• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Canadian General Election (OT) - #elxn42: October 19, 2015

Status
Not open for further replies.
this whole citizenry talk is insane. we ain't the USA. We are Canada

hell, John A. MacDonald, Alexander Mackenzie, Mackenzie Bowell, and John Turner weren't born in Canada and were Prime Ministers.
 

Sch1sm

Member
Too bad they're adopting US thinking with this entire citizenship is a privilege not a right deal. The obsession with security this past Harper term has been too high.


I wonder how they'll go about it for those who are refugees or born to refugees (like myself). Considering it's against UN principle of non-refoulement to send a refugee back to the country they fled from and all, and they can't make a person "stateless."

Anyone more knowledgeable on the bill, chime in please.
 

Fuzzy

I would bang a hot farmer!
What?! This can't be real! Isn't there some constitution thing that would prevent this? This is straight up racist.
I like to make a big deal about it but in reality it hasn't been tested by the courts and probably wouldn't pass any test. It's more of a point of how horrible the CPC is.
 

lupinko

Member
Too bad they're adopting US thinking with this entire citizenship is a privilege not a right deal. The obsession with security this past Harper term has been too high.


I wonder how they'll go about it for those who are refugees or born to refugees (like myself). Considering it's against UN principle of non-refoulement to send a refugee back to the country they fled from and all, and they can't make a person "stateless."

Anyone more knowledgeable on the bill, chime in please.

Under C-24 only those born in Canada that do not have another citizenship or can easily acquire citizenship through other means (such as birthright via parent) cannot be stripped of their citizenship.

So even if you're born in Canada, it doesn't mean squat.

Edit: Also look into signing this petition, it's the least anyone can do.

https://www.change.org/p/hon-chris-...ons-of-us-into-second-class-canadian-citizens
 
I like to make a big deal about it but in reality it hasn't been tested by the courts and probably wouldn't pass any test. It's more of a point of how horrible the CPC is.

It's insane how much of this government's legislation has been rejected by the courts. I know some people on the right have been complaining about judicial activism, but Harper has appointed 7 of the 9 justices. Even people he chose think he's blatantly unconstitutional!

Explain to an outsider: what's the difference in ideology between NDP and Liberals?

Ideologically, the Liberals come from a centrist, consensus-based, big-tent-style background, while the NDP come from a left-winger, social democrat/socialist background.

In practice, they have quite a few policy differences. Some of them are pretty nuanced differences, some of them are pretty vast, but they're not as close together as that isidewith test would have you believe.
 

Fuzzy

I would bang a hot farmer!
It's insane how much of this government's legislation has been rejected by the courts. I know some people on the right have been complaining about judicial activism, but Harper has appointed 7 of the 9 justices. Even people he chose think he's blatantly unconstitutional!
I loved May's line during the debate about whoever advised him on not appointing Senators is constitutional should go back to law school.
 
Lol and there's no way they would ban Pakistan anyway. There are way too many Pakistanis in Canada for them to do that.

But the whole idea of a travel ban is pretty fucked.
 
Is no one going to call him out on his bullshit? Mulcair came close but he never got to saying the R word. I'm tired of this whole "daggers in the dark", "terrorists under every bush" narrative. It's cold-war style PROPAGANDA plain and simple.

Pretty sure travel bans to Pakistan wouldn't go to well. 150,000 Pakistani-Canadians aside, Pakistan is also a part of the Commonwealth. No way Harper gets away with it without raising a huge international stink.
 
Liberals are centrist while the NDP are left-wing. Are you looking for specific differences in policy?

both socially liberal on social issues

the difference is the NDP fights for unions first while the Liberals fight for all Canadians

2ndly, the Liberals are moderate on the economy and fiscally prudent on balancing budgets and at not wasteful spenders

meanwhile both the Conservatives and NDP are wreckless in spending
 
Is no one going to call him out on his bullshit? Mulcair came close but he never got to saying the R word. I'm tired of this whole "daggers in the dark", "terrorists under every bush" narrative. It's cold-war style PROPAGANDA plain and simple.

Pretty sure travel bans to Pakistan wouldn't go to well. 150,000 Pakistani-Canadians aside, Pakistan is also a part of the Commonwealth. No way Harper gets away with it without raising a huge international stink.

Has Harper ever cared about causing an international stink? As far as a lot of his base is concerned, pissing off foreigners means he must be doing something right.

Trudeau had a speech back in March calling him out on it. It tiptoed up to calling Harper a racist, but never quite did:

[The Conservatives'] instincts are now to be suspicious of people who do not share their beliefs, to harden divisions with people whose views differ from their own. In my seven years in Parliament, I have heard the conservative Prime Minister accuse two leaders of the NDP of sympathizing with terrorists, the Conservative party accuse notable McGillian Irwin Cotler of anti-Semitism, and the former public safety minister declare: “You’re either with us, or you’re with the child pornographers.”

Rania’s story [of having a Quebec judge refuse to hear her case because she was wearing a hijab] is part of a troubling trend that Mr. Harper seems keen to accelerate and exploit.

A few weeks before Rania suffered her unjust indignity, Mr. Harper made an announcement at a campaign rally in Victoriaville, Que.

What did Mr. Harper say at this rally? Despite broad consensus that he has no reasonable chance of success, he announced that his government would appeal the decision, because he found the wearing of a niqab “offensive” and was convinced that most Canadians did, too.

Within hours of that rally, the Prime Minister’s party was using it as a fundraising pitch, declaring flatly, and I quote, that wearing a niqab is “not the way we do things here.” Within a week, I am sad to say that a distinguished graduate of McGill, Minister Chris Alexander, was declaring in the House of Commons that even Rania’s hijab represented an indefensible perversion of Canadian values.

As I said earlier, my friends, fear is a dangerous thing. Once stoked, whether by a judge from the bench or a Prime Minister with a dog whistle, there is no way to predict where it will end.

What’s even worse than what they’re saying is what they really mean. We all know what is going on here. It is nothing less than an attempt to play on people’s fears and foster prejudice, directly toward the Muslim faith.

What we cannot ever do is blur the line between a real security threat and simple prejudice, as this government has done. I believe they have done it deliberately, and I believe what they have done is deeply wrong.


Ironically, the only party that's actually thrown out accusations of racism is the Conservatives -- when Chris Alexander, the Immigration Minister, got into a spat with John McCallum over the niqab. After McCallum called Alexander out for saying that Canadians "don't want their co-citizens to be terrorists", Alexander responded by demanding the Liberals apologize for decades of racism. (That led to Paul Wells ripping him apart, both in Macleans and on Twitter.)
 
those of you questioning Harper's motives on this dual citizen, no fly to hotspots zones:

simple

he is pandering to the right winged side of Quebec nationalists who are anti-immigrant by nature.

they right winged nationalists like this. This is political pandering to win votes in Quebec City, Saguenay, Trois-Rivieres, Beauce an so on.
 

Walpurgis

Banned
Hopefully no Canadians with roots in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, etc., are planning on going back and seeing their families in the event of a Conservative victory, because Harper just proposed a travel ban on "extremist hotspots".

I really hope the Conservative's racism becomes a campaign issue. This is just too much. People who haven't noticed what they've been doing need to be informed. I wish he would do more debates.
 

Tiktaalik

Member
both socially liberal on social issues

the difference is the NDP fights for unions first while the Liberals fight for all Canadians

2ndly, the Liberals are moderate on the economy and fiscally prudent on balancing budgets and at not wasteful spenders

meanwhile both the Conservatives and NDP are wreckless in spending

The Liberals are apparently socially liberal in ideology, but it doesn't really show up in their record.

The Liberals of the 90s promised national pharmacare, childcare and marijuana decriminilization in various elections, but delivered on none of these, all the while implementing an austerity program and tax cuts. In 1999 the Liberal Party voted overwhelmingly in define marriage as between one man and one woman. Even in 2003 in a much closer vote the same definition was upheld, with Chretien and Paul Martin supporting traditional marriage. Only in 2004 due to the Supreme Court was the legislation changed.

Meanwhile the NDP was submitting bills to allow gay marriage as early as 1995.

The Liberal Party's left wing branding is a facade put up at election time and ignored at all other times.
 

jstripes

Banned
In case anyone thought the Conservatives couldn't get any more controlling: Participants at Conservative events must agree to gag order.

Any bets on what they'll do next? Come up with a Pledge of Allegiance to the Conservative Party and Canada (in that order)? Blood oaths? Prima nocta for Harper?

Are you fucking kidding me?

Next thing you know he's going to go full Stalin and start photoshopping people he doesn't like out of official photos.
 
Liberals are centrist while the NDP are left-wing. Are you looking for specific differences in policy?

Ideologically, the Liberals come from a centrist, consensus-based, big-tent-style background, while the NDP come from a left-winger, social democrat/socialist background.

In practice, they have quite a few policy differences. Some of them are pretty nuanced differences, some of them are pretty vast, but they're not as close together as that isidewith test would have you believe.

Thanks!

Yeah, the reason I was wondering was because the isidewith tests made it seem like they were pretty much the same.

So, what are some of these policy differences? Economic policy? Views on labour unions?

Would these two parties work together to keep the conservatives out of power?
 
Thanks!

Yeah, the reason I was wondering was because the isidewith tests made it seem like they were pretty much the same.

So, what are some of these policy differences? Economic policy? Views on labour unions?

Would these two parties work together to keep the conservatives out of power?
Both parties can't form a coalition because the NDP vowed to repeal the Clarity Act.

That alone makes the NDP stubbornly non-caolitionable
 

Silexx

Member
Thanks!

Yeah, the reason I was wondering was because the isidewith tests made it seem like they were pretty much the same.

So, what are some of these policy differences? Economic policy? Views on labour unions?

Would these two parties work together to keep the conservatives out of power?

Economically, Liberals are perhaps the most 'laissez-faire' party in Canada (yes, even more than the CPC who loved getting involved to block potential foreign investments). Liberals tend to extent tax breaks to corporations while the NDP would normally campaign against that, though they seem to soften on that stance now that they have a legit shot federally.

Interestingly enough, the Liberals are in favour of legalization of marijuana, but the NDP has said that they will only go so far as decriminalization, if they even do anything.
 
Also, right now the Liberals are calling for a personal income tax increase, whereas the NDP have rejected that in favour of upping the corporate tax rate.

The Liberals are apparently socially liberal in ideology, but it doesn't really show up in their record.

The Liberals of the 90s promised national pharmacare, childcare and marijuana decriminilization in various elections, but delivered on none of these, all the while implementing an austerity program and tax cuts. In 1999 the Liberal Party voted overwhelmingly in define marriage as between one man and one woman. Even in 2003 in a much closer vote the same definition was upheld, with Chretien and Paul Martin supporting traditional marriage. Only in 2004 due to the Supreme Court was the legislation changed.

Meanwhile the NDP was submitting bills to allow gay marriage as early as 1995.

The Liberal Party's left wing branding is a facade put up at election time and ignored at all other times.

Now you're just making stuff up. While the Liberals -- along with MPs from all parties, including the NDP -- did support the 1999 vote, by 2003 Chretien had announced he was in favour of it. He referred a proposed bill to the Supreme Court on the subject, to make sure it legally passed muster, and that's where the ruling you're referring to came from. In the interim the Reform Party did put forward a SSM motion, but both Chretien and Martin voted against it. The bill that finally passed in 2005 was the one that Chretien had proposed and Martin reintroduced.

As for the national pharmacare and childcare...the Liberals couldn't get the provinces to help out on either, which meant there wasn't the money. Considering that even the NDP's proposal for a national daycare program expects the provinces to kick in at least 50%, I don't think it's reasonable to expect the federal government to blow a hole in its finances when the provinces aren't willing (or able, in most cases) to do the same.
 
The Liberals are responsible for placing regulations on banks and financial instiutuions which helped Canada survive the 2008 global crash.

This falsehood of Liberals being laissez-faire is rediculous

NDPers make shit up like the Cons

NDPers like to pretend to know how to govern when they never ever formed government Federally
 

Tiktaalik

Member
Also, right now the Liberals are calling for a personal income tax increase, whereas the NDP have rejected that in favour of upping the corporate tax rate.



Now you're just making stuff up. While the Liberals -- along with MPs from all parties, including the NDP -- did support the 1999 vote, by 2003 Chretien had announced he was in favour of it. He referred a proposed bill to the Supreme Court on the subject, to make sure it legally passed muster, and that's where the ruling you're referring to came from. In the interim the Reform Party did put forward a SSM motion, but both Chretien and Martin voted against it. The bill that finally passed in 2005 was the one that Chretien had proposed and Martin reintroduced.

You are completely correct on this and I completely withdrawal my earlier claim.

I was reading this article about the timeline of Canadian marriage law, and misread a line and thought that opposition from Chretien extended until 2003. In reality, though a number of Liberal members did vote in favour the Canadian Alliance bill that re-affirmed traditional marriage in 2003, Martin and Chretien did vote against it. The opposite of what I stated earlier.
 

Tiktaalik

Member
What are you talking about? Ex justice minister Martin Cauchon was mandated by Jean Chrétien to put legalization of gay marriage forward

The overarching point I'm making is that the Liberal Party never actively legislated in favour of gay marriage rights until the courts told them they had to. That is not very socially progressive.
 
The overarching point I'm making is that the Liberal Party never actively legislated in favour of gay marriage rights until the courts told them they had to. That is not very socially progressive.

Paul Martin was more reluctant than Jean Chretien, that is true but Jean Chretien made the ball rolling before he retired, pegging down Paul Martin

Yes Martin was the more "conservative" of the Liberal PMs, but Jean Chretien was one of the most egalitarian since Pierre Trudeau.
 

Walpurgis

Banned
Also, right now the Liberals are calling for a personal income tax increase, whereas the NDP have rejected that in favour of upping the corporate tax rate.
Wtf... Why would they do that? People are paying enough as it is. Corporations have more money. They should be paying way more than they are now. 13.5% is a joke.
kw1KFOc.png

LjDY9jr.png
It seems that the Liberals want to cut taxes for the middle class so I thought they would raise corporate taxes back to where they were before the Conservatives came to power.

They should just keep personal taxes the same and increase corporate taxes.
 
Both parties can't form a coalition because the NDP vowed to repeal the Clarity Act.

That alone makes the NDP stubbornly non-caolitionable

I tried to google the Clarity Act. If I'm reading the information correctly, it has to do with Quebec secession and, specifically, is there to make it harder for Quebec to secede, even if they were to vote for independence in a referendum. Is this a correct reading? The wording is very confusing. I guess all the other parties are in favour of the Clarity Act because they want to preserve the Union? So, why is NDP against it? Do they have strong support in Quebec which they want to preserve, or is it more for ideological reasons?

I personally find independence issues a lot less interesting than other ideological issues, so it seems silly to me that the parties can't agree to get rid of the conservatives (which sound awful) just because of this Quebec independence thing.

Economically, Liberals are perhaps the most 'laissez-faire' party in Canada (yes, even more than the CPC who loved getting involved to block potential foreign investments). Liberals tend to extent tax breaks to corporations while the NDP would normally campaign against that, though they seem to soften on that stance now that they have a legit shot federally.

Interestingly enough, the Liberals are in favour of legalization of marijuana, but the NDP has said that they will only go so far as decriminalization, if they even do anything.

Interesting. So they are socially liberal and economically liberal (as in laissez-faire, I really hate the confusion that in English liberal means "left-wing" on economic issues, while in the rest of the world it means laissez-faire or right-wing). Are they like many European liberal parties (e.g. Lib. Dem. in the UK) in that they gather support from young voters through their socially liberal policies, and then push through a lot of laissez-faire stuff?
 
I tried to google the Clarity Act. If I'm reading the information correctly, it has to do with Quebec secession and, specifically, is there to make it harder for Quebec to secede, even if they were to vote for independence in a referendum. Is this a correct reading? The wording is very confusing. I guess all the other parties are in favour of the Clarity Act because they want to preserve the Union? So, why is NDP against it? Do they have strong support in Quebec which they want to preserve, or is it more for ideological reasons?

I personally find independence issues a lot less interesting than other ideological issues, so it seems silly to me that the parties can't agree to get rid of the conservatives (which sound awful) just because of this Quebec independence thing.

gutter_trash's One Track Mind will inform you that they want to repeal it to pander to separatists

reading Sherbrooke will inform you that they want to repeal it in order to, ironically, make the conditions outlined more clear - namely the majority needed for negotiations to proceed

whether that's actually intended to pander to separatists, or to ultimately peel away some of the remaining "soft" support for separatism, is anyone's guess
 

GSG Flash

Nobody ruins my family vacation but me...and maybe the boy!
I tried to google the Clarity Act. If I'm reading the information correctly, it has to do with Quebec secession and, specifically, is there to make it harder for Quebec to secede, even if they were to vote for independence in a referendum. Is this a correct reading? The wording is very confusing. I guess all the other parties are in favour of the Clarity Act because they want to preserve the Union? So, why is NDP against it? Do they have strong support in Quebec which they want to preserve, or is it more for ideological reasons?

I personally find independence issues a lot less interesting than other ideological issues, so it seems silly to me that the parties can't agree to get rid of the conservatives (which sound awful) just because of this Quebec independence thing.

That's not the reason(according to the Liberals anyways), gutter is a one issue guy who feels strongly about Quebec separatism, so he wants everyone to believe that Quebec sovereignty is why they would never form a coalition.

The real reason, according to the Liberals, is because of differences in economic policy. Mulcair has publicly declared that he's open to a coalition with the Liberals if it means kicking Harper out.
 
gutter_trash's One Track Mind will inform you that they want to repeal it to pander to separatists

reading Sherbrooke will inform you that they want to repeal it in order to, ironically, make the conditions outlined more clear - namely the majority needed for negotiations to proceed

whether that's actually intended to pander to separatists, or to ultimately peel away some of the remaining "soft" support for separatism, is anyone's guess

so 50+1 is okay but tossing 5000 votes in the garbage in the riding in Chomeday is okay in an advent of +1?
 
The real reason is because if they agree to a coalition beforehand, it gives the impression that the NDP -can- be a part of government, so an NDP seat is not a wasted seat. They don't want to create that impression. The only way to stop Conservatives is to get more Liberal seats into parliament.

Or, if you look at it from the NDP perspective, saying you're willing to form a coalition gives that impression that you -can- be a part of a coalition, that an NDP seat can be a part of government. This increases the NDP vote share, usually at the expense of Liberals.

Fortunately, anyone can call out the Liberal's bluff. If the Liberals don't form a coalition with the NDP, they can expect to go the way of the Liberal Democrats in the UK.
 

Silexx

Member
That's not the reason(according to the Liberals anyways), gutter is a one issue guy who feels strongly about Quebec separatism, so he wants everyone to believe that Quebec sovereignty is why they would never form a coalition.

The real reason, according to the Liberals, is because of differences in economic policy. Mulcair has publicly declared that he's open to a coalition with the Liberals if it means kicking Harper out.

It's also pure politics. The Liberals forming a coalition with the NDP will only benefit the NDP in the long run.
 

gabbo

Member
so 50+1 is okay but tossing 5000 votes in the garbage in the riding in Chomeday is okay in an advent of +1?
All it does is put forward, in plain terminology what a "majority" is.
Where do you get tossing out votes?
Better yet, provide a definition that is more straight forward
 

GSG Flash

Nobody ruins my family vacation but me...and maybe the boy!
It's also pure politics. The Liberals forming a coalition with the NDP will only benefit the NDP in the long run.

Yup I think that's part of it as well, the NDP are in a position of power right now, so calling for a coalition works more in their favour.

This is just insane. I'm actually shocked that he would do this.

Out of Mulcair and Trudeau's responses to this latest Harper antic, I liked Trudeau's answer a lot more, he's slowly winning me back.
 
All it does is put forward, in plain terminology what a "majority" is.
Where do you get tossing out votes?
Better yet, provide a definition that is more straight forward

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_referendum,_1995#Rejected_ballots

ironically, Thomas Mulcair who was an MNA for Chomeday complained himself about the high % of rejected ballots in Chomeday


Controversy arose over whether the Deputy Returning Officers of the Chomedey, Marguerite-Bourgeois and Laurier-Dorion ridings had improperly rejected ballots. In these ridings the "No" vote was dominant, and the proportion of rejected ballots was 12%, 5.5% and 3.6%. Thomas Mulcair, member of the Quebec National Assembly for Chomedey, told reporters that there was "an orchestrated attempt to steal the vote" in his riding. A study released months after the referendum by McGill University [Bc]oncluded that ridings with a greater amount of "No" votes had a higher percentage of rejected ballots[/B]. Directeur général des élections du Québec (DGEQ), Pierre F. Cote, launched an inquiry into the alleged irregularities, supervised by the Chief Justice of the Quebec Superior Court, Alan B. Gold. All ballots of the three ridings plus a sample of ballots from other ridings were examined. The inquiry concluded that some ballots had been rejected without valid reasons, but the incidents were isolated. The majority of the rejected ballots were "No" votes, in proportion to the majority of the valid votes in those districts.

Two Deputy Returning Officers were charged by the DGEQ with violating elections laws, but in 1996 were found not guilty (a decision upheld by the Quebec Court of Appeal), after it was found that the ballots were not rejected in a fraudulent or irregular manner, and that there was no proof of conspiracy. A Quebec Court judge acquitted a Deputy Returning Officer charged with illegally rejecting 53% of the ballots cast at his Chomedey polling district.

In 2000, the Quebec Superior Court denied an application by Alliance Quebec that attempted to force the DGEQ to give access to all 5 million ballots, ruling that the only authority that could do so expired in 1996. The referendum ballots were incinerated in 2008 after appeals were exhausted. In May 2005, former PQ cabinet minister Richard Le Hir said that the PQ coordinated the ballot rejections, which PQ officials denied.
 
The irony being...?
As a PLQ MNA, he protested about the high percentage of rejected ballots in his Riding rich in NO votes.

Today eh it doesn't matter anymore as NDP leader, "I recruit YES voters into my party and am okay with 50%+1 despite 5000 votes being rejected in my oldprovincial riding"
 

lupinko

Member
The entire idea of pandering to separatists is quite awful and counterintuitive. It didn't help Mulroney that's for sure.

Also it's a slippery slope, while we're at it for separation, I call for Cascadia talks once again then.
 

maharg

idspispopd
As a PLQ MNA, he protested about the high percentage of rejected ballots in his Riding rich in NO votes.

Today eh it doesn't matter anymore as NDP leader, "I recruit YES voters into my party and am okay with 50%+1 despite 5000 votes being rejected in my oldprovincial riding"

Uh huh. So the irony is that a federalist representing a federalist party who is now the leader of a federalist party (that has some people in it who voted yes to sovereignty nearly 20 years ago) complained about federalist votes being rejected. Gotcha. That's a hell of an example of irony.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom