[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Josephus]

Looks like the debates nudged things in the direction of the Liberals.  They are back up to a 92% chance of forming government and back up to a 70% chance of forming a majority.

Although a fair drop from, say April 11, when you posted this:

As of the 10th, according to CANADA 388 odds of Liberal majority 90%, liberal minority 10%.  Odds of Conservative minority 0%.

That's 20 per cent.

I really think we can't tell. It DOES seem likely, especially with a quarter of those eligible to vote, having voted already. The NDP can influence this election a lot. As I've stated before, many NDPers flocked to Carney to stop PP. Now, with the polls saying PP is unlikely to win, they're flocking back to NDP, and potentially splitting "progressive" votes and handing the Conservatives seats. I think this MIGHT end up being a nail biter. We'll see

[crazy canuck]

Looks like the debates nudged things in the direction of the Liberals.  They are back up to a 92% chance of forming government and back up to a 70% chance of forming a majority.

Although a fair drop from, say April 11, when you posted this:

As of the 10th, according to CANADA 388 odds of Liberal majority 90%, liberal minority 10%.  Odds of Conservative minority 0%.

That's 20 per cent.

I really think we can't tell. It DOES seem likely, especially with a quarter of those eligible to vote, having voted already. The NDP can influence this election a lot. As I've stated before, many NDPers flocked to Carney to stop PP. Now, with the polls saying PP is unlikely to win, they're flocking back to NDP, and potentially splitting "progressive" votes and handing the Conservatives seats. I think this MIGHT end up being a nail biter. We'll see

I think what has occurred is the Conservatives went hard on appealing to their base to shore up the seats they could win.  So they solidified their base, but it is the same old story of the Conservatives, they can't grow beyond their base.  That is, assuming the Mainstreet polling is wrong.

[Jacob]

I'll believe it when I see it, but:

The federal Conservatives are funnelling resources into Pierre Poilievre's local campaign, shoring up volunteer support in the leader's Ottawa-area riding over concerns that winning his seat is not guaranteed, the Star has learned.

The Toronto Star: Conservatives pour resources into Pierre Poilievre's riding amid fears of a tight race

Apparently the Globe & Mail is also reporting on it (though the article is behind a paywall): Poilievre may lose his Ottawa-area riding as Liberals poised to sweep the region

I'll believe it when I see it, though...

[crazy canuck]

Canada 388 has that as a 91% chance PP wins his riding.  But the party polls will be more focused and the Globe is reporting Liberal and Conservative sources saying that polling shows it as a dead heat.

[crazy canuck]

Recently on the Paul Wells podcast, he and some national reporters were speculating that Trump has been silent about Canada because he got the message that he was hurting the Conservatives.

But Trump can't help himself, last night he again said he wants to destroy the Canadian auto sector and this little nugget

Mr. Trump repeated his claims that the U.S. doesn't need anything from Canada and it should become a U.S. state.

Thanks Donald

[crazy canuck]

And you can't make this stuff up. Jordan Peterson, you know the guy that PP started his campaign out with the big interview. Or at least they thought it would be.

Now Jordan Peterson is concerned that Trump has made Carney electable, and here's the real kicker, Peterson and Joe Rogan are concerned that Carney will be effective opposition to Trump's tariff of strategy.

The conservatives really have to do a better job of picking who their friends are. 

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DI0Q2G7OV9R/?igsh=MTZjaDVpNjF0azVibA==

[Bauer]

CC you said earlier you wish the cons would drop their obsession with defunding the cbc etc which i agree with and sums up the state of the party pretty well.  Ie they continue with policies that may be popular in rural prairies and nowhere else and are too stubborn to adapt - probably in the spirit of sticking to "conservative values."

But there's a broader debate decision with respect to whether or not government should provide stimulus through tax relief or by spending which unfortunately I find is given far too little attention and is extremely important.

Personally i favour tax relief for a lot of reasons, but boils down a belief that the private sector is best positioned to spend that money if they kept it in the first place.  We've seen an increasing size of public sector under Trudeau with a lot of his spending going into common operational related activities.

Carney claims he can reverse the ratio of spending to be focused majority on investment related projects.  Maybe he can but I'm skeptical.  This topic is really not given the attention it deserves and is the most important policy decision for the Feds to make in my opinion.

And yet instead we talk about stupid things like plastic wrap, alas.

[crazy canuck]

I agree, the size of the federal civil service exploded under Trudeau and there does not appear to have been any commensurate improvement in services they provide.

That needs to be fixed.  Both parties address it in their platforms.  Carney says he will invest in technology to great more efficiency (and one assumes workforce reduction) while PP says he is going to axe all consultants and have workforce reductions.

So the choice is between an increase in over all capacity and productivity vs just taking a chainsaw in and hope for the best.

[Jacob]

Apparently Poilevre's most recent move:
 
Poilievre promises to let police dismantle encampments, arrest occupants
Conservative leader says he'll replace encampments with 'treatment centres'

I can see the appeal in this for many people, but isn't policing a Provincial concern? And isn't treatment centres also something that'd be within provincial purview?

What sort of levers would a Conservative federal government have to enact this? Some sort of "we'll give you extra funding for treatment centres if you give the police authority to remove homeless encampments" thing?

[crazy canuck]

The jurisdictional question is determined by who owns the land on which the encampment is located.  It could be possible for the land owner to be the Federal Government, in which case the Conservative government could make decisions about how to deal with that issue.  However, most of the time its going to be either a provincial or municipal issue.

The real problem he is going to run into is there is now well settled law regarding the constitutional rights people in encampments have, and the legal test government (of whatever level) needs to meet before action can be taken to remove the encampment.

A friend of mine acted pro bono to set that precedent about 20 or so years ago 

[Barrister]

Apparently Poilevre's most recent move:
 
Poilievre promises to let police dismantle encampments, arrest occupants
Conservative leader says he'll replace encampments with 'treatment centres'

I can see the appeal in this for many people, but isn't policing a Provincial concern? And isn't treatment centres also something that'd be within provincial purview?

What sort of levers would a Conservative federal government have to enact this? Some sort of "we'll give you extra funding for treatment centres if you give the police authority to remove homeless encampments" thing?

Jacob, it's in the article you linked to:

The Conservative leader is pledging to amend the Criminal Code to give police the power to arrest people for discouraging the general public from using or moving through public spaces.

Federal government has authority over the criminal law.

There's also some question about the authority of the criminal courts to order enforced treatment.  Poilievre says he'll give the courts that power.

So there's endless debates on these topics.  Just because you give the police a power under the Criminal Code, it doesn't mean they'll use it.  Just because Parliament authorizes a particular sentence doesn't mean the SCC will uphold it (which is where I'm fairly open to section 33 being used).  Provinces don't have to fund treatment centres.

But this is not some example of the Conservatives making wildly unconstitutional promises.

[crazy canuck]

But this is not some example of the Conservatives making wildly unconstitutional promises.

Oh, I hadn't realized the appellate decisions directly on point had been overturned. 

[Jacob]

Jacob, it's in the article you linked to:

The Conservative leader is pledging to amend the Criminal Code to give police the power to arrest people for discouraging the general public from using or moving through public spaces.

Federal government has authority over the criminal law.

There's also some question about the authority of the criminal courts to order enforced treatment.  Poilievre says he'll give the courts that power.

So there's endless debates on these topics.  Just because you give the police a power under the Criminal Code, it doesn't mean they'll use it.  Just because Parliament authorizes a particular sentence doesn't mean the SCC will uphold it (which is where I'm fairly open to section 33 being used).  Provinces don't have to fund treatment centres.

But this is not some example of the Conservatives making wildly unconstitutional promises.

My question is less about "wildly unconstitutional" (I'll leave that to you and CC to hash out), and more in the vein of "is PP making promises that primarily requires action by Provincial governments to enact"?

You are right, the article says they'll amend the criminal code to give the police additional power. But for the police to use those powers they'd need to be instructed to by municipal and provincial governments, I expect. Similarly, to connect the recently cleared homeless people with the (currently unimplemented) "treatment centres full of hope and excitement for people ready to start their lives" is also something I'd expect to be handled by Provincial governments.

It's not my impression that a lack of policing power under the criminal code is significant factor in the homelessness and addiction issues we're facing as a country; but I'm happy to be corrected on the point as I genuinely don't know.

[viper37]

Personally i favour tax relief for a lot of reasons, but boils down a belief that the private sector is best positioned to spend that money if they kept it in the first place.  We've seen an increasing size of public sector under Trudeau with a lot of his spending going into common operational related activities.

The problem with that is twofold:
1) Trickle down economics does not work.  Tax savings are spent or invested, but neither do generate enough of a boost in the local economy.

Reasons are, most of our manufacturing is offshored.  It's a decision we made a long time ago.  Even if you buy locally, the clothes are made elsewhere.  It's ok, these were low paying jobs.  Local store makes a little, but not much. Buy online and it goes to a foreign company.

Investments?  We invest in diversified portfolios.  No one takes a tax cuts to reinvest it in a business.  You take a personal loan, for which there are multiple options (too many, it's a mess for SMBs).


2) In a recession, private companies become risk-adverse.  They don't want to spend, and banks don't want to lend.  Riskier project gets pushed back, only the strictly necessary projects keep going on.



I agree that Trudeau overspent and he needlessly increased the size of the workforce.  He created part of the mess we are in.  He barely invested in infrastructures, despite appropriating funds for it.  The Canadian Bank of Infrastructure barely got a few projects going on.  Our Defense Procurement system is broken because that's one area where there's not enough people to do the follow up, mostly on the military side.  They say they spend money, but it's going nowhere. You can check the auditor general reports if you want to get cranky.



I don't know how Carney intends to use AI to replace all these people Trudeau hired while hiring people where needed.  AI is not as advanced as it is touted by technology companies.  It can replace some customer service agents to redirect calls and questions, but that's about it.

CRA has become bloated and it became inefficient.  Smaller teams of specialists are more efficient to go after tax shelter.  It's never been in the Liberal DNA though.

[Bauer]

There are lots of other considerations in the argument though -  for starters there seem to be diminishing returns on fiscal stimulus.  Countries like Japan got stuck in never ending cycles of fiscal stimulus.  If fiscal stimulus is kept at lower levels it may be more effective if deployed during recessions.  Even then if government doesn't get the money out the door fast enough it may not be effective.

Another thing which concerns me about Canada is the lack of productivity growth.  I studied this in economics 20+ years ago and it's worse than ever.  Taxes are definitely a factor in this, they discourage companies reinvesting.  In the US there is so much more support at all levels of government for entrepreneurship as well.

Agree the biggest failure of Trudeau government was not getting his spending into infrastructure, that's what I thought I was voting for 9 years ago.  That Covid thing happened too but it's an indefensible track record.

Anyways in summary I think the conservatives have made a massive strategic error in this election not focusing on simple directional policy changes instead of getting caught up in so many distracting side issues.  But I guess it's not in their nature.