• 2 Posts
  • 164 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 4th, 2023

help-circle




  • I agree that there may need to be better systems in place, but I’m not still convinced that the sitting government should have much direct control over it.

    In the Han Dong case as you said he’s now an independent and is unlikely to be re-elected. If there were a better official process by elections Canada or the RCMP ideally a byelection could have been called to replace him.

    I just also worry that if that procedure is initiated by the government rather than a third party it could also be abused by a sitting government to force by-elections in favorable ridings to potentially boost seats.

    I just struggle with all the criticism because no one is suggesting Elections Canada be beefed up to better handle this, they are instead suggesting that the Liberal government should be doing something. while it could be indirectly assumed that people are asking the Liberal government to pass legislation to reform elections Canada, this is a minority government, any party can table legislation that would aim at doing just that. As far as I know no party has suggested doing that.

    Alternatively it could be assumed that the ask is for a minority government have the ability to expell elected MPs, which of course is not something that should be possible. What if a majority vote could expell elected MPs? What would prevent a majority government from expelling the entire opposition party?

    None of this feels great 😞


  • So these are two different things right? Election interference is one thing, but MPs being compromised by a foreign government is another different thing.

    The report you’re mentioning about the 2019 and 2021 election interference not impacting the results was not a statement from the government but from third party review. I would agree that that third party review should have been initiated by elections Canada, but I don’t think that the acting government should have had more involvement in that process, I think it should have had less.

    When it comes to compromised MPs, it’s more nuanced. If there is hard proof that an MP is compromised, then there is good reason to assume the investigation is over and that the information can be made public (and if they broke a law they should be held accountable by the courts). But if there is only strong suspicion that an MP is compromised that shouldn’t be made public, but I think it does fall onto the leader of the party to make the call on what to do. The trouble is we’re working with information that is part of an active investigation. It’s not a good idea to let an governing party expell MPs from other parties on the grounds of them being involved in an active investigation, that to me sets a dangerous precedent that could be exploited by a governing party to expell rival MPs via baseless investigations that would not hold up in court.








  • Dental care, housing deals with cities and the fall back carbon pricing were all done dispite provincial pushback (as far as I’m aware).

    The only one where they worked with the provinces was the daycare, and that took like 18 months for provinces to actually agree on and even today provinces like Ontario continue to drag their feet on.

    From what I’ve seen over the last 3-5 years, the provinces have very little interest in actively working constructively with the feds.

    I don’t know what the current status of the healthcare chats are, but a few years ago the feds were willing to help push additional funding into the provincial healthcare systems, but the provinces needed to agree to terms (I believe the terms were around the money needing to be spent on the public healthcare system and not working towards privatization). as far as I know the talks never went anywhere, and healthcare systems are still underfunded.






  • This article shares the per-capita government alcohol revenue in Alberta vs Ontario showing Alberta coming out on top.

    Does that feel like a strange stat to anyone else? The revenue would be based off total alcohol sales in dollar amount rather than volume of alcohol sold, I know it would hard to correct for that.

    When I looked into this before (and that was hard to do because good Alberta data seemed hard to find, I don’t have that data handy unfortunately) it seemed like Alberta cirizens spent like 5-15% more per capita annually on alcohol, knowing that negates the value of a per capita revenue number since on it’s own it can’t correct for the extra spent per person.

    I would almost want a “government revenue” per “wholesale/retail value” or maybe multiple numbers where it’s “government revenue” per “liter of liquor/beer/wine/etc” and then compare those in both markets.

    Because that’s truely what we want to measure right? We want government revenue to be high, while also not significantly increasing volume sold.



  • most of it…

    • didn’t/doesn’t address housing shortage.

    Not sure what to say about this. This is a failure of every level of government, some levels are more willing to try to address part of this while other levels are actively trying to make it worse. To me this statement feels like it comes from someone who is frustrated but hasn’t taken the time to understand the problem that they are frustrated with.

    • didn’t/doesn’t address inflation.

    Inflation is being dealt with… Things are nearly back to normal levels of inflation. You can’t say that it’s not being addressed.

    • increases taxation as a means to get more income flow to the government

    This is normal and a good thing? I’m also not sure which taxes you’re referring to? Our taxes haven’t really changed much recently.

    • spends crazy(milions and bilions) on S.D.G ideals

    Unless you have meaningful examples there isn’t anything I can say here.

    • makes it impossible for farmers to meet (Co2 etc)regulations
      • and government buys them out…
      • and Schiphol etc buying that land for extra CO2 credit.

    Once again I need some sources on this, this sounds like something you heard and are repeating without taking the time to understand what was being talked about and now you’re trying to pass it off as fact.

    • has crazy ‘sustainability’ demains, which makes international production business move elsewhere

    Not sure what you’re talking about here. Is this referring to businesses “offshoring” the production of goods? This has been happening for a long time and I hope that we can start bring more manufacturing back “onshore”

    • increasing poverty. People requiring food-bank support is increasing, but because of increasingly harsh business environment the food-bank actually obtains less from industrie.

    Yes poverty is up, but not for the reasons you’re suggesting(unless you have some new data I haven’t seen). food inflation is going to be the new norm until the world gets the climate crisis under control. Our global agriculture system is not built to handle the rapidly changing climate we’ve created. droughts, floods and war are likely going to continue to cause price instability.

    • many small/medium businesses are going bust because they can’t repay the corona-loan. (which many have warned is a slow death trap)

    This is also normal? Many economists believe that economic downswings every 7-15 years is good for an economy because it helps wipe out under preforming businesses. if a company took out 60k in loans, and after 4 years hasn’t been able to pay back the 40k they owe (20k was already forgiving), and also can’t find a bank to move that loan to, they are likely not running a very good business.

    I’m glad that we gave these businesses a lifeline during covid, but at some point they need to prove that they can adapt to the new market conditions. No one forced them to take these loans…


    So ya, to me most of this was a mix of unsubstantiated opinion and vague concepts, which I feel is acceptable to call nonsense