stand trial in the Hague.

Well done....

Not quite.  If you listened to what he said he stated that he agreed that is "was" not "is" genocide.  subtle but was likely deliberate in the wording.

My guess is that with his credibility with indigenous communities in peril that this was something he could leverage to regain some of that with those groups.  he likely succeeded in that regard. 

The cost though may be felt in other areas.

Now as to other countries throwing it back at us, I'm of two thoughts.

One: They were already doing that.  So situation no change.

Two: By stating what he did, I think it does however remove the hypocrisy of recognising other countries' failings and not our own.

It's really uncharted waters right now.  So it could set a bad precedent or it could not.  Time will tell. 

Also, look at the CPC reaction to the inquiry.  Largely in agreement.  And they are pretty quiet on Trudeau's comments about genocide.  They also are trying to distance themselves from some comments  made by a former minister under Harper.

Link here

https://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/valcourt-mmiwg-report-1.5159437

With the CPC trying hard to show people that they are not a party of intolerance they really have no choice but to be silently or overtly supportive.  With the whole Beyak issue and more recently with comments made by Cooper it is likely wise not to pick a fight over this.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/70-per-cent-of-murdered-aboriginal-women-killed-by-indigenous-men-rcmp-confirms/article23868927/

RCMP - 70% of aboriginal women are killed by aboriginal men.

If the race doing the killing are the same race that are dying, is it really genocide?  :dunno:

 

[Brad Sallows]

>he stated that he agreed that is "was" not "is" genocide.

Correct, but useless as a deflection.  To concede that it "was" means that unless someone can identify when it stopped it still "is".  The commission's expressed opinion is that it "is", and he passed the opportunity to dispute that by pretending to escape behind a verb tense.

 

[Remius]

>he stated that he agreed that is "was" not "is" genocide.

Correct, but useless as a deflection.  To concede that it "was" means that unless someone can identify when it stopped it still "is".  The commission's expressed opinion is that it "is", and he passed the opportunity to dispute that by pretending to escape behind a verb tense.

That small word though did not go unnoticed by all groups involved.

 

[YZT580]

He has positioned himself as the righteous leader taking affirmative action which he can then use to ask the PCs why they did nothing on their watch.  My problem is with the word genocide itself.  If you had asked the leaders (of both parties) why the schools were set up they would have replied to bring our indigenous people into the 19th or 20th century.  It is dangerous and uncharted waters that may bring about results that are detrimental to all involved.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>That small word though did not go unnoticed by all groups involved.

Also correct, but they don't command the authority to re-purpose plain language and reasoning.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Given our election finance laws with strict limits on donations, spending etc, I would be interested to see just how, exactly, that would manifest itself.

#wearenotamericathankfuck

No??

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2019/06/07/federal-liberals-solicited-funds-from-us-and-uk-facebook-audiences.html?fbclid=IwAR0LpGxKviJV-5_d2d9hZas3uAq9bpWQsh_fPwSXKyuwOm1SwX2O-jDYBgY



OTTAWA—Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and the Liberal party ran a series of fundraising ads targeting American and U.K. audiences on Facebook despite it being illegal to accept donations from foreign citizens.
The party used its official Facebook account, as well as Trudeau’s, to solicit donations from the U.S. and U.K. for a week in March — advertising party official Braeden Caley says was an error. Caley said no money was collected from foreign citizens through the ad campaign.

“A limited set of grassroots fundraising ads on Facebook inadvertently ran briefly both inside and outside of Canada, when that wasn’t the intention here,” said Caley, a spokesperson for the Liberal party, in a statement to the Star.
“The ads were removed by the following week. (The Liberal party) has also been reviewing with Facebook how the ads were able to extend into the other places that you’ve referenced.”

By law, Canadian political parties can only accept donations from Canadian citizens or permanent residents.
Facebook is one of the world’s most powerful advertising platforms, allowing companies and organizations to drill down on micro-targeted audiences to get their message across. It is heavily used by both the Liberal party and the Conservative party in Canada.

 

[Cloud Cover]

I support this NDP policy:
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/singh-making-pitch-for-more-affordable-cell-internet-services-1.4459466   

It would also be nice to see more pocket book issues addressed : bank and insurance transaction fees, service and admin charges,  surcharges,  levies, credit card interest rates, pro-consumer dispute resolution rights, ridiculous airline baggage and seating change fees, etc. All the little fees that add up in a month or a year.     
I don't think anyone can quickly fix the big issues facing this country, but they can make it more affordable in fairly short order.                                                                                                             

 

[kratz]

I know this discussion is leading up to the Federal election, but some things I've casually noticed in our local provincial by-election.

The 3 main parties are conducting normal, routine campaign style methods: signs along roads - 1 party puts up a lawn sign and other lawn signs MUST pop up nearby. Only 1 candidate came to our door, the other 3 have not even bothered to mail anything to us. Yet, we've watched the teams canvass our short street.

The Green party candidate has caught my eye, working so hard. No...he didn't come to our door.
He's hosted an AMA on Redditt, and instead of a BBQ / ice cream event, he hosted a street corner party, with supporters personally hoisting his signs for a couple of hours.

These kinds of efforts are more direct, personal and take effort both by the candidate and those who support him. It caught my eye as refreshing  and when successfully managed can be very disruptive to traditional elections. Normally, I's never consider my vote for the Green party, but this individual is working hard.

 

[Loachman]

Normally, I's never consider my vote for the Green party, but this individual is working hard.

Well, if your taxes are too low, go ahead and try him out.

Meanwhile:

https://www.alberta.ca//external/news/pmo-provincial-letter-to-senate-on-c-69-and-c-48.pdf

Rt. Hon. Justin Trudeau, PC, MP
Prime Minister of Canada
Office of the Prime Minister
80 Wellington St
Ottawa, ON
K1A 0A2

Dear Prime Minister,

We are writing on behalf of the Governments of Ontario, New Brunswick, Manitoba,
Saskatchewan and Alberta and the Northwest Territories. Collectively, our five provinces and
territory represent 59 per cent of the Canadian population and 63 per cent of Canada’s GDP.
We are central to Canada’s economy and prosperity, and it is of the utmost importance that you
consider our concerns with bills C-69 and C-48.

Canadians across the country are unified in their concern about the economic impacts of the
legislation such as it was proposed by the House of Commons. In this form, the damage it
would do to the economy, jobs and investment will echo from one coast to the other. Provincial
and territorial jurisdiction must be respected. Provinces and territories have clear and sole
jurisdiction over the development of their non-renewable natural resources, forestry resources,
and the generation and production of electricity. Bill C-69 upsets the balance struck by the
constitutional division of powers by ignoring the exclusive provincial powers over projects
relating to these resources. The federal government must recognize the exclusive role
provinces and territories have over the management of our non-renewable natural resource
development or risk creating a Constitutional crisis.

Bill C-69, as originally drafted, would make it virtually impossible to develop critical
infrastructure, depriving Canada of much needed investment. According to the C.D. Howe
Institute, between 2017 and 2018, the planned investment value of major resource sector
projects in Canada plunged by $100 billion – an amount equivalent to 4.5 per cent of Canada’s
gross domestic product. To protect Canada’s economic future, we, collectively, cannot afford to
overlook the uncertainty and risk to future investment created by Bill C-69.

Our five provinces and territory stand united and strongly urge the government to accept Bill C-
69 as amended by the Senate, in order to minimize the damage to the Canadian economy. We
would encourage the Government of Canada and all members of the House of Commons to
accept the full slate of amendments to the bill. The Senate Committee on Energy, the
Environment, and Natural Resources heard 38 days of testimony from 277 witnesses including
indigenous communities, industry, Premiers, and independent experts. Based on that
comprehensive testimony, the committee recommended significant amendments to the bill,
which were accepted by the Senate as a whole. We urge you to respect that process, the
committee’s expertise, and the Senate’s vote.

If the Senate’s amendments are not respected, the bill should be rejected, as it will present
insurmountable roadblocks for major infrastructure projects across the country and will further
jeopardize jobs, growth and investor confidence.

Similarly, Bill C-48 threatens investor confidence, and the tanker moratorium discriminates
against western Canadian crude products. We were very disappointed that the Senate did not
accept the recommendation to the Senate Committee on Transport and Communications that
the bill not be reported. We would urge the government to stop pressing for the passage of this
bill which will have detrimental effects on national unity and for the Canadian economy as a
whole.

Our governments are deeply concerned with the federal government’s disregard, so far, of the
concerns raised by our provinces and territory related to these bills. As it stands, the federal
government appears indifferent to the economic hardships faced by provinces and territories.
Immediate action to refine or eliminate these bills is needed to avoid further alienating provinces
and territories and their citizens and focus on uniting the country in support of Canada’s
economic prosperity.

Yours sincerely,

[ORIGINAL SIGNED]
Hon. Doug Ford
Premier of Ontario
[ORIGINAL SIGNED]
Hon. Blaine Higgs
Premier of New Brunswick
[ORIGINAL SIGNED]
Hon. Brian Pallister
Premier of Manitoba
[ORIGINAL SIGNED]
Hon. Scott Moe
Premier of Saskatchewan
[ORIGINAL SIGNED]
Hon. Jason Kenney
Premier of Alberta
[ORIGINAL SIGNED]
Hon. Bob McLeod
Premier of the Northwest Territories

 

[Loachman]

http://angusreid.org/federal-issues-june2019/

Federal Politics: Liberals appear to have stopped bleeding; can the Conservatives be bloodied?

June 10, 2019 – Notwithstanding a summer sitting of the House of Commons, these will be the final days for MPs in Ottawa before returning to their constituencies to fight for their political futures in the federal election campaign this fall.

The latest analysis of new polling data from the non-profit Angus Reid Institute suggests that for Liberal candidates, a disastrous slide in support over the first half of the year appears to have ended, making this a critical – albeit shrinking – period of time to try to regroup and rebuild.

Conservatives, meanwhile, will take comfort in maintaining a wide lead over the governing party, but must be mindful of a failure to build momentum as their opponent plummeted.

Indeed, 37 per cent of decided and leaning voters say they would cast ballots for the CPC if the election were held tomorrow, a number that is statistically unchanged from where it has been since the SNC Lavalin scandal first hit the headlines back in February.

For the second straight month, the Liberals hold the support of roughly one-quarter of Canadian voters (26%), still well below the 31 per cent they recorded in February, but no longer dropping month after month.

<snip>

The CPC leads in vote intention across all regions of the country, but the race with the Liberals is much closer in Ontario, Quebec, and Atlantic Canada than it is in the four western provinces

<snip>

The CPC’s overall lead has decreased slightly (from 13 percentage points to 11) since the Angus Reid Institute’s federal vote intention poll last month, but the Tories remain well ahead, largely on the strength of their performance in Western Canada.

Andrew Scheer’s party holds commanding leads in traditional strongholds Alberta and Saskatchewan, as well as in Manitoba. The Conservatives are also well ahead in British Columbia, though this has more to do with a divided field in that province than an exceptionally high level of support for the CPC. As seen in the table that follows, Conservative support tops 50 per cent in each of the three Prairie provinces, while in B.C. it is 36 per cent, with the Liberals, Greens, and New Democrats all holding the support of roughly one-in-five.

The Liberals and Conservatives are statistically tied in Ontario, Quebec, and Atlantic Canada, though the CPC is ahead by a couple of percentage points in each of these three regions:

<snip>

Lots of graphs 'n' such at link.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>I support this NDP policy:

So do I, provided all the necessary funding comes out of federal revenues.  Otherwise, it is just political bullying to transfer money away from the shareholders and employees of selected companies to other Canadians.

If not, I have another great idea to share the costs among all companies rather than an unlucky few: skim all the profits from every corporation and business with a profit margin greater than some threshold - say, 10% - and use that money.

 

[Loachman]

Justin Trudeau's answer to this simple question will leave you, umm, confused... | Michelle Rempel
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oXoS2z413Q

 

[Jarnhamar]

Like, drink box water bottles sorta thing lol

Funny but unsurprising it costs more, line with plastic and recyclable than plastic water bottles.

 

[Furniture]

Apparently the Left side of the political spectrum is flexing it's union supportmoney to try to torpedo the Tories prior to the election being called. Apparently they don't have to release any funding information at this time because it is outside the period covered by Elections Canada's mandate.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/who-s-behind-the-anti-andrew-scheer-ad-airing-during-raptors-game-1.4460332

 

[brihard]

Apparently the Left side of the political spectrum is flexing it's union supportmoney to try to torpedo the Tories prior to the election being called. Apparently they don't have to release any funding information at this time because it is outside the period covered by Elections Canada's mandate.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/who-s-behind-the-anti-andrew-scheer-ad-airing-during-raptors-game-1.4460332

No different in principle from the constant torrent of paid Facebook advertising from groups like Canada Proud who come from the other side of the spectrum.  Either we decide that that all political advertising be subject to financial disclosure (and then wrestle with deciding what counts), or we have to accept a line in the sand when or after a writ drops to determine when stricter rules apply. The current system may not always be pretty, but it seems to be reasonably unintrusive, balancing freedom of expression with protecting electoral integrity.

 

[FJAG]

No different in principle from the constant torrent of paid Facebook advertising from groups like Canada Proud who come from the other side of the spectrum.  Either we decide that that all political advertising be subject to financial disclosure (and then wrestle with deciding what counts), or we have to accept a line in the sand when or after a writ drops to determine when stricter rules apply. The current system may not always be pretty, but it seems to be reasonably unintrusive, balancing freedom of expression with protecting electoral integrity.

I agree with everything that you say but would also add that freedom of expression in political matters should not safeguard anonymity. If you are prepared to put up the money to throw mud (or even just shade) into the ring in order to influence the public in a certain direction then you should disclose who you are and how much you're throwing around. I think that the public has the right to know.

:cheers:

 

[Furniture]

No different in principle from the constant torrent of paid Facebook advertising from groups like Canada Proud who come from the other side of the spectrum.  Either we decide that that all political advertising be subject to financial disclosure (and then wrestle with deciding what counts), or we have to accept a line in the sand when or after a writ drops to determine when stricter rules apply. The current system may not always be pretty, but it seems to be reasonably unintrusive, balancing freedom of expression with protecting electoral integrity.

I don't disagree with anything you said, but posted the story since it seemed to draw enough attention to get CTV to produce a piece about it.

I agree with everything that you say but would also add that freedom of expression in political matters should not safeguard anonymity. If you are prepared to put up the money to throw mud (or even just shade) into the ring in order to influence the public in a certain direction then you should disclose who you are and how much you're throwing around. I think that the public has the right to know.

:cheers:

I wholeheartedly agree! I don't like the use of "third party" influencers to push a social media narative at arms length from the actual interested parties, and think it is bad for our democracy.

 

[Loachman]

Potential Conservative blunder, indicating weakness and lack of conviction:

https://tnc.news/2019/06/10/award-winning-professor-salim-mansur-disqualified-from-seeking-conservative-nomination/

Award-winning professor Salim Mansur disqualified from seeking Conservative nomination

Mansur, a devout Muslim, has been a stalwart opponent of radical Islamism and the groups advancing it within Canada

by Andrew Lawton June 10, 2019

Professor, author and columnist Salim Mansur has been disqualified from seeking the Conservative nomination.

Mansur, a recently retired Western University professor, announced his candidacy last September in his home riding, London North Centre.

Despite being told by the Conservative Party of Canada’s regional organizer last November that he was allowed to launch his campaign and begin campaigning, Mansur received notice from the party’s executive director Monday morning that his nomination candidacy was “disallowed.”

<snip>

http://poll.forumresearch.com/post/2970/fed-horserace-may-2019/

Conservatives Lead, But the Gap Is Narrowing June 11, 2019 @ 6:00 PM

<snip>

If these results were projected into seats, we expect a Conservative minority government of 151 seats, with the Liberals securing 134.

The NDP would win 27, and the BQ would win 23.

<snip>

Trudeau sees approval from a third, disapproval from more than half

Justin Trudeau sees approval from a third (34%) and disapproval from more than half (56%), with about 1 in 10 (10%) saying they don’t know. His net favourable score is -22 (approve-disapprove).

Scheer sees disapproval from almost half

A third (33%) say they approve of Andrew Scheer, while almost half (45%) say they disapprove. One-fifth (22%) say they don’t know. Scheer’s net favourable score is -12 (approve-disapprove).

<snip>

http://poll.forumresearch.com/post/2966/carbon-tax-june-2019/

Carbon Tax Pushing Conservatives to Vote June 6, 2019 @ 4:24 PM

Nearly half oppose the Federal Carbon Tax Toronto, June 6th – In a random sampling of public opinion taken by The Forum Poll™ among 1633 Canadian voters, nearly half (45%) are opposed to the carbon tax, one-quarter (27%) are neither in favour nor opposed to it, and about one-quarter (28%) say they are in favour of the carbon tax.

<snip>

Of those that are opposed to the carbon tax, more than 8-in-10 (84%) say that they carbon tax is likely to affect their vote.

In contrast, only half (53%) of those that said they are in favour of the carbon tax said it was likely to affect their vote.

Conservative supporters (80%) are far more likely than others to say the carbon tax is likely to affect their vote.

Amongst other parties, two-thirds (68%) of Greens, and more than half (58%) of New Democrats say the carbon tax will affect their vote.

Only half of Liberals (48%) say the carbon tax will affect their vote.

“The carbon tax looks like it’s mobilizing its opponents to vote in far greater numbers than its proponents,” said Dr. Lorne Bozinoff, President of Forum Research. “Additionally, Conservative supporters are far more opposed than Liberals are in favour. If the Conservatives can consolidate the opposition around this issue, and make it the focal point of the campaign, the Liberals’ re-election prospects may be severely diminished.”

 

[Navy_Pete]

Wait, how do you figure exactly a devout Muslim who campaigns against radical Islam is going to be sold as Islamaphobic?  That makes no sense, and really only reinforces the narrative that the Cons are stuffy white men.

Why would the PR types no think that someone capable of making rational, coherent and intelligent arguements wouldn't make a good poli.... oh, nevermind.