What is more revolting is that the Liebrano party deliberately chose Trudeau as their party leader years ago, ignoring the ample warnings about unsuitability of Trudeau for any serious political position; warnings expressed by other Liberals who knew Trudeau.
Trudeau struck me as a cynical politician the night that he announced his leadership candidacy, but I don't sense in your post that you anticipated Trudeau's earlier political successes.
While I know most MPs are, on paper, intelligent and educated people, I can’t help imagining them as a herd frantically running from one side of a corral to another, while Matt & Jen are running through 3-D chess scenarios.
Thanks to The Line, regardless what catchphrase the Liberals try to make happen in the eventual election, my mind’s eye will see “Liberals 2025: Neither Gorm nor Guramba.”
re: BoC. I'm not as fluent in the BoC vs. the US Fed. but that good news etc.. doesn't fly.
1) 50bps cut isn't really a good news especially when last inflation print was 1.6%. US wants 2%, we blew past that with food and shelter still going up.
2) Why 50bps, because its currency. We lost roughly 4 cents on our dollar via USD since they cut by 50bps. World is priced in USD. Congrats Canada we just got even more poorer.
Just my usual two cents on anything economic treat each datapoint as it can be good or bad. Soros wrote about this concept of reflexivity.
re: Immigration. Good god did the liberals break that. I'm seeing it now. In the speech on social media, people do not like recent immigrants. It just disgusting what the Liberals did. Break everything in this country to keep themselves in power.
Yes. Jen's conspiracy is cute, but I find it unconvincing.
The financial community was expecting a 50 basis point cut, with some suggesting that 75 was in the cards. BoC looks primarily at various inflation indicators, with some attantion to labor markets and other sectors. All very short run. Immigration impacts are too long run to count much in any one decision.
The other thing is that interest rate cuts never mean things are going well. It means the economy is significantly struggling. The fact that politicians are cheering means they really don’t know what they are talking about.
Matt noted his hypothesis that the damage Wynne took on energy was as much from refusing to admit she was wrong as from the policy itself. There's a great case study for the opposite approach from the previous premier to lose an election, Ernie Eves.
The Eves PCs deregulated retail electricity prices, which may or may not have been dumb in concept, but was certainly dumb after they had to shut down a big chunk of nuclear capacity, meaning market rates would be both much higher and much more volatile than what people had been paying. Prices, completely foreseeably, spiked and became very volatile. Ratepayers/voters, completely foreseeably, were incandescently angry. So Eves not only reversed the policy; he not only said it was a bad policy; he paid out rebates to everybody to completely unwind every penny of deregulated price premium they had ever paid.
How much did this help him politically? Absolutely not a bit. He still got crushed, and was still deeply unpopular on energy policy. Now, had he done nothing it might have been worse, but Wynne didn't do nothing either; she hugely subsidized rates. The difference is that Eves said he was wrong and retroactively tried to unwind the policy. But there's no evidence it mattered at all.
On immigration, I disagree with Jen's claim that Canada could easily take in a million people every year if only we could build a half million houses every year. That's 2.5% of our population of 40 million every single year and means taking in the entire current population of Canada in the next 40 years. There's an obvious economic need given our poor domestic demographic situation, but economics isn't the only factor.
Matt touches on this when he points to our capacity to absorb people, but quite apart from nativism, there’s good reason to think we can’t absorb anything close to that, at least not anymore.
Consider Canada's view of Jews. It has changed *radically* between 1994 and 2024. By 1994 standards our current position including the Hamas sympathetic protests, is an obviously racist anti-semitic position. We changed and a lot of us want to move Canada back to a not-racist position.
But has anyone looked to see if part of this is due to immigration? Seriously, I don’t know. There’s an age gap in attitudes towards Jews between the middle aged like Matt and me and the twenty-somethings, but is does that explain all of it? Have some of the people I went to high school with changed or is it new people? Personally, I’d be surprised if having large scale immigration from culturally dissimilar countries didn’t have at least *some* effect.
It also makes a difference where our immigrants come from. If all our immigrants had been from Texas over the last 30 years, we’d have an unwelcome shift in our national belief about the right to own handguns for personal protection. People *can* change to match their new country, but it doesn’t necessarily happen at all and when it does, it takes time.
To be clear, this is different from nativism. I have FAR more in common with an immigrant who thinks like me (and other pushing 50 people) on Israel, Ukraine, self-determination, liberalism, freedom of religion and freedom of expression than I do with a native born Canadian who wants to take away the right to vote from 35% of the population and concentrate voting rights in the baby boomers or someone else who wants to impose their metaphysical beliefs through public institutions.
But we have a big economic problem. We’re poorer than we think we are and much of our prosperity rests on continued high immigration. And we seem to lack the guramba to proselytize our values on newcomers. Perhaps it would help if we agreed on what they were or were at least respectful enough to talk about them without trying to cancel everyone else.
I didn’t say we should not have Muslim immigrants. I would argue against that. A “Muslim ban” would be a bad idea and from my perspective as an evangelical Christian, an immoral idea.
In any case, it matters where the immigrants come *from*. “Islam” isn’t a place, nor is are Muslims monolithic. A Gazan is likely more anti-Jew than a Uyghurs. (Just a guess).
It also matters even more how clear a country is on its own values. But we do have to decide what we value.
Nice episode. A few small comments on the immigration topic:
While state capacity issues were definitely a limiting factor, even with the right physical infrastructure, I'm not sure bringing in so many people largely to work low-income jobs was ever going to be a net positive for the economy (or our productivity problems). Maybe adding a million people a year could have worked if we had the infrastructure *and* brought in people as PRs based on the points system, but even then I'm not sure adding so many people in such a short period of time wouldn't cause major issues in the labour market.
On the decrease not being dramatic: IMO the projected numbers are quite dramatic when including temporary population (it's a lot more than the 100k PR reduction). We're projected to go from adding around a million people a year to slightly reducing the population. With that said, I'm extremely skeptical the Liberals can actually pull these numbers off, especially since the they require a large number of temporary residents to leave when requested (not nearly enough PR slots to convert them all).
On housing prices: my suspicion is the impact of the immigration surge over the last couple of years was more on rents than prices since most of the surge was low-wage workers and students. Extra demand from landlords wanting to rent to this population probably increased prices at the margin, but the rental market is where things really went haywire, and these changes (plus new supply coming online) are probably enough to stem the bleeding there - we're already seeing some positive signs in college towns.
Also was surprisingly non-cynical of Matt & Jen to assume the Liberals did this for good governance rather than political reasons.
The unpleasant thing I think is that lowering the wages of existing workers is likely worse in terms of political consequences than lowering per-capita productivity if that lower productivity comes from the low wages of immigrants themselves. Young Canadians are already very underemployed (and not just if they studied basket weaving) and aggrieved about their economic circumstances compared to previous generations. If high-skill immigrants raise per-capita GDP because of their own contributions but lower wages for existing (especially entry-level/young) workers who are competing with people with the same education but more foreign experience, it's not clear that's politically tenable in the long term.
Part of the political deal with immigration in the US is that it's largely low-skilled (if you include illegal immigration). This is bad for less educated workers that compete with immigrants for low-skill jobs, and have already faced a lot of other setbacks that make them feel disenfranchised. It's somewhat good for other workers because of lowered prices and job complementarities, even though it's not clearly good for GDP per capita. That's how it managed to both persist (because it's good for many) and become a huge fault line (because the already worse off felt their interests didn't count). The comparable fault line here in terms of who is economically aggrieved and politically volatile in Canada is arguably age and not class. Combine that with the fact that nearly 70% of young people have a post-secondary education, and I'm not sure it adds up to skilled immigration being a political win.
The high-wage competition part is complicated because in theory bringing in "high human capital" immigrants should create jobs that wouldn't exist otherwise (such as global tech companies hiring in Canada or entrepreneurship). But it's hard to avoid some level of direct competition, especially with such high growth rates, so I think you're on to something here.
Yeah, I've seen mixed research on the effect of wages in high-skill jobs (outside of licensed professions where's there's a barrier to competition). At the micro level, less optimistic (admittedly more intuition than evidence) about how it plays out for young graduates if in a given field the number of *potential* immigrants with a few years of experience elsewhere is functionally unlimited compared to new Canadian graduates. Seems like some engineering fields for example don't see much need to hire truly entry level anymore.
Both prices and rents are insane in Victoria. A real estate agent told me no young people can buy anything without huge parental help. Meanwhile rents are also unaffordable.
Jen good luck with your column on the BC election. My sense, from Victoria is that voters were unhappy with the NDP under Eby. Horgan was an entirety different premier - a confident but humble Everyman. The NDP under Eby adopted a number of policies that were very unpopular including decriminalizing drug use, housing including zoning and elimination of short-term rentals, and more importantly budget blowouts. And Eby is seen as very elitist and out of touch with voters in BC. People were looking to punish the NDP as much as looking for a change in government direction. Rustad just happened to be in the right place at the right time and I think voters figured he couldn’t be any worse than Eby.
Is Eby actually seen as elitist? He definitely has some very left-wing instincts that can get the better of him but "elite" was never a label I really applied to him.
I actually have a lot of respect for him based on what he did as Attorney General fighting money laundering and for making a real effort on housing - I believe he's one of the few politicians with integrity. But public safety and fiscal responsibility have been his Achilles heal.
I didn't have an opinion of Eby at all prior to the campaign period. I neither liked him nor hated him. But he managed to turn me against him very quickly. He has the arrogance of Trudeau but without the charm. I don't fall for the Trudeau charm (in fact, it irritates me immensely), but it is what makes him an excellent campaigner. Lacking that, Eby was just running on arrogance, a negative campaign, and a couple of policies he borrowed from Rustad. Not an impressive character.
Add to that his rather soulless, dead eyes. I see him as arrogant and insincere. To me he has always been a younger, taller Trudeau. I agree, without the veneer of charm.
The way you write that makes it sound as if the NDP were defeated. It looks like they will probably stay in power, barring any surprises in the recounts. As Eby said, a majority of the ridings support progressive values like his, and no one seriously thinks the Greens will support the Conservatives even if they end up with more seats than the NDP short of a majority. For as long as it lasts, you've got more of the same, no?
The went down a substantial number and the best they can hope for is a minority government propped up by the Greens. They can't consider it a big win, but, yeah, a win is a win. I hope BC is more decisive next time around (which may be sooner than we think).
I think we will know the results when the recounts are done. In my mind the NDP have suffered a stunning reversal. While they may end up ahead of the conservatives, it’s too early to tell. I had a great deal of respect for Horgan and voted for him twice. Not so much for Eby and the manner in which he has lead the NDP, particularly the budget deficits. As with the federal parties, I’m ready to have a change in government and give the other party a chance to course correct.
That's the challenge Conservative parties face in a fundamentally leftist country like Canada, which has two leftist parties (three if you count the Greens.) They need to win majorities in order to govern because there are no other parties that will prop them up in minority governments. That means the Liberals have to suffer a wipeout, which likely happens only once before they rebound. Can you imagine Poilievre's Conservatives governing in a minority at the pleasure of the Bloc?? BC shows how even tiny parties can act as spoilers in what is for all intents and purposes a two-party system....but not quite!
Not sure why you guys are pre-emptively tut-tutting the CPC for potential future "nativism" when in reality they have gone to great pains to conspicuously avoid commenting on the immigration matter. If anything they've been too far in the other direction!
Frankly, Canadians could use a bit of "Nativism". For too long the idea of prioritizing the needs of already existing citizens has been considered gauche, impolite, raycisst, and off limits, really. Citizenship has been de-valued through Human Quantitative Easing, and I think the chaos and dysfunction plaguing us is partially attributed to that - you actually do need a certain amount of "nationalism", or at least national pride and identity, otherwise the country is nothing but an economic zone where nobody feels any loyalty or sense of duty to their fellow citizen. Rest assured as a good self-deprecating canadian I feel kind of icky saying this, but I think it's true
It occurred to me rewatching that many Liberals are Picard in blue - they operate tired, tedious and bereft of passion. But of course Picard woke up and took the fight. Will Liberals?
A quibble: it’s well within the Minister Of Finance’s power and absolutely appropriate for her to interfere with Bank Of Canada policy. Monetary policy is set by the government and executed by the Bank. It is explicitly written in the Bank Of Canada Act that the Minister has the authority to direct the Bank. The Bank Of Canada was created explicitly to bring monetary policy under democratic control.
Personally, I think we’d be better off if politicians stopped pretending that independent central banks were a real thing. We have a democracy for a reason. Let’s use it instead of handing all the money and power to unelected bureaucrats.
Would monetary policy changes not require parliament to pass legislation? I'm not an expert on this, but it would seem a bit strange if Freeland could wake up tomorrow and tell the central bank that it has a new mandate to focus on full employment and no longer try to control inflation.
In any case, I think what people mean with independence is the government shouldn't be involved in the *execution* part (aka setting rates), similar to how politicians can make something illegal (the policy) but shouldn't be involved in sentencing people to prison (the execution)
Liberals couldn’t organize a ‘Tristin Hopper’ said it best. Circle Jerk. Left a bad taste in our mouths. Pay checks over the county,people. Like Boisseneault coming to Jasper to help,bring cash! We can build temp housing in Alberta. Clay,Lac Ste Anne County,AB
How revolting is it that the Liberal Members of Parliament do not know how to revolt?
What is more revolting is that the Liebrano party deliberately chose Trudeau as their party leader years ago, ignoring the ample warnings about unsuitability of Trudeau for any serious political position; warnings expressed by other Liberals who knew Trudeau.
Which Liberals were those?
Trudeau struck me as a cynical politician the night that he announced his leadership candidacy, but I don't sense in your post that you anticipated Trudeau's earlier political successes.
Liberal caucus, to quote Churchill, are all “sheep in sheeps’ clothing”
While I know most MPs are, on paper, intelligent and educated people, I can’t help imagining them as a herd frantically running from one side of a corral to another, while Matt & Jen are running through 3-D chess scenarios.
Thanks to The Line, regardless what catchphrase the Liberals try to make happen in the eventual election, my mind’s eye will see “Liberals 2025: Neither Gorm nor Guramba.”
Jen, safe travels. Given the recent Israel attacks on Iran, I’m nervous. Make sure you let us know you are safe.
re: BoC. I'm not as fluent in the BoC vs. the US Fed. but that good news etc.. doesn't fly.
1) 50bps cut isn't really a good news especially when last inflation print was 1.6%. US wants 2%, we blew past that with food and shelter still going up.
2) Why 50bps, because its currency. We lost roughly 4 cents on our dollar via USD since they cut by 50bps. World is priced in USD. Congrats Canada we just got even more poorer.
Just my usual two cents on anything economic treat each datapoint as it can be good or bad. Soros wrote about this concept of reflexivity.
re: Immigration. Good god did the liberals break that. I'm seeing it now. In the speech on social media, people do not like recent immigrants. It just disgusting what the Liberals did. Break everything in this country to keep themselves in power.
Yes. Jen's conspiracy is cute, but I find it unconvincing.
The financial community was expecting a 50 basis point cut, with some suggesting that 75 was in the cards. BoC looks primarily at various inflation indicators, with some attantion to labor markets and other sectors. All very short run. Immigration impacts are too long run to count much in any one decision.
I would have done 75bps, we are way behind the curve. But our currency tanks. No free lunch.
re: "It just disgusting what the Liberals did. Break everything in this country to keep themselves in power. "
Yes, that's the Trudeau touch 💩
The other thing is that interest rate cuts never mean things are going well. It means the economy is significantly struggling. The fact that politicians are cheering means they really don’t know what they are talking about.
I can see Dominic Barton’s tracks through the Liberal government’s screw ups with immigration and China relationships.
.... big huge fat tracks .... Each track embossed with a big fat dollar sign.
Paid by us the taxpayers.
Matt noted his hypothesis that the damage Wynne took on energy was as much from refusing to admit she was wrong as from the policy itself. There's a great case study for the opposite approach from the previous premier to lose an election, Ernie Eves.
The Eves PCs deregulated retail electricity prices, which may or may not have been dumb in concept, but was certainly dumb after they had to shut down a big chunk of nuclear capacity, meaning market rates would be both much higher and much more volatile than what people had been paying. Prices, completely foreseeably, spiked and became very volatile. Ratepayers/voters, completely foreseeably, were incandescently angry. So Eves not only reversed the policy; he not only said it was a bad policy; he paid out rebates to everybody to completely unwind every penny of deregulated price premium they had ever paid.
How much did this help him politically? Absolutely not a bit. He still got crushed, and was still deeply unpopular on energy policy. Now, had he done nothing it might have been worse, but Wynne didn't do nothing either; she hugely subsidized rates. The difference is that Eves said he was wrong and retroactively tried to unwind the policy. But there's no evidence it mattered at all.
On immigration, I disagree with Jen's claim that Canada could easily take in a million people every year if only we could build a half million houses every year. That's 2.5% of our population of 40 million every single year and means taking in the entire current population of Canada in the next 40 years. There's an obvious economic need given our poor domestic demographic situation, but economics isn't the only factor.
Matt touches on this when he points to our capacity to absorb people, but quite apart from nativism, there’s good reason to think we can’t absorb anything close to that, at least not anymore.
Consider Canada's view of Jews. It has changed *radically* between 1994 and 2024. By 1994 standards our current position including the Hamas sympathetic protests, is an obviously racist anti-semitic position. We changed and a lot of us want to move Canada back to a not-racist position.
But has anyone looked to see if part of this is due to immigration? Seriously, I don’t know. There’s an age gap in attitudes towards Jews between the middle aged like Matt and me and the twenty-somethings, but is does that explain all of it? Have some of the people I went to high school with changed or is it new people? Personally, I’d be surprised if having large scale immigration from culturally dissimilar countries didn’t have at least *some* effect.
It also makes a difference where our immigrants come from. If all our immigrants had been from Texas over the last 30 years, we’d have an unwelcome shift in our national belief about the right to own handguns for personal protection. People *can* change to match their new country, but it doesn’t necessarily happen at all and when it does, it takes time.
To be clear, this is different from nativism. I have FAR more in common with an immigrant who thinks like me (and other pushing 50 people) on Israel, Ukraine, self-determination, liberalism, freedom of religion and freedom of expression than I do with a native born Canadian who wants to take away the right to vote from 35% of the population and concentrate voting rights in the baby boomers or someone else who wants to impose their metaphysical beliefs through public institutions.
But we have a big economic problem. We’re poorer than we think we are and much of our prosperity rests on continued high immigration. And we seem to lack the guramba to proselytize our values on newcomers. Perhaps it would help if we agreed on what they were or were at least respectful enough to talk about them without trying to cancel everyone else.
Too many Muslims coming IMHO.
I didn’t say we should not have Muslim immigrants. I would argue against that. A “Muslim ban” would be a bad idea and from my perspective as an evangelical Christian, an immoral idea.
In any case, it matters where the immigrants come *from*. “Islam” isn’t a place, nor is are Muslims monolithic. A Gazan is likely more anti-Jew than a Uyghurs. (Just a guess).
It also matters even more how clear a country is on its own values. But we do have to decide what we value.
Nice episode. A few small comments on the immigration topic:
While state capacity issues were definitely a limiting factor, even with the right physical infrastructure, I'm not sure bringing in so many people largely to work low-income jobs was ever going to be a net positive for the economy (or our productivity problems). Maybe adding a million people a year could have worked if we had the infrastructure *and* brought in people as PRs based on the points system, but even then I'm not sure adding so many people in such a short period of time wouldn't cause major issues in the labour market.
On the decrease not being dramatic: IMO the projected numbers are quite dramatic when including temporary population (it's a lot more than the 100k PR reduction). We're projected to go from adding around a million people a year to slightly reducing the population. With that said, I'm extremely skeptical the Liberals can actually pull these numbers off, especially since the they require a large number of temporary residents to leave when requested (not nearly enough PR slots to convert them all).
On housing prices: my suspicion is the impact of the immigration surge over the last couple of years was more on rents than prices since most of the surge was low-wage workers and students. Extra demand from landlords wanting to rent to this population probably increased prices at the margin, but the rental market is where things really went haywire, and these changes (plus new supply coming online) are probably enough to stem the bleeding there - we're already seeing some positive signs in college towns.
Also was surprisingly non-cynical of Matt & Jen to assume the Liberals did this for good governance rather than political reasons.
The unpleasant thing I think is that lowering the wages of existing workers is likely worse in terms of political consequences than lowering per-capita productivity if that lower productivity comes from the low wages of immigrants themselves. Young Canadians are already very underemployed (and not just if they studied basket weaving) and aggrieved about their economic circumstances compared to previous generations. If high-skill immigrants raise per-capita GDP because of their own contributions but lower wages for existing (especially entry-level/young) workers who are competing with people with the same education but more foreign experience, it's not clear that's politically tenable in the long term.
Part of the political deal with immigration in the US is that it's largely low-skilled (if you include illegal immigration). This is bad for less educated workers that compete with immigrants for low-skill jobs, and have already faced a lot of other setbacks that make them feel disenfranchised. It's somewhat good for other workers because of lowered prices and job complementarities, even though it's not clearly good for GDP per capita. That's how it managed to both persist (because it's good for many) and become a huge fault line (because the already worse off felt their interests didn't count). The comparable fault line here in terms of who is economically aggrieved and politically volatile in Canada is arguably age and not class. Combine that with the fact that nearly 70% of young people have a post-secondary education, and I'm not sure it adds up to skilled immigration being a political win.
Interesting theory on US vs Canada differences.
The high-wage competition part is complicated because in theory bringing in "high human capital" immigrants should create jobs that wouldn't exist otherwise (such as global tech companies hiring in Canada or entrepreneurship). But it's hard to avoid some level of direct competition, especially with such high growth rates, so I think you're on to something here.
Yeah, I've seen mixed research on the effect of wages in high-skill jobs (outside of licensed professions where's there's a barrier to competition). At the micro level, less optimistic (admittedly more intuition than evidence) about how it plays out for young graduates if in a given field the number of *potential* immigrants with a few years of experience elsewhere is functionally unlimited compared to new Canadian graduates. Seems like some engineering fields for example don't see much need to hire truly entry level anymore.
Both prices and rents are insane in Victoria. A real estate agent told me no young people can buy anything without huge parental help. Meanwhile rents are also unaffordable.
Jen good luck with your column on the BC election. My sense, from Victoria is that voters were unhappy with the NDP under Eby. Horgan was an entirety different premier - a confident but humble Everyman. The NDP under Eby adopted a number of policies that were very unpopular including decriminalizing drug use, housing including zoning and elimination of short-term rentals, and more importantly budget blowouts. And Eby is seen as very elitist and out of touch with voters in BC. People were looking to punish the NDP as much as looking for a change in government direction. Rustad just happened to be in the right place at the right time and I think voters figured he couldn’t be any worse than Eby.
Is Eby actually seen as elitist? He definitely has some very left-wing instincts that can get the better of him but "elite" was never a label I really applied to him.
I actually have a lot of respect for him based on what he did as Attorney General fighting money laundering and for making a real effort on housing - I believe he's one of the few politicians with integrity. But public safety and fiscal responsibility have been his Achilles heal.
Sitting here in the interior of BC, I’ll say that I don’t think Mr. Eby is seen as anything in particular.
I don’t think he’s seen as too elitist. He’s not seen as an every man either. He’s just thought of as the NDP guy.
I didn't have an opinion of Eby at all prior to the campaign period. I neither liked him nor hated him. But he managed to turn me against him very quickly. He has the arrogance of Trudeau but without the charm. I don't fall for the Trudeau charm (in fact, it irritates me immensely), but it is what makes him an excellent campaigner. Lacking that, Eby was just running on arrogance, a negative campaign, and a couple of policies he borrowed from Rustad. Not an impressive character.
Add to that his rather soulless, dead eyes. I see him as arrogant and insincere. To me he has always been a younger, taller Trudeau. I agree, without the veneer of charm.
The way you write that makes it sound as if the NDP were defeated. It looks like they will probably stay in power, barring any surprises in the recounts. As Eby said, a majority of the ridings support progressive values like his, and no one seriously thinks the Greens will support the Conservatives even if they end up with more seats than the NDP short of a majority. For as long as it lasts, you've got more of the same, no?
The went down a substantial number and the best they can hope for is a minority government propped up by the Greens. They can't consider it a big win, but, yeah, a win is a win. I hope BC is more decisive next time around (which may be sooner than we think).
I think we will know the results when the recounts are done. In my mind the NDP have suffered a stunning reversal. While they may end up ahead of the conservatives, it’s too early to tell. I had a great deal of respect for Horgan and voted for him twice. Not so much for Eby and the manner in which he has lead the NDP, particularly the budget deficits. As with the federal parties, I’m ready to have a change in government and give the other party a chance to course correct.
That's the challenge Conservative parties face in a fundamentally leftist country like Canada, which has two leftist parties (three if you count the Greens.) They need to win majorities in order to govern because there are no other parties that will prop them up in minority governments. That means the Liberals have to suffer a wipeout, which likely happens only once before they rebound. Can you imagine Poilievre's Conservatives governing in a minority at the pleasure of the Bloc?? BC shows how even tiny parties can act as spoilers in what is for all intents and purposes a two-party system....but not quite!
Very interesting.
I respected Horgan until he called that opportunist pandemic election.
I really struggle to see Eby’s zoning changes were unpopular do you have any evidence for that?
They are with the people that own the homes.
The trend: Canada fastwalked into dictatorship by Troodas and Liebranodips.
Not sure why you guys are pre-emptively tut-tutting the CPC for potential future "nativism" when in reality they have gone to great pains to conspicuously avoid commenting on the immigration matter. If anything they've been too far in the other direction!
Frankly, Canadians could use a bit of "Nativism". For too long the idea of prioritizing the needs of already existing citizens has been considered gauche, impolite, raycisst, and off limits, really. Citizenship has been de-valued through Human Quantitative Easing, and I think the chaos and dysfunction plaguing us is partially attributed to that - you actually do need a certain amount of "nationalism", or at least national pride and identity, otherwise the country is nothing but an economic zone where nobody feels any loyalty or sense of duty to their fellow citizen. Rest assured as a good self-deprecating canadian I feel kind of icky saying this, but I think it's true
Agree.
Star Trek TNG: Tapestry
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGvUDvZ7KyU
I love our readers.
Way, way more than I love Starfleet hand-to-hand combat instructors.
It occurred to me rewatching that many Liberals are Picard in blue - they operate tired, tedious and bereft of passion. But of course Picard woke up and took the fight. Will Liberals?
I never understood why Star Fleet specializes in axe handle blows when fighting.
A quibble: it’s well within the Minister Of Finance’s power and absolutely appropriate for her to interfere with Bank Of Canada policy. Monetary policy is set by the government and executed by the Bank. It is explicitly written in the Bank Of Canada Act that the Minister has the authority to direct the Bank. The Bank Of Canada was created explicitly to bring monetary policy under democratic control.
Personally, I think we’d be better off if politicians stopped pretending that independent central banks were a real thing. We have a democracy for a reason. Let’s use it instead of handing all the money and power to unelected bureaucrats.
Would monetary policy changes not require parliament to pass legislation? I'm not an expert on this, but it would seem a bit strange if Freeland could wake up tomorrow and tell the central bank that it has a new mandate to focus on full employment and no longer try to control inflation.
In any case, I think what people mean with independence is the government shouldn't be involved in the *execution* part (aka setting rates), similar to how politicians can make something illegal (the policy) but shouldn't be involved in sentencing people to prison (the execution)
No legislative change required. Freeland could absolutely do that. It's right there in the Bank Of Canada Act.
Central bank independence and inflation targeting are just (relatively recent) political choices. We can make different choices if we want to.
I enjoyed your rant, Matt! And safe travels to you, Jen!
Liberals couldn’t organize a ‘Tristin Hopper’ said it best. Circle Jerk. Left a bad taste in our mouths. Pay checks over the county,people. Like Boisseneault coming to Jasper to help,bring cash! We can build temp housing in Alberta. Clay,Lac Ste Anne County,AB