Merged: Canadian politics: the Justin Trudeau years

[Blue Mountain]

In the Canadian federal election held October 19, 2015, Canadians voted out Stephen Harper's Conservative Party of Canada and swept in the Liberals under Justin Trudeau, son of former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau. The Trudeau Liberals went from being the third place party in the House of Commons with 34 seats to a majority government, winning 184 of 338 seats.

After being branded by the Conservatives as "Just not ready," is he ready? How well will the young (43) and rather inexperienced Trudeau govern? He's inherited a large debt and a big budget deficit, and says he intends to run deficits for the next three years to help boost the economy.

Many Canadians are looking forward to a government that respects Parliament, "peace, order, and good government," science, the press, minority rights, immigration, and the middle class.

[Corsair 115]

He's on record with having made statements that could be categorized in the 'SJW' department. That I am somewhat concerned with. Of course, an election campaign is one thing; actually governing is something else entirely. Campaign promises were made to be broken.

[Foolmewunz]

Originally Posted by Corsair 115

He's on record with having made statements that could be categorized in the 'SJW' department. That I am somewhat concerned with. Of course, an election campaign is one thing; actually governing is something else entirely. Campaign promises were made to be broken.

Some cites would be nice. Not everyone has regular access to The Rebel, so may not be up on your concerns.

[Praktik]

Looking forward to delivery on my two biggest issues: pot and infrastructure.

This was a good dose of reality for people living in the GTA though, on infrastructure.

I'm looking forward to more and more places legalizing, the input costs to grow an ounce of marijuana are about $20/ounce, and it sells for $220-260 CAD - i imagine this margin is what is making the industry seem so attractive, but as more and more places legalize and competition increases im hoping for a price break in the next 5-10 years.

Also a wider variety of edibles - people going through Colorado recently remarked upon the amazing variety of implementations of THC, looking forward to the cornucopia over here! While I have switched to vaping I look forward to crazy edibles and things like THC soft drinks!

[Praktik]

I'm also interested to hear what Canadian scientists have been up to the last 10 years!

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Blue Mountain

In the Canadian federal election held October 19, 2015, Canadians voted out Stephen Harper's Conservative Party of Canada and swept in the Liberals under Justin Trudeau...After being branded by the Conservatives as "Just not ready," is he ready?

Normally I don't care about party leaders. I recognize that gaffs and slip-ups are probably expected when you have constant media focus like party leaders do. (For example, I had no problem with Mulcair the politician, even if I didn't like many of the NDP policies.) But something about Trudeau just rubs me the wrong way. Seems like he constantly puts his foot in his mouth in the worst way possible. For example, we have:

1) Justin the Barbarian:
Back when he was in opposition, the government issued a book to be delivered to new Canadians explaining the laws and customs of Canada. One of the statements said that labeled spousal abuse, genital mutilation and forced marriages "barbaric cultural practices". For some reason, Trudeau took exception to the use of Barbaric, and the government should be 'neutral'.

In my opinion, those practices ARE barbaric. I can't see how anyone can be neutral about female circumcision or honor killings. About the only people who should complain are any Visigoths who happen to be around, who might say "Hey, we're barbarians, and we'd never do such a thing!". Granted, the conservatives may be guilty of bringing up rather nasty policies, but complaining about the labeling of mutilation as barbaric?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trud...marks-1.985386

2) The fan of China

At one point Trudeau was asked what country he admired. He stated "China". There are dozens of democracies in the world; Trudeau could have selected (for example) Sweden, or Denmark, or any social-democrat countries. Instead, he picks a dictatorship. Yes, they are a major trading partner... that doesn't mean you have to admire them.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toront...nger-1.2421351

3) Trudeau the Hypocrite

Trudeau has made statements about how the Liberal party is a "big tent". Yet he has been quite keen to crack down on people holding anti-abortion views. Worse than that, many of his decisions have been made unilaterally (i.e. not done through member voting.) That's the type of thing that would have gotten Harper criticized for being a "dictator".

Now, I have no problem with a pro-choice stance. I think abortion should be freely available. But, claiming your party is all-inclusive and respecting of party members, and then doing things in such a top-down fashion seems to me to be a bit hypocrytical.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/just...sion-1.2648752

4) Trudeau the Bluenose

Trudeau made a statement suggesting that there were issues surrounding Pornography with regards to violence towards women. Its interesting when a self-proclaimed feminist expresses an opinion that might be more at home in the Republican party.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/09...n_8178972.html

Now, all that doesn't necessarily mean he will be a failure as a leader. Maybe he will stop putting his foot in his mouth eventually. Still, those above examples don't really give me a lot of hope.

Quote:

How well will the young (43) and rather inexperienced Trudeau govern? He's inherited a large debt and a big budget deficit

Actually no he didn't.

While the Conservatives did generate a rather large deficit early in their term, its pretty much gone now. Some projections have them running a small surplus. Some have them running a small deficit. But either way, the books are pretty much balanced, and any surplus/deficit at this point is more or less statistical noise.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cana...icit-1.3231332

Quote:

Quote:

He's on record with having made statements that could be categorized in the 'SJW' department.

Some cites would be nice.

Not sure what comments that Corsair was referring to, but I think the "barbaric" and "pornography" statements above might be considered "SJW"-type comments.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Praktik

Looking forward to delivery on my two biggest issues: pot and infrastructure.

I suspect that whatever happens on the drug legalization issue, you will probably be sorely disappointed.

I have no doubt that Trudeau will eliminate the dumb marijuana policies the conservatives had. But remember, the policy wasn't just to "legalize" it (i.e. free-for-all grown and sell anywhere and everywhere), but they want to "regulate" it. Which means that the government will still have its fingers all over things. Plenty of ways to mess things up.

I remember when the previous Liberal government legalized medical marijuana, their plan was to grow it themselves. But, the quality of pot was so poor it was seen as "worthless".

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/...rticle6469212/

[Praktik]

Legalization always involves "regulation", thats what legalization IS.

Alcohol for instance is a "regulated" product - whereas black market goods are mostly "unregulated".

The biggest blockage to both decriminalization and legalization has been the White House - since Bush left and states have begun to legalize and since Harper has left. The way is clear!

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Praktik

Legalization always involves "regulation", thats what legalization IS.

No legalization doesn't always involve regulation.

Legalization could also involve a complete laize-faire attitude. Anyone can grow/sell/use. Government totally keeps their hands off, and police arrest nobody. In that situation there is no "regulation". I suspect that's what a few people will think will happen when pot is "legalized".

[Praktik]

Here is a great review of the regulatory options that can be considered when transitioning from prohibition to a variety of different implementations of "legalized" access to drugs:

http://www.tdpf.org.uk/resources/pub...int-regulation

Covers more than just pot!

All options involve "regulation" of some sort or another

[Praktik]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

No legalization doesn't always involve regulation.

Legalization could also involve a complete laize-faire attitude. Anyone can grow/sell/use. Government totally keeps their hands off, and police arrest nobody. In that situation there is no "regulation". I suspect that's what a few people will think will happen when pot is "legalized".

I havent heard anyone ever suggest a "free for all" was on the table - and no other legal drug exists in this state (with the exception of novel designer drugs, which dont last that long in this state!)

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Praktik

I havent heard anyone ever suggest a "free for all" was on the table

Actually one of the Liberal candidates (Joy Davies) was cut from the party after making comments about pot, including how "grow at home" was safe around children. (Granted, she was probably cut for other reasons, such as statements on the Canadian Cancer society.)

Growing pot at home in my opinion skirts any sort of regulations the government might want to put in place.

[Praktik]

Its easy to grow at home - but even so not everyone will want to do it. So the sales operations and production operations on a commercial level will still require regulation.

[applecorped]

Originally Posted by Corsair 115

He's on record with having made statements that could be categorized in the 'SJW' department. That I am somewhat concerned with. Of course, an election campaign is one thing; actually governing is something else entirely. Campaign promises were made to be broken.

Good thing he's emotionally intelligent.

[Corsair 115]

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz

Some cites would be nice. Not everyone has regular access to The Rebel, so may not be up on your concerns.

I'll allow you the sarcastic humour. But I will point out the quote I had in mind was part of a Toronto Star article. So your assumption of where the material comes from says something about your own biases.

Here's the article: Justin Trudeau called out for statements made about music causing violence against women. I would suggest reading the entire thing for full context and statements. But here's one snippet:

Quote:

“Yes, Yes. I am a feminist. Proud to be a feminist. My mom raised me to be a feminist. My father raised me, he was a different generation but he raised me to respect and defend everyone’s rights, and I deeply grounded my own identity in that, and I am proud to say that I am a feminist,” he said during a portion of the interview that was not aired. “The things we see online, whether it is issues like gamergate or video games misogyny in popular culture, it is something that we need to stand clearly against.”

[Stacko]

He better take advantage of the he's not Harper honeymoon period because things could get ugly quickly for him with any misstep. From my viewpoint, the election was more a referendum on Harper's record despite the Conservatives attempts to make it about Trudeau.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Stacko

He better take advantage of the he's not Harper honeymoon period because things could get ugly quickly for him with any misstep. From my viewpoint, the election was more a referendum on Harper's record despite the Conservatives attempts to make it about Trudeau.

In my opinion, I think there is a very good chance that he will be at least a 2 term PM. (And I'm not saying that as a Liberal supporter...) I say that for a few reasons:

- He has managed to win seats in Quebec. This is because a habit Quebec has of supporting its native sons. (Given a choice between a Quebec-based leader and one from out of province, Quebecers will choose the fellow Quebecer 9 times out of 10.) I can't see any of the other parties taking seats away from him any time soon, so he'll have a significant base to work from.

- The global economy will probably improve in the next few years. This will make Trudeau look like some financial genius, even if the financial success had nothing to do with his abilities. (I'll call that the Chretien effect.)

- Toronto voters are morons. They'll support a bunch of evidence-destroying Liberals provincially regardless of the scandals, so supporting Trudeau should be no problem, regardless of how much he screws up.

So, now we return to the time of the early 80s, when the country was severely divided between east and west. Good times, good times.

[Corsair 115]

Originally Posted by Stacko

From my viewpoint, the election was more a referendum on Harper's record despite the Conservatives attempts to make it about Trudeau.

I don't think it's even that. I think the reason is even simpler: since the early 1980s it seems the Canadian electorate's limit on a given party being the government is ten years. Get close to that limit and the party gets voted out regardless of anything else (and even if the party brought in someone new to be leader).

[Corsair 115]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

- Toronto voters are morons. They'll support a bunch of evidence-destroying Liberals provincially regardless of the scandals, so supporting Trudeau should be no problem, regardless of how much he screws up.

I think you are implying too much connection between the provincial and federal in terms of voters. I don't think there's that much crossover.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Corsair 115

Quote:

- Toronto voters are morons. They'll support a bunch of evidence-destroying Liberals provincially regardless of the scandals, so supporting Trudeau should be no problem, regardless of how much he screws up.

I think you are implying too much connection between the provincial and federal in terms of voters. I don't think there's that much crossover.

There is only one pool of voters in the Toronto area, and I suspect many of the voters who vote provincially will also vote federally. That is the connection.

Toronto voters supported the Wynne government, despite scandals like Ornge, the Gas Plant fiasco, and their destruction of evidence. If Toronto voters are so willing to support a provincial party with those types of mistakes, I rather suspect they'll be willing to support Trudeau regardless of the blunders he makes.

[Praktik]

Originally Posted by Corsair 115

I think you are implying too much connection between the provincial and federal in terms of voters. I don't think there's that much crossover.

Anti Trudeau liberal arguments in this province were often couched in the argument that the Wynne provincial liberals are a proxy for what we can expect from the federal party. Similarly, when Mulcair was riding high it was hard for many conservative commenters in Ontario to refrain from Bob Rae references.

Seems like something that worked within the narrative of the Conservative base but had little power outside of that base.

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by Corsair 115

He's on record with having made statements that could be categorized in the 'SJW' department. That I am somewhat concerned with. Of course, an election campaign is one thing; actually governing is something else entirely. Campaign promises were made to be broken.

I want the TransCanada Highway between the Manitoba border, and Kenora twinned! dagnabbit!

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by Corsair 115

I think you are implying too much connection between the provincial and federal in terms of voters. I don't think there's that much crossover.

Exactly. Wynne and Trudeau don't exactly see eye to eye on a lot of things.

Certainly issues that concern Torontonians are of little concern to anyone 400 or more kilometers outside the GTA.

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by Corsair 115

I don't think it's even that. I think the reason is even simpler: since the early 1980s it seems the Canadian electorate's limit on a given party being the government is ten years. Get close to that limit and the party gets voted out regardless of anything else (and even if the party brought in someone new to be leader).

It seems that the electorate sees scandals and complacency build up in elected officials and ten years is about the limit of how long it takes to reach that tipping point when they choose to oust'em all

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Originally Posted by jaydeehess

Exactly. Wynne and Trudeau don't exactly see eye to eye on a lot of things.

Certainly issues that concern Torontonians are of little concern to anyone 400 or more kilometers outside the GTA.

And I guess it's the stupid Torontonians love affair with Wynne and her evil ways that both Montreal and Vancouver overwhelming voted for the pissant Trudeau-light?

[Corsair 115]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

There is only one pool of voters in the Toronto area, and I suspect many of the voters who vote provincially will also vote federally. That is the connection.

Provincial politics are not the same as federal politics. There are plenty of instances where one party runs the provincial government while the voters in that province vote for a different party federally.

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

Toronto voters supported the Wynne government, despite scandals like Ornge, the Gas Plant fiasco, and their destruction of evidence. If Toronto voters are so willing to support a provincial party with those types of mistakes, I rather suspect they'll be willing to support Trudeau regardless of the blunders he makes.

And Conservative voters in Alberta kept putting in Conservatives provincial governments in spite of various shenanigans. Conservative voters in Ontario put back in the Harris government in spite of shenanigans. Et cetera and so forth.

You act almost as if it's something unprecedented. It's not. (Can you feel my cynicism for politics in general yet?)

Originally Posted by jaydeehess

I want the TransCanada Highway between the Manitoba border, and Kenora twinned! dagnabbit!

I have no position on that policy as I don't have enough data to make an informed judgement. If it makes economic sense to undertake such a highway expansion, then any sensible party should be in favour of it.

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by Corsair 115

... then any sensible party should be in favour of it.

I've got bad news for you about the Sensible Party.

[Corsair 115]

Originally Posted by Horatius

I've got bad news for you about the Sensible Party.

Dammit! And what's that buzzing in my left ear...

[Foolmewunz]

Originally Posted by Corsair 115

I'll allow you the sarcastic humour. But I will point out the quote I had in mind was part of a Toronto Star article. So your assumption of where the material comes from says something about your own biases.

Here's the article: Justin Trudeau called out for statements made about music causing violence against women. I would suggest reading the entire thing for full context and statements. But here's one snippet:

So he doesn't like gamergate and the behaviours that it's elicited? But he also listed what could be a mainstream list of rationalizations, too. Yeah, radfems espouse some of those ideas, but so do hard-line social conservatives. Sounds like he's your average wishy-washy politician, trying to appeal to the core base but not alienate too many others.

I certainly wouldn't see Justin Trudeau as far over into SJW territory as even I am.

[Corsair 115]

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz

So he doesn't like gamergate and the behaviours that it's elicited?

The line...

Quote:

“The things we see online, whether it is issues like gamergate or video games misogyny in popular culture, it is something that we need to stand clearly against.”

... is pure SJW-ism. Its assertion is also false, demonstrably so with evidence.

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz

Sounds like he's your average wishy-washy politician, trying to appeal to the core base but not alienate too many others.

That's entirely possible. It may be little more than pandering to get the votes of a certain demographic. Of course, I essentially admitted that possibility in my earlier post:

Originally Posted by Corsair 115

He's on record with having made statements that could be categorized in the 'SJW' department. That I am somewhat concerned with. Of course, an election campaign is one thing; actually governing is something else entirely. Campaign promises were made to be broken.

[Damien Evans]

Justin Trudeau totally stole Tony Abbott's thread title.

[Blue Mountain]

Trudeau's put together a cabinet now, and it's gender-balanced. 31 cabinet members, 15 of which are female.

In addition, Trudeau and the other cabinet members walked from 24 Sussex Drive* to Rideau Hall** for the swearing-in ceremony, which the Prime Minister says shows a willingness to be more open and more available to the public, something that the outgoing Prime Minister certainly was not.


* 24 Sussex Drive is the official residence of Canada's Prime Minister, even though the Trudeaus aren't living there because the place is seriously in need of repair, and has been for the better part of forty years--even going back to when his father was living there!
** Rideau Hall is the residence of the Governor-General.

[Border Reiver]

It's a good balance of skill sets in various positions - most of the officials that I've looked at have at least a theoretical background in their portfolio. I'm suitably impressed with the new MND's miltary quals and awards. That being said, we've had Ministers of Defence with miltiary experience before - some good (George Pearkes did an excellent job in WWII, some were not as effective as you might expect (Gordon O'Connor) and others left us wondering how this person got the job (Sam Hughes was an unrepentent racist and bombastic individual). So, right now I'm going to withhold judgement until something actually happens and someone has to make a decision.

[Corsair 115]

I'll reserve judgement too, but I am not particularly optimistic. Trudeau's made a number of statements that give me pause. Perhaps he's just pandering to a constituency, but I suspect he really believes his statements.

Perhaps we should start a contest. Maybe an over/under challenge on the number of scandals that will occur before the next election?

[Blue Mountain]

Originally Posted by Border Reiver

(respectful snip for brevity)
So, right now I'm going to withhold judgement until something actually happens and someone has to make a decision.

Originally Posted by Corsair 115

I'll reserve judgement too, but I am not particularly optimistic. Trudeau's made a number of statements that give me pause. Perhaps he's just pandering to a constituency, but I suspect he really believes his statements.

Perhaps we should start a contest. Maybe an over/under challenge on the number of scandals that will occur before the next election?

I think you're both correct to reserve judgement. I'll confess to being quite enthusiastic based the initial tone Trudeau has set, but frankly it's way too early to tell how he and his government will do when stuff starts hitting the fan. And there are promises to keep.

I was similarly impressed with Barack Obama after his election--and have been disappointed with his performance as President. Sure, he managed to get the Affordable Care Act through, which in the end will benefit millions of Americans. But the Guantanamo Bay detention camp is still open, the US is still embroiled in wars, the TSA security theatre is still operating, and the NSA is still running amok.

[Blue Mountain]

One piece of good news: the long form census is back. Finally the government will be able to make some policy decisions based on data.

[Border Reiver]

Originally Posted by Blue Mountain

One piece of good news: the long form census is back. Finally the government will be able to make some policy decisions based on data.

My wife and I approve.

One of my co-workers wife is estatic, as the government department she works for could really use the data to more accurately plan for the delivery of services.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Blue Mountain

One piece of good news: the long form census is back. Finally the government will be able to make some policy decisions based on data.

How people imagine decisions are made:

- A decision maker (politician/businessman/etc.) decides "We must do something" (to help the public/increase profits, etc.)
- Days/Weeks are spent analyzing data to decide the best course of action
- After much consultation, a plan is put in effect
- Nirvana ensues. Everyone becomes rich and happy

How decisions are actually made:

- A decision maker makes a statement "we must do something" (whether or not that "something" actually needs to be done
- Days/Weeks are spent analyzing data
- Decision maker then picks up a hooker, gets drunk, does some cocaine and ends up making a decision that is self serving
- Attempts are made to put a plan into effect, but because most people are incompetent or working at cross purposes the plan is executed poorly
- It all becomes moot as the next major event (terrorist threat/economic meltdown/invasion of the mole people) makes whatever decision no better than had the decision been made by throwing darts at a dart board.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Border Reiver

My wife and I approve.

One of my co-workers wife is estatic, as the government department she works for could really use the data to more accurately plan for the delivery of services.

Just out of curiosity, what services would those be?

I'm not necessarily opposed to the restoration of the long-form census. In fact, I think it was probably a good thing. But one thing that I've never really seen addressed is how it would actually impact the average person.

A lot is made about how the chance from census to survey corrupted the data... and I agree, it did. I'm not trying to argue that the data from the survey is "just as good". But it seems like so many of the effects have either been academic (i.e. of interest to historians/sociologists), or involving areas where a combination of the mandatory short form/survey/other data sources would provide enough data to make adequate decisions.

(In another thread a long time ago, someone brought up the issue of "emergency preparations/evacuation plans", but for that, it seems like city zoning information and business permits would be more useful.)

[Border Reiver]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

Just out of curiosity, what services would those be?

I'm not necessarily opposed to the restoration of the long-form census. In fact, I think it was probably a good thing. But one thing that I've never really seen addressed is how it would actually impact the average person.

A lot is made about how the chance from census to survey corrupted the data... and I agree, it did. I'm not trying to argue that the data from the survey is "just as good". But it seems like so many of the effects have either been academic (i.e. of interest to historians/sociologists), or involving areas where a combination of the mandatory short form/survey/other data sources would provide enough data to make adequate decisions.

(In another thread a long time ago, someone brought up the issue of "emergency preparations/evacuation plans", but for that, it seems like city zoning information and business permits would be more useful.)

Based on memory, I think she works for Health Canada. The data collected in the long form allows them to do projections for anticipated health care needs.