I keep hearing people say that both major parties have issues with foreign interference, but so far the most prominent examples seem to be related to the influence the Chinese government has on the Liberal Party - something that goes back decades to Chretien's "Team Canada" trade missions and Pierre Trudeau's relationship with the Chinese communist regime. Further, I don't hear a lot of talk about the prominent role Sikh Canadians with ties to Kalistani extremism have played in Liberal politics for at least a decade.
If the Conservatives have something similar lurking in their closet, I haven't heard much yet other than murmurs about potential Indian government influence. I also recall the Harper government taking a rather tougher line against Iran and Iranian interference.
My wife the other evening said “He sounds nice.” while watching Mark Carney on a newscast. Argggg! Bloody Boomers! And I R one too! He was already flip flopping on pipelines. “Conversations” 10 years later on the same topic. I plan,draw,purchase,execute and complete home projects before I’m willing to have a conversation. Only near the end to inquire what ‘colour’ would look good. We need a change in leader,and government. Stays quo,feel good vibe is not going to help our economy. “Get ‘er done” is what we need.
I agree, Gaz, the police do need better funding. I further agree with Mark that policing needs reform in many ways.
So, to me those two comments make me ask a financial question. Any serious reform will very likely result in a decision that better funding is needed. So, to the extent that better funding is needed and to the extent that governments (note: the plural was used) agree with both the need for structural reform and better funding is needed, how will the needed funding be supplied?
Put differently, will we a) simply raise taxes and keep all the other "things" that our taxes currently (inadequately) support or b) will we choose to reduce funding for other things and reallocate that funding to policing?
I know that, to me, governments (again, plural) try to do entirely too much and consequently do entirely too poor a job in ever so many areas. Further, I believe that the governments need to be very deliberate and say that our mandate is to do A and B, but not C and we will draw back from C and reallocate the funding to A and B.
Of course, that is entirely utopian and I do not expect it to happen. After all, it is entirely reasonable if your ox is gored but my ox is sacrosanct. Silly citizens! This will continue with ever poorer service until the governmental system ultimately collapses financially.
Online Criminal Unit that interfaces with CSE to find and punish scammers, online threats, and child pornographers
Counter Intelligence group that works with local police forces to monitor public interference from foreign governments and non-governmental threats (terrorists and criminal gangs)
The above would probably be part of a reformed RCMP. But I could see new entities being made that have an initial culture of collaboration rather than…whatever the RCMP has going on.
All local policing would be devolved to new provincial or municipal forces in jurisdictions where the RCMP currently focuses.
My new edition of Sam Cooper's book Wilful Blindness arrived and I am only 20 pages in, and it is so depressing. We have no rule of law, we have foreign infiltration of our institutions. The USA has figured it out, but Canada has not, and will sure as hell continue on this path if Carney becomes PM. Heck, we even have another obvious Manchurian candidate, having taken over from Dong.
We Canadians have a cultural situation. We value fairness, equality and especially group consensus so much that nothing gets done. There is a reason why the private sector absolutely never runs like a democracy, nothing would ever get done.
Because we value fairness, equality and group consensus cultural so much, which is great in keeping a multicultural country together, we tend to be a bit too accepting of low standards and sheer laziness.
We'd rather not stir the pot. Problem is that nothing gets done in maintaining those cultural values.
Perhaps that is one of the appeals of Carney, technocrats, and those who want their kids to be them, want the King Technocrat to lead the way.
All I can say is that I don't want to be part of "we" that requires herd consensus because that way leads to .... absolutely nothing of substance happening. Put differently, that is why I oppose politics where proportional representation is used.
So...you don't want herd consensus and yet you oppose proportional representation, which is a system which actively works to counter herd consensus by ensuring that parties have to actually negotiate...
A simple first past the post system, as we currently have it, allows a government to be elected and to not have to negotiate every damned issue endlessly.
Of course, it also allows the resulting winner to act like a dictator as the LPC claque have shown for the last ten years but we have to recognize that the proportional thingy is even worse.
I'll recognize the shortcomings in both systems, fair, but your assertion that PR is worse is baseless.
Edit: just occurred to me: we can't (and shouldn't) think that a lack of party negotiation is a positive thing when it comes to representative democracy, and on another note, we now have numerous minority governments that demonstrate that you can't do without negotiation even in our stupid FPTP system (see: the NDP-Liberal CASA situation).
This is a comment board for opinion so I provided my opinion.
My problem about negotiation is that it usually becomes a mushy middle where no policy is ever pursued unless it meets the approval of the majority of the factions. That prevents important but controversial policies from being implemented.
So about the content the Line published on behalf of TikTok.
First off... come on guys... blocking all comments? That says something... and it's nothing good. You published an editorial under your banner and wouldn't permit any comment. YIKES.
Second... well it's a good thing that the Line has been consistently polite about news organizations that choose to take the Canadian government's subsidy money and swear it won't affect them, because I think it's clear that The Line has done the same thing... just with a different government.
Like it or not, the Chinese government, it's influence on our government, it's data gathering and how TikTok are part of that... those are live and controversial political issues today.
This isn't a subject you should be taking sponsorship over, let alone handing over editorial space under your banner in exchange for a subsidy.
Doing that degrades your credibility.
I'm not trying to be mean here... I understand that starting a news commentary business must be incredibly hard. But this was the wrong move and you should reverse course.
Tik tok and rothmans owned unsmoke ( a vaping expansion lobby hiding behind smoke cessation ). These are unpleasant choices by The Line , especially since it is not a simple ad spot but they are actually reading and endorsing the lobby .
There has to be more out there for ad buys than sketchy lobby groups . Just sell a damn cereal ad for one that Matt eats or something … ;).
Pipelines headed east make no sense due to the immense distance and challenges in building across the Shield, regardless of the regulatory hurdles. The pipelines that Canada really needs are:
1) Northern Gateway to Kitimat - Asia is the real growth market for energy
Doug, if you consider things, we in Alberta have been there and done that. And expended many, many billions of dollars and many years, all to no avail.
What comes next? That I cannot predict but I don't expect that a re-elected LPC government is going to be at all sympathetic to your suggested projects. Further, it seems to me that other Canadian governments will not go out of their way to encourage those projects. [Massive understatement!] [The doggoned hypocrites!]
Gaz, in the event of a Liberal win, I both expect that nothing will change federally and I do not expect that we in Alberta will explicitly "force through" a pipeline.
Because I expect that nothing will change federally (again, if the LPC win; if the CPC wins, we will see), I expect that we in Alberta will concentrate on different things. I do not say that as a threat (but feel free to read it however you wish) simply because I think that we will concentrate, much as has Quebec historically, in ensuring that we exert our considerable constitutional jurisdiction in ways that favor Alberta and perhaps not in ways that favor, oh, Central Canada et al.
I am not a free-loader. I have two passwords, unfortunately, one I cannot get rid of, while the other is fully paid up. It looks like you deleted the wrong one. I have asked for this to be fixed many times. Help would be appreciated. RT
Excellent discussion between Matt and Marcus. Thank you.
Unfortunately, their conclusion appears to suggest that FI is already too far gone in Canada. That was my conclusion before I listened to this episode - I was hoping to be convinced otherwise, but alas, no.
Canadians voting a fundamentally corrupted party back in with a crushing majority will accelerate our descent into a one party state.
I realize the Conservatives have their own issues, but at least they would clean house of the current corruption, keeping them off balance.
Canadians appear poised in the appropriate position to vote for more of the same, but faster, please.
I keep hearing people say that both major parties have issues with foreign interference, but so far the most prominent examples seem to be related to the influence the Chinese government has on the Liberal Party - something that goes back decades to Chretien's "Team Canada" trade missions and Pierre Trudeau's relationship with the Chinese communist regime. Further, I don't hear a lot of talk about the prominent role Sikh Canadians with ties to Kalistani extremism have played in Liberal politics for at least a decade.
If the Conservatives have something similar lurking in their closet, I haven't heard much yet other than murmurs about potential Indian government influence. I also recall the Harper government taking a rather tougher line against Iran and Iranian interference.
My wife the other evening said “He sounds nice.” while watching Mark Carney on a newscast. Argggg! Bloody Boomers! And I R one too! He was already flip flopping on pipelines. “Conversations” 10 years later on the same topic. I plan,draw,purchase,execute and complete home projects before I’m willing to have a conversation. Only near the end to inquire what ‘colour’ would look good. We need a change in leader,and government. Stays quo,feel good vibe is not going to help our economy. “Get ‘er done” is what we need.
We know policing needs reform in Canada. Question is if any politician will at least fucking try.
The police need to be better funded, particularly at a national level, in addition to being reformed.
I agree, Gaz, the police do need better funding. I further agree with Mark that policing needs reform in many ways.
So, to me those two comments make me ask a financial question. Any serious reform will very likely result in a decision that better funding is needed. So, to the extent that better funding is needed and to the extent that governments (note: the plural was used) agree with both the need for structural reform and better funding is needed, how will the needed funding be supplied?
Put differently, will we a) simply raise taxes and keep all the other "things" that our taxes currently (inadequately) support or b) will we choose to reduce funding for other things and reallocate that funding to policing?
I know that, to me, governments (again, plural) try to do entirely too much and consequently do entirely too poor a job in ever so many areas. Further, I believe that the governments need to be very deliberate and say that our mandate is to do A and B, but not C and we will draw back from C and reallocate the funding to A and B.
Of course, that is entirely utopian and I do not expect it to happen. After all, it is entirely reasonable if your ox is gored but my ox is sacrosanct. Silly citizens! This will continue with ever poorer service until the governmental system ultimately collapses financially.
Online Criminal Unit that interfaces with CSE to find and punish scammers, online threats, and child pornographers
Counter Intelligence group that works with local police forces to monitor public interference from foreign governments and non-governmental threats (terrorists and criminal gangs)
The above would probably be part of a reformed RCMP. But I could see new entities being made that have an initial culture of collaboration rather than…whatever the RCMP has going on.
All local policing would be devolved to new provincial or municipal forces in jurisdictions where the RCMP currently focuses.
My new edition of Sam Cooper's book Wilful Blindness arrived and I am only 20 pages in, and it is so depressing. We have no rule of law, we have foreign infiltration of our institutions. The USA has figured it out, but Canada has not, and will sure as hell continue on this path if Carney becomes PM. Heck, we even have another obvious Manchurian candidate, having taken over from Dong.
Is Canada about to vote itself into a Liebrano CCP-backed dictatorship, ruled by apocalypse monger Emperor Marx Carney ?
Yes.
We Canadians have a cultural situation. We value fairness, equality and especially group consensus so much that nothing gets done. There is a reason why the private sector absolutely never runs like a democracy, nothing would ever get done.
Because we value fairness, equality and group consensus cultural so much, which is great in keeping a multicultural country together, we tend to be a bit too accepting of low standards and sheer laziness.
We'd rather not stir the pot. Problem is that nothing gets done in maintaining those cultural values.
Perhaps that is one of the appeals of Carney, technocrats, and those who want their kids to be them, want the King Technocrat to lead the way.
Milo, you write about "we."
All I can say is that I don't want to be part of "we" that requires herd consensus because that way leads to .... absolutely nothing of substance happening. Put differently, that is why I oppose politics where proportional representation is used.
So...you don't want herd consensus and yet you oppose proportional representation, which is a system which actively works to counter herd consensus by ensuring that parties have to actually negotiate...
Someone please make it make sense.
A simple first past the post system, as we currently have it, allows a government to be elected and to not have to negotiate every damned issue endlessly.
Of course, it also allows the resulting winner to act like a dictator as the LPC claque have shown for the last ten years but we have to recognize that the proportional thingy is even worse.
I'll recognize the shortcomings in both systems, fair, but your assertion that PR is worse is baseless.
Edit: just occurred to me: we can't (and shouldn't) think that a lack of party negotiation is a positive thing when it comes to representative democracy, and on another note, we now have numerous minority governments that demonstrate that you can't do without negotiation even in our stupid FPTP system (see: the NDP-Liberal CASA situation).
This is a comment board for opinion so I provided my opinion.
My problem about negotiation is that it usually becomes a mushy middle where no policy is ever pursued unless it meets the approval of the majority of the factions. That prevents important but controversial policies from being implemented.
So, you have your opinion and I have mine.
The issue is, perhaps we don't have the culture to make first past the post work well?
O.K.
Just a little pin prick
There'll be no more ah!
But you may feel a little sick
Can you stand up?
I do believe it's working, good
That'll keep you going through the show
Come on, it's time to go
There is no pain you are receding
A distant ship smoke on the horizon
You are only coming through in waves
Your lips move but I can't hear what you're saying
When I was a child
I caught a fleeting glimpse
Out of the corner of my eye
I turned to look but it was gone
I cannot put my finger on it now
The child is grown
The dream is gone
Canadians have become comfortably numb.
Has anyone else noticed how Carney, in his stilted phrasing, is starting to sound very much like Donald Trump? Canadians should listen very carefully.
Or... y'know, he's a career banker who hasn't had to work crowds before...
Pierre sounds like trump, not Carney.
wrong.
Kinda ironic that the Line relies on Tiktok - a platform used by Chinese govt for psyops for advertising dollars.
So about the content the Line published on behalf of TikTok.
First off... come on guys... blocking all comments? That says something... and it's nothing good. You published an editorial under your banner and wouldn't permit any comment. YIKES.
Second... well it's a good thing that the Line has been consistently polite about news organizations that choose to take the Canadian government's subsidy money and swear it won't affect them, because I think it's clear that The Line has done the same thing... just with a different government.
Like it or not, the Chinese government, it's influence on our government, it's data gathering and how TikTok are part of that... those are live and controversial political issues today.
This isn't a subject you should be taking sponsorship over, let alone handing over editorial space under your banner in exchange for a subsidy.
Doing that degrades your credibility.
I'm not trying to be mean here... I understand that starting a news commentary business must be incredibly hard. But this was the wrong move and you should reverse course.
Tik tok and rothmans owned unsmoke ( a vaping expansion lobby hiding behind smoke cessation ). These are unpleasant choices by The Line , especially since it is not a simple ad spot but they are actually reading and endorsing the lobby .
There has to be more out there for ad buys than sketchy lobby groups . Just sell a damn cereal ad for one that Matt eats or something … ;).
There will be no Eastern Pipeline.
Mr. Legault has already said no. The PQ will be more adamant.
This morning in La Presse, enough about Mr. Trump, let's focus on the priority, the environment.
Quebec will hold the balance of power in Parliament, whether in the form of the BQ or the Quebec caucus of the LPC.
Mr. Carney is a devout, anti-oil zealot.
Nothing will change at a federal level, so it will have to be forced through the provinces (think Alberta).
Pipelines headed east make no sense due to the immense distance and challenges in building across the Shield, regardless of the regulatory hurdles. The pipelines that Canada really needs are:
1) Northern Gateway to Kitimat - Asia is the real growth market for energy
2) TMX northern leg to Kitimat - same as above. Port of Vancouver is now maxed for tanker traffic. TMX was built with an expansion in mind to send product to Kitimat (https://financialpost.com/commodities/energy/trans-mountain-pipeline-expand-northern-leg)
3) Keystone Phase IV to Houston - regardless of the need to diversify markets, the Gulf Coast will remain the world's largest refining complex
4) CGL expansion - would provide enough gas to more than double LNG exports to Asia (https://prrd.bc.ca/board/agendas/2020/2020-05-4028428/pages/documents/06-D-2CoastalGasLink.pdf)
Doug, if you consider things, we in Alberta have been there and done that. And expended many, many billions of dollars and many years, all to no avail.
What comes next? That I cannot predict but I don't expect that a re-elected LPC government is going to be at all sympathetic to your suggested projects. Further, it seems to me that other Canadian governments will not go out of their way to encourage those projects. [Massive understatement!] [The doggoned hypocrites!]
That is why I expect the next project to proceed will be something similar to Keystone
Gaz, in the event of a Liberal win, I both expect that nothing will change federally and I do not expect that we in Alberta will explicitly "force through" a pipeline.
Because I expect that nothing will change federally (again, if the LPC win; if the CPC wins, we will see), I expect that we in Alberta will concentrate on different things. I do not say that as a threat (but feel free to read it however you wish) simply because I think that we will concentrate, much as has Quebec historically, in ensuring that we exert our considerable constitutional jurisdiction in ways that favor Alberta and perhaps not in ways that favor, oh, Central Canada et al.
I am not a free-loader. I have two passwords, unfortunately, one I cannot get rid of, while the other is fully paid up. It looks like you deleted the wrong one. I have asked for this to be fixed many times. Help would be appreciated. RT
Gregory never did answer the specific timeframe for the lagging indicator, referenced a snapshot in time,
Excellent discussion between Matt and Marcus. Thank you.
Unfortunately, their conclusion appears to suggest that FI is already too far gone in Canada. That was my conclusion before I listened to this episode - I was hoping to be convinced otherwise, but alas, no.
Canadians voting a fundamentally corrupted party back in with a crushing majority will accelerate our descent into a one party state.
I realize the Conservatives have their own issues, but at least they would clean house of the current corruption, keeping them off balance.
Canadians appear poised in the appropriate position to vote for more of the same, but faster, please.