Conservative party leadership race

[RetiredAt63]

Hehehe daverobev...

I wonder who that couldn've been.

The man-hours is actually probably a higher cost. Imagine how many members of the military have been working on procurement programs that fail, or restart non stop

Not just in the military.

I shudder to think how many wasted hours my technician and I spent working with our Purchasing Department.

[Margie]

We are such a disappointment.

So sad to me that parties - all of them - promise so much and deliver so little.

Haha, yes, we all want him to say  "I've learned a lesson...".

There is no-one who is fiscally conservative and socially liberal, which is where I would like to be able to vote

BINGO!!!  I agree with all of this 100%.  It truly is disappointing to me that we allow our leaders to be so bad.  That they can lie and no one cares.  Do I think sometimes they just didn't know, of course that must happen sometimes, but honestly, some of the crap they say is because they clearly do not respect their fellow citizens. 

While the convoy was such a mess, everyone I know who went had a great time and said it was a street party atmosphere.  They did not see any violence and people of all ages were there dancing and singing.  (I did not go so I can not say I 'know" what happened). 

I really like this forum, most of you seem smart and open minded - you should run!
I would consider it if I thought I could handle myself well, but I think I would be too irritated to be effective! 

[FrugalToque]

You might want to try providing more evidence when you make claims like this.
This isn't the forum for repeating talking points.

• they attacked Small Businesses (And called them all cheats- they equated a business owner to an employee and they have no clue what it take to make a business work)
• On the world stage (the globe finds JT a clown)
• foreign affairs has been a mess
• Military status a mess - procurement worse
• Massive increases in bureaucracy
• Constant virtual signalling while being a hypocrite (Blackface, Aga Khan Scandal, SNC Lavalin, WE)
• The financial state they have left this country in is abysmal

Small business:  Some people were cheating:

The reforms discussed include eliminating income "sprinkling," which allows incorporated small businesses to shift income to family members who don't necessarily work for them and get taxed at a lower rate.

Another reform is reducing the use of private corporations to make passive investments in stocks and real estate. A third reform would eliminate the ability to convert a corporation's earnings into capital gains, which are taxed at a lower rate.

Is it fair to the rest of us that you made $200k and spread it among five teenagers so that no one earned enough to pay income taxes?  I don't think it's fair, but apparently this is an "attack" on small businesses.

The world does NOT find JT a clown:
https://theconversation.com/why-is-justin-trudeau-so-much-more-popular-abroad-than-in-canada-podcast-168016
It is a myth in the right wing echo chamber that he has some kind of unfavourable reputation internationally.

You did not support many of your other statements about military procurement, bureaucracy, the financial state of the country or anything else and I don't think it's our responsibility to go figure out what you mean.

I agree, however that the SNC Lavalin and Aga Khan scandals were bad, and they're very good reasons to steer your votes away from that party if you think that some other party is better.

I get really tired, however, of this kind of scattershot, unsupported style of attack.  Making long lists of vague complaints is not the way to convince people in this forum to take your side.  I already had enough of the "Rural Revolution" idiots complaining about "government overreach" (As I dig away, I find they hate how the city won't let them pile sawmill mulch higher that 70 ft, and that there are very good reasons for this).

If you think the Conservatives, who are currently cozying up to either holocaust denier Chris Skye's convoy, or white-supremacist/white-replacement-theory Pat King's convoy in order to score votes, that's your call.  These people who are also in bed with those who showed up at Jagmeet Singh's rally to harass and threaten him (for being a "Trader" because, I suppose, these convoyers are clueless about how parliamentary democracy works).  I mean, if you're okay with that, then you can vote Conservative instead of Liberal. That's your call.

I'd rather not give either of those parties my vote.

Toque.
[/list]

[FrugalToque]

I guess I have questions about where we'd draw the lines here:

I wish we could start a fiscally conservative but otherwise modern party, with the general ideas of

1. If it ain't broke don't fix it (ie no new 'programs' that just shuffle money around)

I knew a 10 year old kid whose mother was a meth addict.  Because of this he never had good dental care.  Because of that, when I met him and he was living with relatives, 5 of his adult teeth had rotted and had to be removed, at cost, since he wasn't covered by his relatives' dental plan.
Should we have a program that allows young children in poverty to access free dental care?
Is this something "Broke that needs fixing" or not our problem so "it ain't broke, don't fix it"?

2. Try to cut red tape/put power to make decisions with the people who have the knowledge (with oversight where necessary of course)

There's a regulation out here for sawmill owners that they hate.  While mulch is considered "green" in suburban gardens, it's considered a hazard at the sawmill and there are strict regulation (red tape) around the building of mulch piles, the order in which they are removed, their age and height.  Is this a good rule, or just red tape from the city?

3. Simplification. The Canadian tax system for normal people is a joke. Sorry, how many lines need completing to declare 3 things?

Sadly most of these regulations are created by business people trying to make loopholes for themselves and their friends, trying to sprinkle their income, trying to tax their capital gains at lower rates, all sorts of things.
I don't think you'll reduce this voting for any current Conservative candidate.  But maybe, sure, a real conservative party?

And hey, being able to talk to the CRA would be nice, when you need to. I reckon they should stagger the financial year by province - it wouldn't make that much difference but it would spread the workload.

That's actually weird.  Whenever I've screwed up my taxes, I call CRA and I'm through to a helpful person in literally two or three minutes.  My problems are solved shortly thereafter and I'm just a regular guy with no special connections.
In fact, when I tell conservative people this, they get angry and say, "That's the government for you!  Wasting my tax dollars with too many people on the phone lines!"

I mean, I would support the existence a careful-spending party that is wise on the environment and doesn't have a no-gay-marriage guy (Pierre Poilievre) or any of those secret anti-abortion peeps.

Toque.

[RetiredAt63]

Picking up on one of Frugal Toque's points, when I was a kid growing up in Quebec, I was astonished at how many people had bad teeth.  They didn't look after them, dental care was expensive, and the norm (horrible norm) was that you would end up with false teeth anyway so why bother?  Even now, my dentist has a question on the incoming client form about how strongly you want to keep your own teeth.

I would love to see basic dental care for children.  Hell, I would like to see basic dental care (you know, cleanings and fillings and instruction on self-care) for everyone.  Oral infections can affect all-over body health.  Let's be even more radical and take sales tax off of toothbrushes and toothpaste and dental floss, just like we finally (years later than it should have happened) took sales tax off women's personal hygiene items.  At least there isn't goods and services tax on most dental care.

[AO1FireTo]

And hey, being able to talk to the CRA would be nice, when you need to. I reckon they should stagger the financial year by province - it wouldn't make that much difference but it would spread the workload.

Brilliant suggestion!!!

[daverobev]

Dental = health. Vision = health. Both should be entirely covered. Anything prescribed by a doctor as necessary should be covered.

Obviously expensive branded glasses frames should not be covered, but basic frames (which cost next to nothing) should be covered.

I have no idea about sawmill owners. I'm not talking about this kind of red tape. If there are good reasons, then the laws should stay as they are - this is what I mean by not shuffling for the sake of shuffling, if it ain't broke don't fix it.

There should be qualified persons that deal with all that, who are independent. There needs to be a Book of Reasons - the reason you can't have mulch over whatever height is because of (the risk of methane/fires??). The reason you can't burn straw is air quality impacts. Etc.

Income sprinkling is stupid. Very hard to clamp down on. Oh, so you're a farmer and your wife cleans/cooks/takes phone calls etc... then yeah it makes sense. It is a family business. Children... yeah they probably do work on the farm. There should be some reasonable system of saying a farmer's child is likely to spend X hours a year and hence should be able to receive $X. I can't really think of other industries where this would apply. Of course this is then a slippery slope (lines on tax returns solely for farmers!!).

But then... benefits being dependent on family income is also stupid, in a way. Child benefit makes sense. Other than that... quagmire. I can't give my spouse money because it is my money, the gains must be attributed to me? But if we divorce I have to give them that money because we're splitting our assets in half..? Er?

I found the CBC pieces on the accuracy of information given by CRA agents over the phone interesting... that what you hear may not be correct and if it isn't correct, you still get penalised. But this comes back to simplification - if it isn't complex, you'll need fewer phonecalls, and get things wrong less, and...

I can't get my head round the idea that anyone thinks even talking about restricting the availability of abortion is acceptable in this day and age. It absolutely blows my mind.

The election where the Liberals came to power I found very full of vote-buying. The Child Benefit being a prime example - parties of all colours throwing money at the electorate. So - and as I've always said, as a (previous) beneficiary of it - the child benefit is waaaaaaaaaaaay too generous. A family earning $100k should not be getting $10k in benefit if they have 3 children!!

Bear in mind I'm a little out of touch as I live in France now. But my wife still does a Canadian tax return (Canadian sourced income), and it is so much worse than the French tax return. So much worse.

I yearn for the UK where the vast majority of people do not tax return whatsoever because it's dealt with on your payroll. If you pay too much or too little, your 'tax code' is adjusted the following year (which changes your tax free allowance, basically). None of this 'waaaaargh you underpaid by $100, now you owe us at 6% interest plus penalties!!!'. Ugh.

[Metalcat]

Dental = health. Vision = health. Both should be entirely covered. Anything prescribed by a doctor as necessary should be covered.

There are long, complex, historical reasons why these are not included in universal healthcare that have almost nothing to do with the government not wanting to cover them.

I know for a fact that the dental profession has and will fight tooth and nail to *not* be included in universal healthcare. Also, a doctor *can't* prescribe dental care, they're not dentists, it's outside their scope of practice.

There are always more complicated explanations for why things are the way they are than people think.

I've spent my entire career explaining to people why the solutions they think are obvious aren't nearly as straightforward as they imagine them to be.

Living with a policy expert, I have a very good understanding of how this applies to federal policy, and why what looks like common sense often doesn't make any sense when viewed from a higher vantage point.

[Margie]

I guess I have questions about where we'd draw the lines here:

I wish we could start a fiscally conservative but otherwise modern party, with the general ideas of

1. If it ain't broke don't fix it (ie no new 'programs' that just shuffle money around)

I knew a 10 year old kid whose mother was a meth addict.  Because of this he never had good dental care.  Because of that, when I met him and he was living with relatives, 5 of his adult teeth had rotted and had to be removed, at cost, since he wasn't covered by his relatives' dental plan.
Should we have a program that allows young children in poverty to access free dental care?
Is this something "Broke that needs fixing" or not our problem so "it ain't broke, don't fix it"?

@FruGal

I do agree that we need a dental program in Canada BUT this child isn't a good example of reasons why as he is an outlier.  He was failed by his father, his mother and then sadly those who did not apply for benefits for him.  He should have received help from the foster system or the relatives should have been allowed to adopt him so he could be covered.  The real problem here is drug addiction.  Anyone involved with a person who is suffering from addiction is going to suffer.  It is beyond heart breaking.  Hope he is doing well now.

[daverobev]

Dental = health. Vision = health. Both should be entirely covered. Anything prescribed by a doctor as necessary should be covered.

There are long, complex, historical reasons why these are not included in universal healthcare that have almost nothing to do with the government not wanting to cover them.

I know for a fact that the dental profession has and will fight tooth and nail to *not* be included in universal healthcare. Also, a doctor *can't* prescribe dental care, they're not dentists, it's outside their scope of practice.

There are always more complicated explanations for why things are the way they are than people think.

I've spent my entire career explaining to people why the solutions they think are obvious aren't nearly as straightforward as they imagine them to be.

Living with a policy expert, I have a very good understanding of how this applies to federal policy, and why what looks like common sense often doesn't make any sense when viewed from a higher vantage point.

Reasons, or cop-outs? I mean, I get it - 1. I'm naive and 2. It needs a lot of political capital, willpower, public support etc to make large changes.

But these are human systems. They can be changed. Slavery is bad, and unacceptable. Women not having the same rights as men is bad, and unacceptable. Dentistry not being dealt with in the same way as other health issues is bad, and unacceptable. Sure it isn't the same, but it isn't *not* the same either.

I'm naive. I know it. Human stupidity, 'can't change it because that's not how it's done because that's not how it's done so we can't change it' circular logic just makes me apoplexic. Anyway.

[scottish]

How about the expensive biological drugs  (I'm thinking of monoclonal antibodies) used to treat immune system disorders.   These start at around $20K/year and go up in price.   They're expensive, but they can be life altering.

Should the government cover them?   Should the government cover them if a less expensive therapy works for the patient, but not as well as the biological?   Should the patient have to try the less expensive therapies first to find out if they work?

The current state of the public drug plans (in Ontario this is Trillium for those under 65 and the ODB for those 65 and up) requires special approval from the drug plan.   Adding coverage for new biologicals to the plan is delayed for years and years, presumably to reduce costs.    The bureaucracy routinely interferes in the treatment of people with debilitating, chronic diseases that could be treated effectively.   Should this be changed?

As a potentical recipient of these meds, I've budgetted for them in my retirement.   But it's a really big increment.    If the government would cover these with the same efficiency as my company health insurance, that would be great.   I could get a new car every year instead!   (Not that I would, but I could.)

[Metalcat]

Dental = health. Vision = health. Both should be entirely covered. Anything prescribed by a doctor as necessary should be covered.

There are long, complex, historical reasons why these are not included in universal healthcare that have almost nothing to do with the government not wanting to cover them.

I know for a fact that the dental profession has and will fight tooth and nail to *not* be included in universal healthcare. Also, a doctor *can't* prescribe dental care, they're not dentists, it's outside their scope of practice.

There are always more complicated explanations for why things are the way they are than people think.

I've spent my entire career explaining to people why the solutions they think are obvious aren't nearly as straightforward as they imagine them to be.

Living with a policy expert, I have a very good understanding of how this applies to federal policy, and why what looks like common sense often doesn't make any sense when viewed from a higher vantage point.

Reasons, or cop-outs? I mean, I get it - 1. I'm naive and 2. It needs a lot of political capital, willpower, public support etc to make large changes.

But these are human systems. They can be changed. Slavery is bad, and unacceptable. Women not having the same rights as men is bad, and unacceptable. Dentistry not being dealt with in the same way as other health issues is bad, and unacceptable. Sure it isn't the same, but it isn't *not* the same either.

I'm naive. I know it. Human stupidity, 'can't change it because that's not how it's done because that's not how it's done so we can't change it' circular logic just makes me apoplexic. Anyway.

I'm not quite sure what your point is.

I never said it couldn't be changed, I simply said that when it comes to dental care, there are reasons beyond the will of elected officials at play, and that that's often the case with things that appear to be common sense.

Never did I say it couldn't change.

[RetiredAt63]

And dental care for children at risk often falls through the cracks.  I knew someone (Quebec not Ontario) who had 2 foster children and their teeth when they arrived were atrocious.   Pretty obvious why they were in foster care, their parent(s?) could not take care of them properly.  Not sure if a children's dental plan would have helped, but it might have.

[Metalcat]

And dental care for children at risk often falls through the cracks.  I knew someone (Quebec not Ontario) who had 2 foster children and their teeth when they arrived were atrocious.   Pretty obvious why they were in foster care, their parent(s?) could not take care of them properly.  Not sure if a children's dental plan would have helped, but it might have.

Quebec does have free dental care for children

[RetiredAt63]

And dental care for children at risk often falls through the cracks.  I knew someone (Quebec not Ontario) who had 2 foster children and their teeth when they arrived were atrocious.   Pretty obvious why they were in foster care, their parent(s?) could not take care of them properly.  Not sure if a children's dental plan would have helped, but it might have.

Quebec does have free dental care for children

Good.  Which explains why the foster children were in care, the parents couldn't even bother.   Or, when did it start?  Because the two foster children were about 4-7 back in the 90s.

It didn't exist when I was a kid but that was before there was any sort of universal health care.  It didn't exist when DD was little, because I know we paid for all her dental care.

I think the doctors back then fought almost as hard against universal health care as the dentists have fought.

[FrugalToque]

There should be qualified persons that deal with all that, who are independent. There needs to be a Book of Reasons - the reason you can't have mulch over whatever height is because of (the risk of methane/fires??). The reason you can't burn straw is air quality impacts. Etc.

It's entirely about methane/fire and groundwater pollution, but, OH, do the "Rural Revolution" people crow about the evil government.

Income sprinkling is stupid. Very hard to clamp down on. Oh, so you're a farmer and your wife cleans/cooks/takes phone calls etc... then yeah it makes sense. It is a family business. Children... yeah they probably do work on the farm. There should be some reasonable system of saying a farmer's child is likely to spend X hours a year and hence should be able to receive $X. I can't really think of other industries where this would apply. Of course this is then a slippery slope (lines on tax returns solely for farmers!!).

It's common in "consultancy" firms and little IT startups.  Your 14 year old kid comes in for an hour a year and you pay them $50k.  Get right around the tax man.

But then... benefits being dependent on family income is also stupid, in a way. Child benefit makes sense. Other than that... quagmire. I can't give my spouse money because it is my money, the gains must be attributed to me? But if we divorce I have to give them that money because we're splitting our assets in half..? Er?

Yes, because my wife wasn't employed during the Harper years, we got the full $2k of income splitting benefit.  When Harper left and Trudeau brought in the CCB instead, I got about $2k of  that for the kids.

I found the CBC pieces on the accuracy of information given by CRA agents over the phone interesting... that what you hear may not be correct and if it isn't correct, you still get penalised. But this comes back to simplification - if it isn't complex, you'll need fewer phonecalls, and get things wrong less, and...

Maybe my experiences are outliers.

I can't get my head round the idea that anyone thinks even talking about restricting the availability of abortion is acceptable in this day and age. It absolutely blows my mind.

I don't think the present conservative party can come anywhere near forming government without at least winking and nudging in order to bring out that radical portion of the population.

The election where the Liberals came to power I found very full of vote-buying. The Child Benefit being a prime example - parties of all colours throwing money at the electorate. So - and as I've always said, as a (previous) beneficiary of it - the child benefit is waaaaaaaaaaaay too generous. A family earning $100k should not be getting $10k in benefit if they have 3 children!!

I agree, but the TFSA increase and income splitting were the Conservative side of vote-buying.  It worked out pretty much evenly for the Toque family.

Bear in mind I'm a little out of touch as I live in France now. But my wife still does a Canadian tax return (Canadian sourced income), and it is so much worse than the French tax return. So much worse.

I yearn for the UK where the vast majority of people do not tax return whatsoever because it's dealt with on your payroll. If you pay too much or too little, your 'tax code' is adjusted the following year (which changes your tax free allowance, basically). None of this 'waaaaargh you underpaid by $100, now you owe us at 6% interest plus penalties!!!'. Ugh.

Yeah, you can almost just login to the CRA website (using StudioTax or TurboTax or whatever) and it just auto-fills everything for you.  I think you'd just have to add your charitable deductions and you're done.

Toque.

[GuitarStv]

Yeah, you can almost just login to the CRA website (using StudioTax or TurboTax or whatever) and it just auto-fills everything for you.  I think you'd just have to add your charitable deductions and you're done.

Toque.

I've been doing my wife's and my own taxes for years now.

Ever since the CRA started doing the whole autofill thing it has radically sped up the whole process.  At least for basic/typical returns it's pretty simple and streamlined.

Still takes me an hour or so to do because I've got to fill in the small business stuff we have for our solar panels on the roof, which doesn't get autofilled . . . but other than that it's just medical bills, charity donations, and RRSP info that you've got to enter.  Not sure how much simpler it could be made.

[Stash-Can]

Pierre for the win

Hey tell us more, what do you like about Pierre?

He seems to have some sensible economic ideas about more value added in the resource sector and encouraging more companies to open satellite plants.   Cutting back on deficit spending would be a big win in my book.    Is that it?

Two days, and he still hasn't been able to come up with anything.  Sounds about right.

Ah sorry didn't realize there was a Service Level Agreement on responses.  What's not to like, fiscally conservative, speaks both French and English fluently which is mandatory, took Trudeau to task over the WE scandal, wants to get rid of the CBC, actually spoke to the truckers without calling them derogatory names, is young but has years of political experience.  Funny as hell, JustinFlation!!!

We strive for 2 9's over here!

PP's primary agenda is focused on freedom.    And his secondary agenda seems to be to replace the CAD with Bitcoin.   But Canada doesn't have a freedom problem on any measurable scale.     You wanna see a freedom problem, go to Russia, China, Ukraine, North Korea, South Africa, Hungary, Brazil ...         The problems we have are things like the Liberals spend like a Gen-Z with her first credit card, the conservatives want to appeal to a small minority (not a fringe though!) on the right and politicians are busy being divisive.   Where the hell has the middle gone?

and get off my lawn!

You ask where the hell has the middle gone? Yet we just had an election that was between a centrist red Torie in O'toole vs. The scandal ridden divisive Trudeau and Canada still voted in the waste of skin that is our PM. So it's quite clear Liberals are not interested in compromise they'll keep voting in Trudeau no matter how many scandals he has or how much he screws up this country.

Can you really blame the conservative party for digging in their heels after that and trying to ignite their base/steal votes from PPC/ and hope to take enough votes from people sick of Trudeau to win an election. But Liberal voters don't think so enjoy paying your $2 26 for a litre of gas but be happy to know that the PM is 'woke'

[Metalcat]

Pierre for the win

Hey tell us more, what do you like about Pierre?

He seems to have some sensible economic ideas about more value added in the resource sector and encouraging more companies to open satellite plants.   Cutting back on deficit spending would be a big win in my book.    Is that it?

Two days, and he still hasn't been able to come up with anything.  Sounds about right.

Ah sorry didn't realize there was a Service Level Agreement on responses.  What's not to like, fiscally conservative, speaks both French and English fluently which is mandatory, took Trudeau to task over the WE scandal, wants to get rid of the CBC, actually spoke to the truckers without calling them derogatory names, is young but has years of political experience.  Funny as hell, JustinFlation!!!

We strive for 2 9's over here!

PP's primary agenda is focused on freedom.    And his secondary agenda seems to be to replace the CAD with Bitcoin.   But Canada doesn't have a freedom problem on any measurable scale.     You wanna see a freedom problem, go to Russia, China, Ukraine, North Korea, South Africa, Hungary, Brazil ...         The problems we have are things like the Liberals spend like a Gen-Z with her first credit card, the conservatives want to appeal to a small minority (not a fringe though!) on the right and politicians are busy being divisive.   Where the hell has the middle gone?

and get off my lawn!

You ask where the hell has the middle gone? Yet we just had an election that was between a centrist red Torie in O'toole vs. The scandal ridden divisive Trudeau and Canada still voted in the waste of skin that is our PM. So it's quite clear Liberals are not interested in compromise they'll keep voting in Trudeau no matter how many scandals he has or how much he screws up this country.

Can you really blame the conservative party for digging in their heels after that and trying to ignite their base/steal votes from PPC/ and hope to take enough votes from people sick of Trudeau to win an election. But Liberal voters don't think so enjoy paying your $2 26 for a litre of gas but be happy to know that the PM is 'woke'

FTR, I didn't vote Liberal because Trudeau is "woke," I don't actually find him particularly "woke."
I'm actually *very* happy with a lot of the Liberal government policies, and I'm not talking about what I read on the news, I'm talking about what I see first hand at the advanced policy level because I'm friends with A LOT of senior policy folks in many departments.

I also don't vote for leaders specifically, I vote for parties, and O'Toole personally did not impress me, and the behaviour of his party certainly hasn't. I would be perfectly happy to see JT replaced. I've never been a huge fan. He and my ex grew up together, and I think he's a bit of a cheese-ass and I especially find his weeping annoying.

I also have openly stated that I think his choice of Morneau for finance was moronic, but hilariously, that was his effort to appear fiscally responsible, lol, by putting a "business guy" in the role.

Many liberal voters just accept JT, and roll our eyes at his nonsense, but are overall pretty happy with the general functioning of the government.

I really don't see the country as "ruined" the way many conservatives do. I'm thrilled that climate change is actually actively being researched and addressed finally. The last conservative government did literally terrifying things and Environment Canada got the nickname "The Wrist Slitting Department."

I can't imagine a new conservative government would be *that* bad again, but it's not like the core structure of the party has changed. You can change leaders, but that doesn't change the way a party functions, contrary to what the public seems to believe. Also, they still invoke Harper the way Republicans invoke Reagan...fuuuck, talk about a dude steeped in scandal and embarrassment on the international stage...Yeesh. N'ah, I think I'll pass, even if the C's do manage to find a leader I like.

I like Jean, I personally like him more than JT, but I wouldn't vote C even his he got the role, because I know the foundation of that party.

One of the biggest issues with Trudeau is that he brought back with him some old guard Liberals (not just elected politicians, the working of a party go FAR beyond just the elected folks), which helps with running the country, but also gets you sucked into SNC Lavalin bullshit.

I know that world very, very, very well. I've been immersed in the players for decades. I know exactly who sucks whose dick in those dirty political waters, and yeah, it's ugly, because yeah, politics is UGLY.

But don't for a second think that the CRAP alliance is any cleaner. Hoooo boy. Have they stuck their dicks in some dirty places! But that's what happens when a party is divided. The horse-trading and deal making has to get nastier for anything to work.

So maybe don't write us Liberal voters off as a bunch of sensitive SJW namby pamby idiots who don't know how to rub two brain cells together and just vote with our bleeding hearts.

Most Liberal voters that I've ever met are actually pragmatists.

[GuitarStv]

But Liberal voters don't think so enjoy paying your $2 26 for a litre of gas but be happy to know that the PM is 'woke'

Could be wrong on this . . . but I don't believe that the average Conservative voter is stupid enough to believe that the price of gas is somehow Trudeau's fault when the price has gone up world wide since the invasion of Ukraine.  What kind of faulty reasoning would let one believe that  Trudeau's Canadian policy is causing record price jumps in Canada, the United States, Britain, France, etc?

[RetiredAt63]

I would happily have written everything Malcat wrote. 

I was skeptical that O'Toole could manage a divided party, and lo and behold, his caucus ate him. 

I loathe Harper with the heat of a thousand suns - cue the long form census scandal, the Environmental Protection Act gutted, the funding for the Experimental Lakes cut, the muzzling of scientists in every scientific Ministry.  DD hates him for the changes to the Young Offenders Act. 

GuitarStv, I am sure they can blame the Liberals for gas prices, after all Americans are blaming Biden.  Like there is no pandemic and no war in Ukraine.

[scottish]

I find it a bit weird how people assign others to a political party.   "We wanna own the libs!"   Who are the libs, anyway?    Malcat explained this well, we tend to vote pragmatically and don't necessarily have alot of party allegiance.    And many of us are socially liberal but fiscally conservative.

Trudeau didn't help with some of the pandemic overspending, but yeah, gasoline price increases are not driven by the federal government.   

Hey if PP gets in, he'll have....    Jenni Byrne...  behind the scenes.   Remember her?

I'm still hoping Jean Charest can win the leadership.   But to succeed, he would have to do alot of ass kicking to get the party in line behind him.   It's not clear that he would be successful at this, but it's worth a try.    He's also the only candidate whose platform is primarily about policy, instead of name-calling his opponents.    I get emails from these people every day.

From PP:

Gas prices are out of control.

Why?

The cost of government is driving up the cost of living.

Inflationary deficits and inflationary taxes.

The more government spends, the more things cost.

It’s JustinFlation.

From Leslyn Lewis

I believe the Liberal government's approach to travel in this country is an unscientific, administrative nightmare.

Roman Baber is especially good:

As Prime Minister, I will fire Dr. Tam on my first day in office!

I will withdraw Canada's participation in the new WHO Pandemic Treaty.

I will scrap and outlaw all of Justin's unscientific anddiscriminatory mandates and passports.

These are not people with compelling ideas, that's for sure.

[Metalcat]

Lol, at this point I think Dr. Tam might be like "cool, fire me, I'm sick of this bullshit"

[RetiredAt63]

Lol, at this point I think Dr. Tam might be like "cool, fire me, I'm sick of this bullshit"

LOL indeed.

I suppose if monkey pox gets a hold here (breaking news, monkey pox in the US and the UK and I think Montreal?) they will blame it on the Liberals too?

If a Reform type candidate wins, maybe it is time for the Conservatives to split back to their 2 components.  Because the socially liberal/fiscally conservative people will not be interested in a financially weird (ignore Bank of Canada, go for crypto currency), socially dark ages (abortion illegal) party.

[Metalcat]

I feel like Pierre would have a much better shot if he started talking a bit less, but it seems that the ultra hostile race is getting him feisty, and he's not a brilliant guy, so winging it can really work against him.

Not that a politician needs to be brilliant, in fact it can really work against them in general, it just means that they have to be more careful when speaking off-script, and Pierre is getting less careful by the day. His vicious bulldog conviction sounds great when he's got a scripted talking point that's been constructed by strategists who can be brilliant for him, but that level of conviction just starts sounding unhinged when it's not attached to a well crafted message.

And that's what happens when leadership races get nasty, the messaging starts falling apart as the focus lasers in on an enemy instead of a campaign. The other side becomes the narrative, and that is not overly productive branding for a leadership race. It works well between parties in an increasingly partisan political landscape, because voters for one side barely see the other side as human. But within the ideological construct of the party, getting that nasty internally is fundamentally destructive to the overall narrative, there's just no way to make internal vicious fighting seem stable.

That said, Pierre's particular brand of frothing-at-the-mouth rage is much more suited for a race against JT than Jean. Jean is too seasoned, too stayed, too old school to make a good foil for Pierre. But JT is the perfect enemy to galvanize his rage against. If Pierre survives the leadership race, he'll be able to laser focus his aggression on JT who will always make it easy for him to brand his anger as "justified."

But he has to get there first, and not trip over the shoelaces of his own volatility and lack of intelligence. It's very doable, but he could trip himself up. I don't have a prediction on this. He doesn't have the strongest political team though, which explains a lot. Representing the party in Parliament, he had a crack team, but those same strategists haven't rallied behind his leadership race at this point. What will make or break him is if really smart people decide they want to back him or not, because it's 100% clear that he's a candidate who needs good strategic guidance.

Jean can guide himself AND he has a long-tested team of absolutely brilliant advisors. It's why he's even a possibility despite the party in general being set against him. I don't think he'll win, that old school polish doesn't fly as well as it used to outside of Quebec, but boy will he fuck up everyone else's plans along the way.

We'll see how this plays out. I'm curious to see if it's going to be another case of the front runners cannibalizing each other and then some second string candidate coming up between them to snatch the position.

That's the thing with these Conservative leadership races, you just never know how the internal conflict is going to pan out. It's always a wild ride.

[FLBiker]

As a relatively new Canadian permanent resident (almost 2 years) and a complete novice when it comes to Canadian politics, I'm really finding this thread fascinating.  Is there a source you folks like for political info?  I prefer sources I can read, rather than videos.  Thanks!

[Metalcat]

As a relatively new Canadian permanent resident (almost 2 years) and a complete novice when it comes to Canadian politics, I'm really finding this thread fascinating.  Is there a source you folks like for political info?  I prefer sources I can read, rather than videos.  Thanks!

IMO the best source is foreign news outlets, they're less caught up in the distracting nonsense, and tend to focus more on actual policy and its impact, plus you will get a much better sense of what the rest of the world actually thinks, as opposed to the "so and so is ruining our international reputation," which is always blathered by the opposition party because most Canadians are too busy/lazy/disinterested to read international news and find out for themselves.

If you want to get into the weeds, then you can start venturing into Hill Times, iPolitics, Loonie Politics and the like. I don't really read them, but you will start getting a sense of what the prevailing narratives/agendas are in the system. They will all be biased though, there is no one, objective source. It takes awhile to really get familiar with why things are presented the way they are.

I've been floating in and out of that world my entire life, and I'm still no expert on it.

[erp]

I think to expand a bit on MalCat's news sources, there's some really weird dual narratives kicking around.

There's a relatively elite, policy wonkish sort of discussion that happens in circles I talk in (mostly climate/environment), and I think that's true in most expert fields. Being keyed into these sorts of circles is mostly a byproduct of working/volunteering in them, and you'll end up reading things that your friends have written, or that your bosses share, or attending discussions where information kind of floats around. For public news I like the Economist and hear good things about Foreign Affairs.

On the other hand, there's an entirely different conversation which seems to be happening in the general public/party base. This feels like it's mostly circulating on social media/facebook/whatsapp threads. I am not even sort of keyed into these discussions, and they seem just baffling to me - but they also seem to actually matter. Things like PP talking about Bitcoin might be tied to this group - it's not a policy position pitched to people who understand policy, it's pitched to people who have feelings.

In my perfect world, the policy wonks write good policy for whoever takes power and everyone lives a bit better. In this world though, it sure feels like there's a lot of interest in how random, arbitrary policy positions make people feel (often with very little thought around what the policy actually does). I think it creates perverse incentives for anyone in a leadership position, but it also makes it really hard to understand what is even motivating a party (because if it's not about policy, but about feelings and group identity ... what are they going to actually do?).

I'm ... not optimistic about the current state of politics.

[FrugalToque]

You ask where the hell has the middle gone? Yet we just had an election that was between a centrist red Torie in O'toole vs. The scandal ridden divisive Trudeau and Canada still voted in the waste of skin that is our PM. So it's quite clear Liberals are not interested in compromise they'll keep voting in Trudeau no matter how many scandals he has or how much he screws up this country.

Can you really blame the conservative party for digging in their heels after that and trying to ignite their base/steal votes from PPC/ and hope to take enough votes from people sick of Trudeau to win an election. But Liberal voters don't think so enjoy paying your $2 26 for a litre of gas but be happy to know that the PM is 'woke'

Again, this is just more grist from the right wing mill and echo chamber.  Trudeau is not "divisive".  He's a milquetoast, average-scandal middle-of-the-road politician.

I realize, at your trucker convoy meetings and your facebook groups,  you can't stop shouting "Dictator Trudeau is taking my rights and ruining the country" and "Jagmeet is a trader[sp]" but you have to get your act together, look at the how the rest of the country feels (not the 5-10% represented by your private Zillow chats) and realize we're mostly "meh" on Trudeau.

Also, the whole "using woke as an insult" thing is getting tired.  Get a new shtick.

Toque.

[FLBiker]

Thanks Malcat and ERP -- I'll check out some of the sources you mentioned.

And I've been struck by how pessimistic some of my more reasonable friends are about the way that Canadian politics is heading.  While I don't disagree that there are growing indicators of polarization, coming from the US, it also seems like it has a LONG way to go before it begins to remotely approach the dysfunction down there.  Maybe it will ultimately get there, but I do think the lower amount of campaign financing (and duration) coupled with the viability of multiple parties will help to keep the extremes towards the fringes, rather than pulling the major parties to the extremes.  I'm certainly no expert, though.  We shall see.

[FrugalToque]

Thanks Malcat and ERP -- I'll check out some of the sources you mentioned.

And I've been struck by how pessimistic some of my more reasonable friends are about the way that Canadian politics is heading.  While I don't disagree that there are growing indicators of polarization, coming from the US, it also seems like it has a LONG way to go before it begins to remotely approach the dysfunction down there.  Maybe it will ultimately get there, but I do think the lower amount of campaign financing (and duration) coupled with the viability of multiple parties will help to keep the extremes towards the fringes, rather than pulling the major parties to the extremes.  I'm certainly no expert, though.  We shall see.

I think it's important to understand that, in Canada, there is only one side that complains about divisive, polarizing politics, and it's the side that is divisive and polarizing on the right.
We just had a convoy of people arrive in the capital, wave swastikas around for a bit before hiding them under their Soldiers of Odin and Three-Percenter shirts, then demand that the Governor General overthrow the government (just elected five months prior) in favour of a weird cabal of themselves and a few politicians they like.

But, oh, the left has extremists too?
Like what?  The guy who thinks dental care for poor children should be part of a national health care program?
Oh, goodness, save me from socialism!

The people at this rally, and their supporters, complain about "Trudeau taking away their rights" and that the unvaccinated are like "Jews in 1930s Germany", while they ignore the fact that their own Conservative politicians at the provincial level put in 10x the regulations, shutdowns, lockdowns and restrictions as the federal government did.

There's nothing balanced about these people.  They have no grip on logic and can't even grasp the depth of their own hypocrisy, none of which is helped by their actual ignorance of how democracy works in Canada or even how taxes are collected.  I have never seen this level of "divisiveness" from any extreme leftist group.

Toque.

[GuitarStv]

As the collapse of traditional news sources continues, I think that we will see increasing numbers of these misinformed groups of people.  When basic verifiable fact can be ignored, political battles become about feelings, slogans, and punditry lies for more and more people rather than actual policy.  You can see the effect of this misinformation with the feeling rather than truth based arguments cropping up more and more often . . . we've had multiple examples in this very thread.

That's where my pessimism is coming from.  Falsehood seems to be winning over reason with increasing regularity.  That bodes ill for the future.

[RetiredAt63]

My pessimism about Canadian politics stems from watching the US go down the rabbit hole of extreme right wing politics.  We are right next door, it is easy for those attitudes to transfer to here, and easy for the money to flow here to influence it. Look at Harper's CV before he became leader. So it makes me wonder where we will be in 15/20 years.

The other worrisome thing is that a lot of the right-wing extremism is based in one area of the country.  If this results in federal Liberal or Liberal/NDP coalition governments, they will feel more and more alienated because they have no say in government - by their own choices.  Kenney has resigned in Alberta, apparently because he was "not Conservative enough" - if his replacement is even more right-wing, what does that say for Alberta's future in Confederation?   I lived through all the Quebec separatism mess, I don't want to see it again elsewhere.

[GuitarStv]

We are right next door, it is easy for those attitudes to transfer to here, and easy for the money to flow here to influence it.

Watching Americans pump money into our 'freedom convoy' recently was certainly disheartening.

[RetiredAt63]

We are right next door, it is easy for those attitudes to transfer to here, and easy for the money to flow here to influence it.

Watching Americans pump money into our 'freedom convoy' recently was certainly disheartening.

Yes.  I knew money was flowing north before that, but it was disturbing to see how much of the funding for what was supposed to be a "grassroots" convoy was from foreign countries (and not just the US).

[FrugalToque]

As the collapse of traditional news sources continues, I think that we will see increasing numbers of these misinformed groups of people...

In case you're wondering, "How bad could that get?"

An actual witness called forward to speak  at a House Judiciary Committee meeting says that aborted fetuses are burned to generate power in Washington DC.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/abortion-hearing-gop-catherine-foster-fetus-b2083367.html

If people are dumb enough to believe this, they are crazy enough to "do something about it" and that's terrifying.

[frugalcanuck]

We strive for 2 9's over here!

PP's primary agenda is focused on freedom.    And his secondary agenda seems to be to replace the CAD with Bitcoin.   But Canada doesn't have a freedom problem on any measurable scale.     You wanna see a freedom problem, go to Russia, China, Ukraine, North Korea, South Africa, Hungary, Brazil ...         The problems we have are things like the Liberals spend like a Gen-Z with her first credit card, the conservatives want to appeal to a small minority (not a fringe though!) on the right and politicians are busy being divisive.   Where the hell has the middle gone?
[/quote]

I am not a PP fan by any means, but saying Canada does not have a freedom problem because China and North Korea exists has to be a logical fallacy of some kind.  Ask those from Quebec who were banned from going into grocery stores larger than 1500 sq/ft.  Ask those Canadians who cannot board a plane or train to go see loved ones.  Heck ask any Canadian who cannot legally leave the country.  Ask a law abiding Canadian who had their bank accounts seized for donating to or attending a cause for more freedom.

As for where the hell has the middle gone?  It's insane. I was left of center my whole life and my values and beliefs have not changed the slightest.  But now I am classified as right wing, even "far right wing" by some family and friends.  I would like to emphasize that my vales and beliefs have not changed.  In my opinion what is left and right have changed and the middle from before 2020 is now right wing.

This cartoon is a good depiction of what has happened.

[frugalcanuck]

I think it's important to understand that, in Canada, there is only one side that complains about divisive, polarizing politics, and it's the side that is divisive and polarizing on the right.
We just had a convoy of people arrive in the capital, wave swastikas around for a bit before hiding them under their Soldiers of Odin and Three-Percenter shirts, then demand that the Governor General overthrow the government (just elected five months prior) in favour of a weird cabal of themselves and a few politicians they like.

But, oh, the left has extremists too?
Like what?  The guy who thinks dental care for poor children should be part of a national health care program?
Oh, goodness, save me from socialism!

The people at this rally, and their supporters, complain about "Trudeau taking away their rights" and that the unvaccinated are like "Jews in 1930s Germany", while they ignore the fact that their own Conservative politicians at the provincial level put in 10x the regulations, shutdowns, lockdowns and restrictions as the federal government did.

There's nothing balanced about these people.  They have no grip on logic and can't even grasp the depth of their own hypocrisy, none of which is helped by their actual ignorance of how democracy works in Canada or even how taxes are collected.  I have never seen this level of "divisiveness" from any extreme leftist group.

Toque.

I completely 100% agree with the last two sections.  I wish more people see it that way.

As for extremest on the left, I see the is stuff like Bill 67 in Ontario ,with a conservative majority mind you, as far left and racists.  The bill wants to treat people differently based on their skin colour.  I do not understand how anyone believes equity in schools is a good thing.  I remember feeling that when I was in grade school in the early 90's when it was a LCD system... Teaching to the lowest common denominator.  There also seems to be a subtle attack on families and it is coming from the left.  I don't really know the how or why about it, but the changing of definitions and word use, like eliminating the word "mother" and using "berthing person" instead has an unsettling feeling to it.  I can go on for a lone time about the current leftist extremism because a portion of my friend group are self proclaimed liberals and I hear the some of the craziest stuff from them... well maybe not the craziest.. but up their... I have some acquaintances that have some skepticism about the shape of our planet.

Also there is ANTIFA.  I don't think it is big in Canada but what happened in Portland was a little scary.

[frugalcanuck]

Thanks Malcat and ERP -- I'll check out some of the sources you mentioned.

And I've been struck by how pessimistic some of my more reasonable friends are about the way that Canadian politics is heading.  While I don't disagree that there are growing indicators of polarization, coming from the US, it also seems like it has a LONG way to go before it begins to remotely approach the dysfunction down there.  Maybe it will ultimately get there, but I do think the lower amount of campaign financing (and duration) coupled with the viability of multiple parties will help to keep the extremes towards the fringes, rather than pulling the major parties to the extremes.  I'm certainly no expert, though.  We shall see.

I think it's important to understand that, in Canada, there is only one side that complains about divisive, polarizing politics, and it's the side that is divisive and polarizing on the right.
We just had a convoy of people arrive in the capital, wave swastikas around for a bit before hiding them under their Soldiers of Odin and Three-Percenter shirts, then demand that the Governor General overthrow the government (just elected five months prior) in favour of a weird cabal of themselves and a few politicians they like.

But, oh, the left has extremists too?
Like what?  The guy who thinks dental care for poor children should be part of a national health care program?
Oh, goodness, save me from socialism!

The people at this rally, and their supporters, complain about "Trudeau taking away their rights" and that the unvaccinated are like "Jews in 1930s Germany", while they ignore the fact that their own Conservative politicians at the provincial level put in 10x the regulations, shutdowns, lockdowns and restrictions as the federal government did.

There's nothing balanced about these people.  They have no grip on logic and can't even grasp the depth of their own hypocrisy, none of which is helped by their actual ignorance of how democracy works in Canada or even how taxes are collected.  I have never seen this level of "divisiveness" from any extreme leftist group.

Toque.

"We just had a convoy of people arrive in the capital, wave swastikas around for a bit before hiding them under their Soldiers of Odin and Three-Percenter shirts, then demand that the Governor General overthrow the government (just elected five months prior) in favour of a weird cabal of themselves and a few politicians they like."

Uncouth

The issue I have with this is that you clearly did not see that with your own eyes and are using this to create more division.  You probably saw this on the same media that says it is impossible to save money and retire early.  This type of media portrays the fire movement as ramen noodles and not bathing.  How often do you bathe?  I'm assuming more than never.  56% of the government workers who were sent on leave without pay, for practicing medical freedom, were apparently "misogynist" women.  I thought the FIRE people and mustacheians were more into facts and reality, than comments like the one above.

[GuitarStv]

As for extremest on the left, I see the is stuff like Bill 67 in Ontario ,with a conservative majority mind you, as far left and racists.  The bill wants to treat people differently based on their skin colour.  I do not understand how anyone believes equity in schools is a good thing.

Can you elaborate a little bit on this?

I don't know much about bill 67, but after a quick first glance (you can get the bill in it's entirety here:  https://www.ola.org/sites/default/files/node-files/bill/document/pdf/2021/2021-12/b067_e.pdf) I wasn't seeing much to get concerned about.  Which section of the bill is causing problems?

[FrugalToque]

As for extremest on the left, I see the is stuff like Bill 67 in Ontario ,with a conservative majority mind you, as far left and racists.  The bill wants to treat people differently based on their skin colour.  I do not understand how anyone believes equity in schools is a good thing.

Can you elaborate a little bit on this?

I don't know much about bill 67, but after a quick first glance (you can get the bill in it's entirety here:  https://www.ola.org/sites/default/files/node-files/bill/document/pdf/2021/2021-12/b067_e.pdf) I wasn't seeing much to get concerned about.  Which section of the bill is causing problems?

Yeah, it's weird.  The bill does say it's going to promote racial equity, but our poster here seems to think "equity in schools" can't be "a good thing".

I'm baffled.

[FrugalToque]

Uncouth

The issue I have with this is that you clearly did not see that with your own eyes and are using this to create more division.  You probably saw this on the same media that says it is impossible to save money and retire early.  This type of media portrays the fire movement as ramen noodles and not bathing.  How often do you bathe?  I'm assuming more than never.  56% of the government workers who were sent on leave without pay, for practicing medical freedom, were apparently "misogynist" women.  I thought the FIRE people and mustacheians were more into facts and reality, than comments like the one above.

I clearly saw Pat King going on about White Replacement Theory.
I clearly saw him talking about naming my children by throwing change down the stairs and calling them "ching chang chin chong ching".
I clearly saw swastikas at the rally.
I clearly saw Tamara Lich welcoming Pat King on stage with "here's the guy you've all been waiting for."

Yeah, sure.  You got a few Sikh truckers to show, a few other darker skinned people and indigenous people you suckered in, but when you literally build a stage and hand the microphone to the white supremacist?   We know who you are, and we're not fooled by bouncy castles and token minorities.

Toque.

[RetiredAt63]

And when the only EMTs posted were white and large, because small and/or non-white were harassed?  Not from news, from an EMT posted to Freedom Convoy duty.  Tall, white and blond, so not harassed.

[frugalcanuck]

As for extremest on the left, I see the is stuff like Bill 67 in Ontario ,with a conservative majority mind you, as far left and racists.  The bill wants to treat people differently based on their skin colour.  I do not understand how anyone believes equity in schools is a good thing.

Can you elaborate a little bit on this?

I don't know much about bill 67, but after a quick first glance (you can get the bill in it's entirety here:  https://www.ola.org/sites/default/files/node-files/bill/document/pdf/2021/2021-12/b067_e.pdf) I wasn't seeing much to get concerned about.  Which section of the bill is causing problems?

Yeah, it's weird.  The bill does say it's going to promote racial equity, but our poster here seems to think "equity in schools" can't be "a good thing".

I'm baffled.

Equity in schools...  Do you know the difference in equity and equality?  Equality was popular when I was in grade school.  It had to do with treating everyone the same and giving everyone the same opportunity.  Equity, though it sounds very similar, is the opposite.  Its goal is to have everyone end with the same outcome.  Just go look in a dictionary if you don't believe me.

Equality = equal opportunity
Equity = equal outcome

Now do not apply that to a person's ability, like many people like to wish to happen.  Bill 67 will only apply it to skin colour.  No matter how gifted or slow the child is, what matters the most to Bill 67 is the melanin content of their skin. 

Equality of people based on skin colour is non-racist.
Equity of people based on skin colour is anti-racist.  Or in another term racist.

Equity, much like communism, might seem good on paper.  The problem is the implementation of it.

[FrugalToque]

As for extremest on the left, I see the is stuff like Bill 67 in Ontario ,with a conservative majority mind you, as far left and racists.  The bill wants to treat people differently based on their skin colour.  I do not understand how anyone believes equity in schools is a good thing.

Can you elaborate a little bit on this?

I don't know much about bill 67, but after a quick first glance (you can get the bill in it's entirety here:  https://www.ola.org/sites/default/files/node-files/bill/document/pdf/2021/2021-12/b067_e.pdf) I wasn't seeing much to get concerned about.  Which section of the bill is causing problems?

Yeah, it's weird.  The bill does say it's going to promote racial equity, but our poster here seems to think "equity in schools" can't be "a good thing".

I'm baffled.

Equity in schools...  Do you know the difference in equity and equality?  Equality was popular when I was in grade school.  It had to do with treating everyone the same and giving everyone the same opportunity.  Equity, though it sounds very similar, is the opposite.  Its goal is to have everyone end with the same outcome.  Just go look in a dictionary if you don't believe me.

Equality = equal opportunity
Equity = equal outcome

Now do not apply that to a person's ability, like many people like to wish to happen.  Bill 67 will only apply it to skin colour.  No matter how gifted or slow the child is, what matters the most to Bill 67 is the melanin content of their skin. 

Equality of people based on skin colour is non-racist.
Equity of people based on skin colour is anti-racist.  Or in another term racist.

Equity, much like communism, might seem good on paper.  The problem is the implementation of it.

You are getting every single thing wrong.

I looked up the definition of "equity", which you clearly did not

1.
the quality of being fair and impartial.
"equity of treatment"

Nothing there about equality of outcomes.  Maybe you should quote from Bill C-67 and tell us exactly where the racism is.

Also, anti-racism refers to the fact that teachers, for instance, are required to take action when they see racism.  It's not enough for the teachers to simply "not be racist", but to control the classroom in such a way that students aren't allowed to say bigoted things to each other.

Nothing in there about "reverse racism" or whatever the right wing boogeyman is.

If you're going to make statements like these, you're going to have to back them up.  This isn't your Zillow chat group with its echo chamber.

Toque.

[GuitarStv]

As for extremest on the left, I see the is stuff like Bill 67 in Ontario ,with a conservative majority mind you, as far left and racists.  The bill wants to treat people differently based on their skin colour.  I do not understand how anyone believes equity in schools is a good thing.

Can you elaborate a little bit on this?

I don't know much about bill 67, but after a quick first glance (you can get the bill in it's entirety here:  https://www.ola.org/sites/default/files/node-files/bill/document/pdf/2021/2021-12/b067_e.pdf) I wasn't seeing much to get concerned about.  Which section of the bill is causing problems?

Yeah, it's weird.  The bill does say it's going to promote racial equity, but our poster here seems to think "equity in schools" can't be "a good thing".

I'm baffled.

Equity in schools...  Do you know the difference in equity and equality?  Equality was popular when I was in grade school.  It had to do with treating everyone the same and giving everyone the same opportunity.  Equity, though it sounds very similar, is the opposite.  Its goal is to have everyone end with the same outcome.  Just go look in a dictionary if you don't believe me.

Equality = equal opportunity
Equity = equal outcome

Now do not apply that to a person's ability, like many people like to wish to happen.  Bill 67 will only apply it to skin colour.  No matter how gifted or slow the child is, what matters the most to Bill 67 is the melanin content of their skin. 

Equality of people based on skin colour is non-racist.
Equity of people based on skin colour is anti-racist.  Or in another term racist.

Equity, much like communism, might seem good on paper.  The problem is the implementation of it.

Where is your definition of equity coming from?  As mentioned, that's not the dictionary definition of the word.  Is your re-interpretation of the meaning of the word the only problem you have with the bill, or is there something else that's objectionable?

[scottish]

I think @frugalcanuck is pretty much correct in his definition.   For example,   https://onlinepublichealth.gwu.edu/resources/equity-vs-equality/  seems fairly credible and they define equality and equity as

Equality means each individual or group of people is given the same resources or opportunities. Equity recognizes that each person has different circumstances and allocates the exact resources and opportunities needed to reach an equal outcome. 

This is what we've been trying to do (for better or worse remains to be seen) with many of the current civil rights movements.

For example, Trudeau likes to talk about equity in the Canadian prison system, because an unusually large fraction of inmates are indigenous people.    He would like to see equity, where the number of indigenous people incarcerated is proportional to the number in the population.       In my mind this objective could be good or bad.    It's good if there's systemic racism that makes police and the judiciary treat indigenous people harshly.    It's bad if there were to turn out be a disproportionate number of indigenous people who are commiting felonies.    I don't know how to tell which one is actually happening though.

[Metalcat]

I think @frugalcanuck is pretty much correct in his definition.   For example,   https://onlinepublichealth.gwu.edu/resources/equity-vs-equality/  seems fairly credible and they define equality and equity as

Equality means each individual or group of people is given the same resources or opportunities. Equity recognizes that each person has different circumstances and allocates the exact resources and opportunities needed to reach an equal outcome. 

This is what we've been trying to do (for better or worse remains to be seen) with many of the current civil rights movements.

For example, Trudeau likes to talk about equity in the Canadian prison system, because an unusually large fraction of inmates are indigenous people.    He would like to see equity, where the number of indigenous people incarcerated is proportional to the number in the population.       In my mind this objective could be good or bad.    It's good if there's systemic racism that makes police and the judiciary treat indigenous people harshly.    It's bad if there were to turn out be a disproportionate number of indigenous people who are commiting felonies.    I don't know how to tell which one is actually happening though.

That's not a bad thing to find out. If one population is legitimately committing more crimes, the answer isn't to put more of them in jail, it's to develop policy that resolves the factors that are driving that population commit more crimes.

[scottish]

I think @frugalcanuck is pretty much correct in his definition.   For example,   https://onlinepublichealth.gwu.edu/resources/equity-vs-equality/  seems fairly credible and they define equality and equity as

Equality means each individual or group of people is given the same resources or opportunities. Equity recognizes that each person has different circumstances and allocates the exact resources and opportunities needed to reach an equal outcome. 

This is what we've been trying to do (for better or worse remains to be seen) with many of the current civil rights movements.

For example, Trudeau likes to talk about equity in the Canadian prison system, because an unusually large fraction of inmates are indigenous people.    He would like to see equity, where the number of indigenous people incarcerated is proportional to the number in the population.       In my mind this objective could be good or bad.    It's good if there's systemic racism that makes police and the judiciary treat indigenous people harshly.    It's bad if there were to turn out be a disproportionate number of indigenous people who are commiting felonies.    I don't know how to tell which one is actually happening though.

That's not a bad thing to find out. If one population is legitimately committing more crimes, the answer isn't to put more of them in jail, it's to develop policy that resolves the factors that are driving that population commit more crimes.

Hmmph, my context was probably influenced by an article I read about this, I didn't mean that the way it sounded.   You're approach is much better than just locking them up.    We spend billions of dollars on indigenous communities every year, what would you change?

[Metalcat]

I think @frugalcanuck is pretty much correct in his definition.   For example,   https://onlinepublichealth.gwu.edu/resources/equity-vs-equality/  seems fairly credible and they define equality and equity as

Equality means each individual or group of people is given the same resources or opportunities. Equity recognizes that each person has different circumstances and allocates the exact resources and opportunities needed to reach an equal outcome. 

This is what we've been trying to do (for better or worse remains to be seen) with many of the current civil rights movements.

For example, Trudeau likes to talk about equity in the Canadian prison system, because an unusually large fraction of inmates are indigenous people.    He would like to see equity, where the number of indigenous people incarcerated is proportional to the number in the population.       In my mind this objective could be good or bad.    It's good if there's systemic racism that makes police and the judiciary treat indigenous people harshly.    It's bad if there were to turn out be a disproportionate number of indigenous people who are commiting felonies.    I don't know how to tell which one is actually happening though.

That's not a bad thing to find out. If one population is legitimately committing more crimes, the answer isn't to put more of them in jail, it's to develop policy that resolves the factors that are driving that population commit more crimes.

Hmmph, my context was probably influenced by an article I read about this, I didn't mean that the way it sounded.   You're approach is much better than just locking them up.    We spend billions of dollars on indigenous communities every year, what would you change?

What would *I* do? No one should care what I would do, the appropriate experts should design policy to address any communities that are falling disproportionately into the corrections system.

I'm not an expert in criminal justice reform and crime reduction policies. I used to live with an expert, but I am not an expert myself. I would ask him, but we haven't been friends for 20 years.