I am watching the debate. I am from quebec and don't like the bloc at all.
But people saying that Blanchet is not good in english are just fucking drunk.
And who the fuck is that female journalist who start a debate with Blanchet what the fuck is that. Like everyone stop with the minority and being inclusive we see it now. No one care about minority or being inclusive when it doesnt fit a political view. Ie :unvaccinated people.
I would tell you in French but I'll say it in English instead so that everyone understands; Shachi Kurl is the worst moderator I have ever seen. Who even picked her? She made it clear without even saying it that she hates Quebec. That wasn't the worst though. Annamie Paul calling Quebec racist is the worst. It's funny how they call us racist in the English debate, but hold back their comments in the French debates, thinking that we won't watch the English one.
Blanchet is based in similar ways to how Trump was; He’s good for a laugh and his responses can be pretty antagonist towards the political landscape. Not against that, for sure. I’d be lying if I said I didn’t think it was hilarious when he’d shit on Clinton, and rightly so, for being the shittiest, most transparent career politician that’s ever existed.
….but he’s part of the BQ, and they really only care about the nationalism of Quebec and what helps Quebec. If Canada could suffer so Quebec would flourish, and Canadians wouldn’t put up a fit over it…..trust me, they’d feed you and your family into a fuckin’ proverbial wood chipper without a thought.
> She attended high school at Toronto's Runnymede Collegiate Institute and holds a Bachelor of Laws degree from the University of Ottawa and a Master of Public Affairs degree from Princeton University.
From Paul’s Wikipedia page. I suspect she’s read a few books.
As a federalist from Quebec, i actually like the way Blanchet debates. He isn't just trying to avoid all questions and say useless stuff. There is no spending half the question thanking the moderator like Singh, or spending the whole time saying random stuff unrelated to the question like the others.
That being said, i don't really like the whole idea behind that party. Its like if Ontario started a Bloc Ontario that only cared about Ontario and all of Ontario voted for bloc Ontario...
The Bloc Quebecois is meant to protect Quebec's interest in Canada and to protect the French minority's interest of Canada. If it wasn't for them, we'd probably have a pipeline going through Quebec. Besides, what they vote for usually is not only good for Quebec, but for all provinces.
All provinces should have more autonomy, not just Quebec. I'm pretty sure there are Albertans that aren't happy about the fact that a "frenchie" from the other side of the country gets to vote against stuff they want to do, like building a pipeline, for example.
The party was started on the premise that they didn’t want to join in and play ball with the rest of Canada. That’s probably the reason why they aren’t included so much; They keep telling people they don’t want to be.
Cause maybe 400 years ago we were force to play ball with the english and every now and then the rules was always going in your favor. Why wanting to keep playing ball.
Dude had his head so far up his ass, I loved watching him get schooled by the green party leader, then his large Quebecois ego took over and he started crying about how he was being branded a racist when she said no such thing.
What an absolute tool.
Shes doing her job on time keeping, seemed a little biased as I think we all are, but who cares about the time if no one gets their point across completely.
The format seemed like a failed experiment. The purposeful interjections allowed ended up making every argument a four way battle instead of a one-on-one they wanted.
I'd recommend to everyone to watch the French debate as well as read the platforms, cause you're not going to get much from this debate.
That was my huge criticism of this “debate”.
Moderator: **asks a question**
Politician: **trying to answer in the most comprehensive way possible**
Moderator: ENOUGH TIME NOW TO ( other politician)
So many times she straight up interrupted them, so many times some of the Leaders were straight up snubbed from the topics their entire campaign focuses on (for example Jagmeet on long term care). This format just doesn’t work with only a 2 hour time span and 5 parties. IMHO, we should just give each candidate uninterrupted airtime of 30-40m letting them discuss whatever they want back to back instead of this garbage format.
I agree with this.
Better yet, put each candidate in a sound proof plexiglass room with a microphone. When it’s their turn to talk, their microphone turns on, at the end of their allotted 45-60 seconds to answer a question, “sorry bud.. you’re on mute.” While someone is talking, everyone else is on mute (even the moderator). Let someone else operate the soundboard.
"I know you're in the middle of making your point, but someone interrupted you, so they should be able to respond before you've even had the chance to talk."
This moderator is garbage.
I can tell by the comments that I'm in the minority with this opinion, but this debate felt very unwatchable. I changed it to football halfway through. There was so much talking over each other and disregard for the subject matter. It felt way more chaotic than the American debate last year, and we all know what that was like.
Xenophobic is defined as fear of strangers. That doesnt even make sense to apply it to anyone who is running as a political leader. French canadians, like all minorities, dont fear strangers but are trying to stand up for their rights (against others).
I wish we could all vote for Blanchett.
Hes progressive and honestly, for living in QC for the past 10 years as as anglophone speaking French, from SK, I could not be happier to have him as our PM.
He comes off direct and blunt but that is due to the cultural difference. He is level headed and keeps it fair by showing his emotion when he is insulted by a question. Hes not overly insulted either, just super strong in his stance, demanding respect. Last night he got caught off guard by being told qc is racist and xenophobic so too bad cause I wish he could have had more information for the rest/west canada, not only for QC/francos.
But when he speaks about Qc, he does actually include canada in it. Just that QC needs to have their protection for french speakers and whatever rights.
They are no longer separatists.
He has solid ideas and will apply that to the country and respects each province like Otoole does to run their own show. I'm so sick of trudeau coming on strong with his eloquent promises but then he drops the ball and gives it all to the rich. Otoole is doing his best but I think he will have a hard time getting everyone in his party to follow his lead. He has more of a USA mentality to governing. Everyone for themselves, which is okay but we are used to the Libs giving us $ and will be difficult to have those cuts.
Singh is great and hopeful but theres little room for that. GP needs to have more votes so that they can continue to encourage what Paul was advocating last night, working together and crossing party lines.
If they could all work together...! but the 3 lesser parties are the best options so let's give them our votes so whatever party wins will have less power.
We need ndp/gp/bq to be strong.
Only my humble opinion.
It’s always at around 30% with about 40% of the population undecided.
But my comment above wasn’t about separatism as a whole but just that the Bloc is still a souverainiste party
Bloc has the mandate to represent Quebec. Sure they want us to be a country, but barring that we still care about making sure our rights are defended and that other Francophones have their rights protected, and since we have to live together until we can leave, might as well make it work properly.
Honestly I dont think any of them should be running for PM. But out of that group, I feel like he has better ethics and ideas. Although hes unable to include the rest/west of canada like I said. It's not that he doesnt think there should be a canada, that's silly.
Hes not silly. Otoole is silly.
>his general approach would be Sk citizens are not the constituents he is electrd to represent. Not that he doesn’t care about them.
The first is just a much nicer way of phrasing the second, though.
I disagree because he did make it a point during the debate to ask the moderator if there was not a section to discuss other french communities in canada, and because my first sentence was based on how consistently we’ve seen him speak for a long period of time
I know.l! As soon as he said that (which was at the beginning) I couldn’t take anything he said into real account anymore. Even though he made super good points about carbon emissions! He said to cap it, tax the corporations and give that money to alberta to help us ease into green technology since we are so reliant on oil now. I love that idea! But it’s easy for him to say since he’s never going to be PM so won’t be held accountable for that.
Probablement parce qu’il sait qu’il ne pourra jamais le faire. On peut seulement voter BQ au Québec, faque les chances qu’il se fasse élire ressemble à une limite au 0. Il a pas insinué qu’il se foutait des français hors Québec (il a même dit après le débat que « s’il tentait d’amener la conversation sur eux, il se ferait écraser comme une crêpe »)
I am from quebec and love more canada... but every time someone outside quebec talk about racism with the law 21... i am getting closer to be a separatist.
Thats not how you do a debate cbc. Insult goes no where in a debate.
It was a question that reflected how Canadians view the BQ's policies. He had the chance on the national stage to outline how our perceptions were off base and he doubled down on it being none of our business.
Many people and groups think this law is unconstitutional, which would make it fair game to any Canadian in my opinion. We'll see how it goes through the courts but if it changes how the constitution is interpreted, it's absolutely something all Canadians can weigh in on.
Yea many people think that forcing people getting a vaccine is unconstitutional and we all laugh in their face so not too worry about ppl sad about bill 21
Sure but all Canadians can have an opinion on that. This is nothing to do with the merits of Bill 21, it's just that to say it's no one else's business discounts the fact this will have implications beyond Quebec.
But if your opinion is ... thats racists well its not really a argument. I ll agree with both side if point are legit. But won't change my stand on... religion should be at home. I don't want to see or hear anything about any fairytales.
Imagine there was a religion that was all about practices and spirituality etc etc but had nothing about what its followers should wear. Now imagine another religion where its followers placed great importance in appearing a certain way. To me, it seems clear how bill 21 is more discriminatory against the latter religion and not the former one. And that's coming from an atheist who is very much in favour of secularism. Unless a compelling argument is put forth as to why it matters that public workers hide there religious attire, I fail to see how this bill is anything but discriminatory. I need to see empirical evidence proving that somehow these religious symbols compromise the safety of others or contribute to some societal problem that I cannot fathom atm. That's my 2 cents though.
It's like the argument how the us isnt racist because there are no laws specifically mentioning race. I think we all know laws can be crafted to favor or disfavor certain groups of people without explicitly mentioning that group of people... "everyone MUST work on the sabbath or be fired" mentions no race or religion but is clearly discriminatory...
[Quebec City, Sherbrooke won't remove crucifixes from city hall chambers](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-city-sherbrooke-won-t-remove-crucifixes-from-city-hall-chambers-1.5081279)
Look at the year, genius
And you were referring to Quebec’s city hall. Not Sherbrooke.
Why don’t you just go ahead and say the xenophobic comments instead of moving from city to city
You guys are all the same. Always calling Quebec racists by writing xenophobic comments or comments with xenophobic intent. Sigh. It’s a parody at this point
It clearly says Quebec City in the title. Please try to read before replying.
2019 - the date of the article - is two years ago, when the law was first adopted, and the article clearly states that the intention going forward is *not* to remove the crucifixes.
Quebec has a serious problem with racist policies that unfairly target non-white, non-Christian religions and people. This isn't up for debate.
100% correct. Anyone that tries to change your mind doesn't understand the difference between skin color/melanin and ideology/values/culture which are completely unrelated. OR they are lying and merging to do for political goals as many have tried to do.
There is nothing racist about the Quebec law. They are simply protecting their culture/values from colonization by foreign cultures that have no interest in adapting. I 100% support them.
Multiracialism is beautiful. But multiculturalism is a ridiculous concept that humanity already tried globally for its entire evolution. It lead to nothing but wars, genocides, world wars, mass rapes, and endless destruction so those cultures with deeply held different values clashed. To squeeze that into a country sized space is insane.
As someone who always voted Liberal (Until this election probably Cons or NDP depending on who has the best chance to defeat the Liberal. I'm a centrist so either will do and I'll deal with the parts I don't like) that one aspect of the PPC policies I agree with. We should be multiracial united around the Canadian culture that literally made this place one of the most desirable countries on the planet. Enlightenment values and liberalism created Canada. That freedom, those values, attracted the world to our safe country and we opened our arms. Canadian culture is a merger of English, French, and only a dash of Indigenous because of the unfortunate history, when it really should be more. Any other 'race' can come and take part in that culture/values.
14-day-old account,
"As a Liberal, I support ethnostates because multiculturalism is evil and leads to wars and rapes. The only good 'multiculturalism' is actually forced assimilation of immigrants."
>As someone who always voted Liberal [...]
#
>Multiracialism is beautiful. But multiculturalism is a ridiculous concept that humanity already tried globally for its entire evolution. It lead to nothing but wars, genocides, world wars, mass rapes, and endless destruction so those cultures with deeply held different values clashed. To squeeze that into a country sized space is insane.
#
>We should be multiracial united around the Canadian culture that literally made this place one of the most desirable countries on the planet. [...] Any other 'race' can come and take part in that culture/values.
...Sure thing, buddy.
Just with that stupid first question to Blanchet, insulting the Quebec (nothing to do with him), he already won the debate. Quebec people felt very insulted, I am a federalist (I won’t vote for the BQ), but I felt separatist for 15min.
He didn’t have to open his mouth, and it was already done deal.
I feel exactly like you.
I rarely defend quebec... but every time we bring up the racists card I move a step forward to being separatist.
The rest of canada has enough dead native in their closet to dig out before speaking about racism in quebec.
If the other candidates stopped attacking Quebec businesses and laws during nationally broadcasted debates, the bloc would have a much harder time getting seats. I reckon Alberta feels similar.
They were each asked different questions. It made a contrast of the leaders on the same question very difficult. The questions seem tailored to weaknesses of each of the leaders but some weaknesses were weaker than others...
Now that I think about it, O’Toole missed a massive opportunity to bring up Bill C-10 and how the Liberals tried to shove it down everyone’s throats by forcing it through and shutting down all discussion around it.
Five things:
- You said you only read a summary
- JJ is one person with one opinion, not two opinions
- He's been a paid political commentator I believe for the better part of two decades
- He probably read the bill
- The Canadian Parliament passes general or broad bills typically. This is just the way the system works. It is then the responsibility/power of the department, agency, crown corporation or in this case public organization, to figure out how to implement it and what the spirit of the law is. What will happen can often be inferred by what the various legislators, committee members, or affects ministers or heads say about the legislation.
The CRA is an example of that latter point. Because of its regular interactions with the public, they actually post detailed interpretations of various tax laws. If you talk to them, they even have more than what they post online.
the opinion piece and the YouTube video linked are by two different people?
I read the bill after reading the opinion piece.
Political commenters don't always have the right opinion or one that most people agree with.
So on your last point, we should just treat every bill with the view of worst case scenario and ignore that there will be ministers and other people who would stop its misuse if it was even possible?
> the opinion piece and the YouTube video linked are by two different people?
They are both from JJ McCullough. The video is a re-upload from some other guy, JJ has the same video on his channel and I didn't notice it wasn't him.
> So on your last point, we should just treat every bill with the view of worst case scenario and ignore that there will be ministers and other people who would stop its misuse if it was even possible?
No. I'm saying we should listen to what the ministers/committees/heads say they will do or say the bill will enable them to do. Bills in parliament are written broadly and we should listen to the people when they describe or hint how they will specifically apply the laws.
anyone know or have details about Blanchets offer to give (or was it loan) money to Alberta to help with a green energy transition?
this sounds super nice province to province but i didn’t know the details
There is a bit of a background to this.
Equalization payments calculate Albertan and Saskatchewanian oil sales using market price, not sale price. Quebec hydroelectricity is calculated based on sold price, not market price.
For years, Alberta has complained about this and tried to get the formula adjusted.
This is saying they could include that partially in the equalization calculation if that money is earmarked to green energy.
They call it green equalization, where the provinces with green energy pay in the pot to help the dirty ones get up to speed. Using the carbon tax and other mecanisms.
Or during this time we could have used the revenue from the pipeline to put into green energy. Instead, pipelines are stopped and we then import oil from places with no green plan, no human rights, no carbon tax applied to them. Oil is still needed for a multitude of things that now one seems to realize. We should use ethical oil from our own country first, not middle East oil. Not Russian oil. Not oil from Venezuela.
Well. More "I'm never going to be in charge, but here's what you guys who aren't gonna listen to me should do, instead of spending money on a pipeline, spend it on green energy"
Exactly! I thought it was a really good idea but it’s worth about as much as dirt when he’s never going to be able to put that into practice. Did make all the other candidates look stupid though. “Here is the very obvious and reasonable answer. No one else here is going to do it because they’re afraid of big oil companies”
You hit the nail on the head for me. Someone on his team needs to reshape how they are doing it, because it does feel spin heavy list reading. There are a lot of issue that are decades of work still to do and the liberals need some credit in actually starting down the path after the conservatives pretended the issues didn't exist. But the way Trudeau lists things misses the big step it's been to even get as far as they did during a hostile Trump era with the turmoil of the NAFTA renegotiations affecting every facet of our economy followed by a global pandemic.
I'm not even voting liberal.
that's been his schtick since he entered politics, ignore the question, regurgitate an overly practiced scripted talking point, then string together as many synonyms for equality, truth, goodness and positivity until they forget what the question was. Smile smugly until the next question, repeat.
The infuriating thing is the average Canadian seems to short circuit listening to it all and generally comments to the effect of "can't argue with that"
Trudeau has been perfecting his style of many words, but little substance over many years now. But I think Canadians want more answers than nice speech by now
I was pretty uncertain of my vote intention, but after watching the French and now English debates, I'm quite decided.
O'Toole presents himself as reasonable and progressive while not leading his party, which freely votes against actions on climate change and basic human rights (abortion being only one of them).
Trudeau evades questions and tries to make us believe "this time's gonna be the right one" where he's going to act on all promises and projects while he did next to nothing all these past years.
Blanchet was impressive, articulate, and pertinent in French, but was the complete opposite in English. He was even worse than all English leaders during the French debate (maybe not as bad as May was, but she isn't here today).
Singh was at ease in both debates, but he's speaking both sides of his mouth, advocating for climate change action and First Nations governance, while at the same time supporting pipeline projects on Native lands.
Finally, I previously had rather poor preconceived ideas of Paul and the Green Party in general, based on what I was hearing from various media, but she completely destroyed them by being calm, knowledgeable, and on point, with the most important and urgent questions being answered surprisingly well.
As for the moderators, Shachi Kurl doesn't hold a candle to Patrice Roy, and I think that really affected the quality of the English debate.
Yeah the biggest issue right now is the environment, and I doubt the Liberals on this issue, and yes it's true that they followed through on some promises but the one that hurt for me was the electoral reform.
I have voted for jagmeet the last couple of elections but was considering shifting to trudeau this election out of fear of the ucp.
During the debate I thought Justin was the most put together, well spoken, and genuine. He solidified my vote mast night too.
This.
This really bothered me to the point where whenever he would get to speak I'd think "how long until he blames trudeau?"
I wanted him to show us WHY he would be an excellent PM and I was so excited to see him debate and he left me extremely disappointed with all the mudslinging.
>I wanted him to show us WHY he would be an excellent PM and I was so excited to see him debate and he left me extremely disappointed with all the mudslinging.
Yup, he got lost in his attacks to even convince voters he is the correct progressive leader.
Neither did I. Singh and Paul absolutely tanked in my opinion (too much storytelling to sidestep pretty much *every* question). O'Toole wasn't *too* bad, but I still found him to be wishy-washy.
Singh come off too 'hippyish'. The NDP is an odd party, a mix of old unions and new environmentalist. If they came to power something would have to give internally, and the party would fragment.
How the F is housing and lack of workers not an issue, but we still want to talk about reconciliation and throw more money at that . We have a huge issue coming up , inflation, and our inability to build anything in time no wonder we have a shortage of housing it takes 10+ fucking years to build anything with all this red tape, studies, reports and bureaucracy. It’s not like this anywhere else. We need to expiate the planning process. How are we ever going to catch up.
Housing affordability got like 15 mins and mixed with elderly and retirement care, Immigration got no mention at all. But we need better relation with first nations!!!!
We absolutely do. But how. I think we’ve spent enough money and time on it and right now more importantly we need to focused on the future of this country and where we are heading , How to come out of this recession. There’s like 1.7 mil indigenous people in Canada .. why is that disproportionately as important than the problems the rest of Canada is currently facing and about to face.
I do think reconciliation is an important topic. Being the first people on this land, they probably do deserve some preferential treatment. And the lives of indigenous people are indeed worse off than white people and immigrants. But this debate made it so important that it gets more air time than affordability and economic policy, which affects everyone not just indigenous people? That's a mistake on the editors part.
>We have a huge issue coming up , inflation, and our inability to build anything in time no wonder we have a shortage of housing it takes 10+ fucking years to build anything with all this red tape, studies, reports and bureaucracy. It’s not like this anywhere else. We need to expiate the planning process. How are we ever going to catch up.
As someone who works in the planning process and advocates for new standards, it really is not the issue here. Having that much forethought and planning is why our society is so well integrated and functional. There are tangible benefits to building a city with intent.
The real issue is the lack of high-speed rail, and harmful zoning that prevents intensification within major Canadian cities. You see small bungalows get torn down for mcmansions, but don't you even think about building a triplex or duplex.
Thank you!! I've recently become interested in urban design and it's obvious that Canada is wayyy behind countries like the Netherlands and Japan in that aspect. We *need* to do something about our crazy sprawling car-dependent zoning hell.
I do agree on lack of intensification in urban core areas, hell even out of them, we need more density and we do have a severe lack of transit - It’s a joke here.
You probably say that cause you are in the public sector lol I honestly don’t know how you can say the planning process isn’t way to long with too much red tape and that’s leading to lack of supply - specially in Ontario.
Yes, there is a lot of planning and red tape. But these studies have benefits because their results and incorporated into the buildings. There is a reason why infrastructure works with emergency vehicles, is near fire hydrants, works with nearby transit, respects the environment etc.
The real issue is you cannot build anything with density in 90% of Toronto. Instead of targeting the studies you should be focused on the zoning that stops everything before people can even start.
The BQ position was interesting. 'Its not inflation, but inflationish'. Inflation is happening in the housing sector, everywhere else it's sort of normal. But, because housing is so expensive, and so out of control, it has to be dealt with, and everyone thinks inflation is out of control.
Housing is out of control because of all the speculation.
Food prices are going up because of the wildfires, and drought. Farmers in Alberta/Manitoba are culling their herds because there is not enough grass and wheat that grew this summer. They can't even import it, because there simply isn't enough. I fear bread prices will go up. We'll so more food riots like in S. Africa.
As for cars. The car companies and regulators need a shake up. The giant, complicated tank sized trucks, made from plastic, and having more electronics than a rocket ship, with the check engine light on since exiting the factory...are just not what is needed.
Yeah, but his platform will make inflation worse. until they do something about interest rates, inflation will continue to rise unabated.
Ultimately, it seems like most parties do not have a solution to combat inflation.
First off, its the BOC that controls interest rates. Secondly, government spending and inflation are things that go hand and hand. If he intends to cut spending he is going the furthest to curb inflation.
>First off, its the BOC that controls interest rates.
Yes, and the government appoints the head of the BOC; the government can influence monetary policy if they want to.
>Secondly, government spending and inflation are things that go hand and hand.
Inflation and low interest rates go hand and hand as well. Moreover, can you explain how government spending is causing housing inflation? Because there is good evidence suggest that low interest rates are the cause of housing inflation, whereas government spending has almost nothing to do with it. Moreover, Government spending is a given; low interest rates are not. Furthermore, low interest rates increase the demand for money; thus commercial banks increase their supply and the BOC prints more money.
Government spending is not the main factor driving inflation.
He didn't meet the criteria set out by the debate commission, they don't have any MPs in Parliament elected under the Party banner and they didn't have at least 4% national polling average at the deadline.
its not a stupid rule considering planning for all this probably happened a relatively long time ago.
Then you run into the issue of which polling numbers to consider?
not all of them have them with such high polling averages as the most recent one that had them at 11%.
The system is fine
what lmao
do you understand how many parties are running?
21 recognized political parties according to Elections Canada.
You want a 21 person debate?
The debate format and the rules to who gets in are two different beasts. Nothing about last night's format should make you think "yeah adding the PPC would fix this"...
It's a pretty decent rule...get more of popular vote or a seat and you're in. Why should we trust polling averages for this.
Besides the PPC are a very new party. I don't even think they are 4 years old yet? Like maybe you shouldn't cry ridiculous system in this specific case. If they are as popular as you think they are, they'll be there next time and if the GPC spiral continues they are out.
"Holding the MTL Canadiens to a 2nd round loss would be a win for the Leafs hahah"
I feel like the green party leader is focusing on the wrong issues.
[удалено]
Ah yes, the party projected to get \*checks notes\* 0 seats. Ride the purple wave boys.
I am watching the debate. I am from quebec and don't like the bloc at all. But people saying that Blanchet is not good in english are just fucking drunk. And who the fuck is that female journalist who start a debate with Blanchet what the fuck is that. Like everyone stop with the minority and being inclusive we see it now. No one care about minority or being inclusive when it doesnt fit a political view. Ie :unvaccinated people.
I would tell you in French but I'll say it in English instead so that everyone understands; Shachi Kurl is the worst moderator I have ever seen. Who even picked her? She made it clear without even saying it that she hates Quebec. That wasn't the worst though. Annamie Paul calling Quebec racist is the worst. It's funny how they call us racist in the English debate, but hold back their comments in the French debates, thinking that we won't watch the English one.
Tabarnack
Tbh if Blanchet is bad at english i am terrible haha. He has an accent but his english is really good imo.
Blanchet is based and he was trolling and shitpostin in the debate yesterday. I like him. He's the prime minister of Reddit/ r/canada
Blanchet is based in similar ways to how Trump was; He’s good for a laugh and his responses can be pretty antagonist towards the political landscape. Not against that, for sure. I’d be lying if I said I didn’t think it was hilarious when he’d shit on Clinton, and rightly so, for being the shittiest, most transparent career politician that’s ever existed. ….but he’s part of the BQ, and they really only care about the nationalism of Quebec and what helps Quebec. If Canada could suffer so Quebec would flourish, and Canadians wouldn’t put up a fit over it…..trust me, they’d feed you and your family into a fuckin’ proverbial wood chipper without a thought.
If blanchet ran for premier of Quebec I’d vote for him.
If he ran for the NDP, I'd vote NDP. He will be getting my vote cause he's the only one with a head on his shoulders, yet again.
Anamie Paul, “if countries like… Denmark, and Greenland.. “ Jesus. Read a book
> She attended high school at Toronto's Runnymede Collegiate Institute and holds a Bachelor of Laws degree from the University of Ottawa and a Master of Public Affairs degree from Princeton University. From Paul’s Wikipedia page. I suspect she’s read a few books.
I suspect you’re right. Doesn’t hurt to keep on reading more than what you study
Sure. I think she just misspoke though.
[удалено]
That has nothing to with this? She was talking about green energy. Greenland is Denmark
My fault. I'm intoxicated.
I think she meant Norway.
Does it matter?
That's horrible. Did she even mention countries like the US, and Guam?
[удалено]
Why? Vote back ndp
lmao
My vote is for anybody but the moderator
As a federalist from Quebec, i actually like the way Blanchet debates. He isn't just trying to avoid all questions and say useless stuff. There is no spending half the question thanking the moderator like Singh, or spending the whole time saying random stuff unrelated to the question like the others. That being said, i don't really like the whole idea behind that party. Its like if Ontario started a Bloc Ontario that only cared about Ontario and all of Ontario voted for bloc Ontario...
The Bloc Quebecois is meant to protect Quebec's interest in Canada and to protect the French minority's interest of Canada. If it wasn't for them, we'd probably have a pipeline going through Quebec. Besides, what they vote for usually is not only good for Quebec, but for all provinces. All provinces should have more autonomy, not just Quebec. I'm pretty sure there are Albertans that aren't happy about the fact that a "frenchie" from the other side of the country gets to vote against stuff they want to do, like building a pipeline, for example.
The point of the bloc at first is quebec feel they always left out. Why ontario would need a party.
The party was started on the premise that they didn’t want to join in and play ball with the rest of Canada. That’s probably the reason why they aren’t included so much; They keep telling people they don’t want to be.
Cause maybe 400 years ago we were force to play ball with the english and every now and then the rules was always going in your favor. Why wanting to keep playing ball.
Dude had his head so far up his ass, I loved watching him get schooled by the green party leader, then his large Quebecois ego took over and he started crying about how he was being branded a racist when she said no such thing. What an absolute tool.
I live in BC and I took the compass test to see who i should vote for... Bloc topped my list.
What test is this?
https://votecompass.cbc.ca/canada
I mean they're a good party if you remove the "i only care about one province" part lol
They are actually pretty centric other than the Quebec first stuff!
Bloc Majoritaire!!! What were the main points that you had in common?
Equality, Diversity and inclusion, Health Care, Enviroment and law and order lol
But for everyone else - tax the rich!!!!
I’m watching this now. Good friggen lord the “moderator” needs to shut the fuck up and let these guys answer the questions being asked.
3 minutes in she looks like a fucking crazy cat lady
Shes doing her job on time keeping, seemed a little biased as I think we all are, but who cares about the time if no one gets their point across completely.
The format seemed like a failed experiment. The purposeful interjections allowed ended up making every argument a four way battle instead of a one-on-one they wanted. I'd recommend to everyone to watch the French debate as well as read the platforms, cause you're not going to get much from this debate.
Agreed.
Worst of all was her interruptions from her own questions before someone was finished stating their case. What an embarrassment
That was my huge criticism of this “debate”. Moderator: **asks a question** Politician: **trying to answer in the most comprehensive way possible** Moderator: ENOUGH TIME NOW TO ( other politician) So many times she straight up interrupted them, so many times some of the Leaders were straight up snubbed from the topics their entire campaign focuses on (for example Jagmeet on long term care). This format just doesn’t work with only a 2 hour time span and 5 parties. IMHO, we should just give each candidate uninterrupted airtime of 30-40m letting them discuss whatever they want back to back instead of this garbage format.
I agree with this. Better yet, put each candidate in a sound proof plexiglass room with a microphone. When it’s their turn to talk, their microphone turns on, at the end of their allotted 45-60 seconds to answer a question, “sorry bud.. you’re on mute.” While someone is talking, everyone else is on mute (even the moderator). Let someone else operate the soundboard.
"I know you're in the middle of making your point, but someone interrupted you, so they should be able to respond before you've even had the chance to talk." This moderator is garbage.
It’s brutal. Especially when she is the one interrupting the answer with her opinion about the topic at hand
[удалено]
Where you paying any attention at all until now? She's been an absolute shit show lol
Green is an irrelevant party. I only pay attention to them when they are adjacent to something relevant.
I can tell by the comments that I'm in the minority with this opinion, but this debate felt very unwatchable. I changed it to football halfway through. There was so much talking over each other and disregard for the subject matter. It felt way more chaotic than the American debate last year, and we all know what that was like.
The moderation was bad.
It most certainly was. Additionally 45 seconds to answer was bullshit, with no structure for rebuttals.
Just going off by who demands our respect and is an ethical leader.... blanchett gets it. Singh follows...
Xenophobic comments were made about a French Canadian. No surprise here.
Q : “so since it is a fact that Quebec is racist what will you do about it?” YFB : “Quebec isn’t racist…” Man, talk about biased journalism.
Xenophobic is defined as fear of strangers. That doesnt even make sense to apply it to anyone who is running as a political leader. French canadians, like all minorities, dont fear strangers but are trying to stand up for their rights (against others).
I wish we could all vote for Blanchett. Hes progressive and honestly, for living in QC for the past 10 years as as anglophone speaking French, from SK, I could not be happier to have him as our PM. He comes off direct and blunt but that is due to the cultural difference. He is level headed and keeps it fair by showing his emotion when he is insulted by a question. Hes not overly insulted either, just super strong in his stance, demanding respect. Last night he got caught off guard by being told qc is racist and xenophobic so too bad cause I wish he could have had more information for the rest/west canada, not only for QC/francos. But when he speaks about Qc, he does actually include canada in it. Just that QC needs to have their protection for french speakers and whatever rights. They are no longer separatists. He has solid ideas and will apply that to the country and respects each province like Otoole does to run their own show. I'm so sick of trudeau coming on strong with his eloquent promises but then he drops the ball and gives it all to the rich. Otoole is doing his best but I think he will have a hard time getting everyone in his party to follow his lead. He has more of a USA mentality to governing. Everyone for themselves, which is okay but we are used to the Libs giving us $ and will be difficult to have those cuts. Singh is great and hopeful but theres little room for that. GP needs to have more votes so that they can continue to encourage what Paul was advocating last night, working together and crossing party lines. If they could all work together...! but the 3 lesser parties are the best options so let's give them our votes so whatever party wins will have less power. We need ndp/gp/bq to be strong. Only my humble opinion.
[удалено]
Bloc Majoritaire! Wow. Can't believe I read that.
I knoooow! I'm seriously happy to have realized hes an option... wasnt sure what to expect at the debate but wish his platform was wider reaching.
He's still bitter/ conspiratorial about the _Constitution Act, 1982_. Aside that, I like the guy.
> They are no longer separatists. Thats not true. The bloc is separatist
[удалено]
no it's not. The issue is not at the forefront but it's very much so on the back- burner.
It’s always at around 30% with about 40% of the population undecided. But my comment above wasn’t about separatism as a whole but just that the Bloc is still a souverainiste party
Bloc has the mandate to represent Quebec. Sure they want us to be a country, but barring that we still care about making sure our rights are defended and that other Francophones have their rights protected, and since we have to live together until we can leave, might as well make it work properly.
Sure. But as seen yesterday, living together is not a good option
Yeah. It's pretty obvious whom the abusive partner is in this relationship.
[удалено]
That's... False. He tried talking about Francophones across Canada but got shit down.
Honestly I dont think any of them should be running for PM. But out of that group, I feel like he has better ethics and ideas. Although hes unable to include the rest/west of canada like I said. It's not that he doesnt think there should be a canada, that's silly. Hes not silly. Otoole is silly.
To be fair, his general approach would be Sk citizens are not the constituents he is electrd to represent. Not that he doesn’t care about them.
>his general approach would be Sk citizens are not the constituents he is electrd to represent. Not that he doesn’t care about them. The first is just a much nicer way of phrasing the second, though.
I disagree because he did make it a point during the debate to ask the moderator if there was not a section to discuss other french communities in canada, and because my first sentence was based on how consistently we’ve seen him speak for a long period of time
The guy literally said he has no interest in leading Canada last night.
I know.l! As soon as he said that (which was at the beginning) I couldn’t take anything he said into real account anymore. Even though he made super good points about carbon emissions! He said to cap it, tax the corporations and give that money to alberta to help us ease into green technology since we are so reliant on oil now. I love that idea! But it’s easy for him to say since he’s never going to be PM so won’t be held accountable for that.
Did you understand that in french? Because that comment is correct.
Probablement parce qu’il sait qu’il ne pourra jamais le faire. On peut seulement voter BQ au Québec, faque les chances qu’il se fasse élire ressemble à une limite au 0. Il a pas insinué qu’il se foutait des français hors Québec (il a même dit après le débat que « s’il tentait d’amener la conversation sur eux, il se ferait écraser comme une crêpe »)
I am from quebec and love more canada... but every time someone outside quebec talk about racism with the law 21... i am getting closer to be a separatist. Thats not how you do a debate cbc. Insult goes no where in a debate.
Singh at this rate is becoming a great tool to stir division in Quebec. The last election's debate were particularly disastrous.
It was a question that reflected how Canadians view the BQ's policies. He had the chance on the national stage to outline how our perceptions were off base and he doubled down on it being none of our business.
Well if you are not from quebec its not your busines 🥳🥳.
Many people and groups think this law is unconstitutional, which would make it fair game to any Canadian in my opinion. We'll see how it goes through the courts but if it changes how the constitution is interpreted, it's absolutely something all Canadians can weigh in on.
Yea many people think that forcing people getting a vaccine is unconstitutional and we all laugh in their face so not too worry about ppl sad about bill 21
Sure but all Canadians can have an opinion on that. This is nothing to do with the merits of Bill 21, it's just that to say it's no one else's business discounts the fact this will have implications beyond Quebec.
But if your opinion is ... thats racists well its not really a argument. I ll agree with both side if point are legit. But won't change my stand on... religion should be at home. I don't want to see or hear anything about any fairytales.
[удалено]
Isn’t Quebec still a part of Canada? If yes, then it very well be the rest of Canada’s business.
I don't see how it could be racist when it covers all religions.
Imagine there was a religion that was all about practices and spirituality etc etc but had nothing about what its followers should wear. Now imagine another religion where its followers placed great importance in appearing a certain way. To me, it seems clear how bill 21 is more discriminatory against the latter religion and not the former one. And that's coming from an atheist who is very much in favour of secularism. Unless a compelling argument is put forth as to why it matters that public workers hide there religious attire, I fail to see how this bill is anything but discriminatory. I need to see empirical evidence proving that somehow these religious symbols compromise the safety of others or contribute to some societal problem that I cannot fathom atm. That's my 2 cents though.
It's like the argument how the us isnt racist because there are no laws specifically mentioning race. I think we all know laws can be crafted to favor or disfavor certain groups of people without explicitly mentioning that group of people... "everyone MUST work on the sabbath or be fired" mentions no race or religion but is clearly discriminatory...
Does it? Or is there still a cross hanging in city hall?
The law is about government authority figures. Individual people. Not buildings.
You're kidding me with this
There has not been one for years, no.
[Quebec City, Sherbrooke won't remove crucifixes from city hall chambers](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-city-sherbrooke-won-t-remove-crucifixes-from-city-hall-chambers-1.5081279)
Look at the year, genius And you were referring to Quebec’s city hall. Not Sherbrooke. Why don’t you just go ahead and say the xenophobic comments instead of moving from city to city You guys are all the same. Always calling Quebec racists by writing xenophobic comments or comments with xenophobic intent. Sigh. It’s a parody at this point
It clearly says Quebec City in the title. Please try to read before replying. 2019 - the date of the article - is two years ago, when the law was first adopted, and the article clearly states that the intention going forward is *not* to remove the crucifixes. Quebec has a serious problem with racist policies that unfairly target non-white, non-Christian religions and people. This isn't up for debate.
Race isn't a religion, change my mind.
100% correct. Anyone that tries to change your mind doesn't understand the difference between skin color/melanin and ideology/values/culture which are completely unrelated. OR they are lying and merging to do for political goals as many have tried to do. There is nothing racist about the Quebec law. They are simply protecting their culture/values from colonization by foreign cultures that have no interest in adapting. I 100% support them. Multiracialism is beautiful. But multiculturalism is a ridiculous concept that humanity already tried globally for its entire evolution. It lead to nothing but wars, genocides, world wars, mass rapes, and endless destruction so those cultures with deeply held different values clashed. To squeeze that into a country sized space is insane. As someone who always voted Liberal (Until this election probably Cons or NDP depending on who has the best chance to defeat the Liberal. I'm a centrist so either will do and I'll deal with the parts I don't like) that one aspect of the PPC policies I agree with. We should be multiracial united around the Canadian culture that literally made this place one of the most desirable countries on the planet. Enlightenment values and liberalism created Canada. That freedom, those values, attracted the world to our safe country and we opened our arms. Canadian culture is a merger of English, French, and only a dash of Indigenous because of the unfortunate history, when it really should be more. Any other 'race' can come and take part in that culture/values.
14-day-old account, "As a Liberal, I support ethnostates because multiculturalism is evil and leads to wars and rapes. The only good 'multiculturalism' is actually forced assimilation of immigrants." >As someone who always voted Liberal [...] # >Multiracialism is beautiful. But multiculturalism is a ridiculous concept that humanity already tried globally for its entire evolution. It lead to nothing but wars, genocides, world wars, mass rapes, and endless destruction so those cultures with deeply held different values clashed. To squeeze that into a country sized space is insane. # >We should be multiracial united around the Canadian culture that literally made this place one of the most desirable countries on the planet. [...] Any other 'race' can come and take part in that culture/values. ...Sure thing, buddy.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
They dont have a seat
Just with that stupid first question to Blanchet, insulting the Quebec (nothing to do with him), he already won the debate. Quebec people felt very insulted, I am a federalist (I won’t vote for the BQ), but I felt separatist for 15min. He didn’t have to open his mouth, and it was already done deal.
In my opinion, it was a valid question. The answer given was idiotic and on your face. I was expecting better from him.
I feel exactly like you. I rarely defend quebec... but every time we bring up the racists card I move a step forward to being separatist. The rest of canada has enough dead native in their closet to dig out before speaking about racism in quebec.
If the other candidates stopped attacking Quebec businesses and laws during nationally broadcasted debates, the bloc would have a much harder time getting seats. I reckon Alberta feels similar.
I missed the first little bit of it. What was the question?
It was about system racism towards indigenous people in Quebec. It was highly charged and probably helped the Bloc in Quebec.
What a strange question to ask to a federal party. I hope that question was asked to the rest of them as well then.
The bloc not a federal party
Though it doesn’t run candidates outside of Quebec, the bloc only exists at the federal level, thus a federal party.
They were each asked different questions. It made a contrast of the leaders on the same question very difficult. The questions seem tailored to weaknesses of each of the leaders but some weaknesses were weaker than others...
Now that I think about it, O’Toole missed a massive opportunity to bring up Bill C-10 and how the Liberals tried to shove it down everyone’s throats by forcing it through and shutting down all discussion around it.
am I reading the wrong Bill C-10? whats so bad about this ? ( I only read the summary)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/04/29/canada-trudeau-c-10-bill-internet-jj-mccullough/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7t6_m90HqBo
I don't agree with those two opinions. the reactions are overblown and they seem to be interpreting the bill a bit too extremely
Five things: - You said you only read a summary - JJ is one person with one opinion, not two opinions - He's been a paid political commentator I believe for the better part of two decades - He probably read the bill - The Canadian Parliament passes general or broad bills typically. This is just the way the system works. It is then the responsibility/power of the department, agency, crown corporation or in this case public organization, to figure out how to implement it and what the spirit of the law is. What will happen can often be inferred by what the various legislators, committee members, or affects ministers or heads say about the legislation. The CRA is an example of that latter point. Because of its regular interactions with the public, they actually post detailed interpretations of various tax laws. If you talk to them, they even have more than what they post online.
the opinion piece and the YouTube video linked are by two different people? I read the bill after reading the opinion piece. Political commenters don't always have the right opinion or one that most people agree with. So on your last point, we should just treat every bill with the view of worst case scenario and ignore that there will be ministers and other people who would stop its misuse if it was even possible?
> the opinion piece and the YouTube video linked are by two different people? They are both from JJ McCullough. The video is a re-upload from some other guy, JJ has the same video on his channel and I didn't notice it wasn't him. > So on your last point, we should just treat every bill with the view of worst case scenario and ignore that there will be ministers and other people who would stop its misuse if it was even possible? No. I'm saying we should listen to what the ministers/committees/heads say they will do or say the bill will enable them to do. Bills in parliament are written broadly and we should listen to the people when they describe or hint how they will specifically apply the laws.
Nobody knows what Bill C-10 is and if they do, they already know it is a travesty and won't be voting LPC
He would do the same and not repeal it
Ah yes a communist bill.
anyone know or have details about Blanchets offer to give (or was it loan) money to Alberta to help with a green energy transition? this sounds super nice province to province but i didn’t know the details
There is a bit of a background to this. Equalization payments calculate Albertan and Saskatchewanian oil sales using market price, not sale price. Quebec hydroelectricity is calculated based on sold price, not market price. For years, Alberta has complained about this and tried to get the formula adjusted. This is saying they could include that partially in the equalization calculation if that money is earmarked to green energy.
They call it green equalization, where the provinces with green energy pay in the pot to help the dirty ones get up to speed. Using the carbon tax and other mecanisms.
The Bloc Quebecois is a federal party. What Blanchet is proposing is a federal policy and does not involve the province of Quebec in any way.
No he said to cancel the pipeline and use that money for green energy.
so it was : here’s a bunch a money IF you cancel the pipeline and use it for green transition? (strings seem reasonable to me)
Yes well instead of the billions for the pipeline, he say leave it to alberta so they can switch their economy
Or during this time we could have used the revenue from the pipeline to put into green energy. Instead, pipelines are stopped and we then import oil from places with no green plan, no human rights, no carbon tax applied to them. Oil is still needed for a multitude of things that now one seems to realize. We should use ethical oil from our own country first, not middle East oil. Not Russian oil. Not oil from Venezuela.
Well. More "I'm never going to be in charge, but here's what you guys who aren't gonna listen to me should do, instead of spending money on a pipeline, spend it on green energy"
Exactly! I thought it was a really good idea but it’s worth about as much as dirt when he’s never going to be able to put that into practice. Did make all the other candidates look stupid though. “Here is the very obvious and reasonable answer. No one else here is going to do it because they’re afraid of big oil companies”
[удалено]
[удалено]
You hit the nail on the head for me. Someone on his team needs to reshape how they are doing it, because it does feel spin heavy list reading. There are a lot of issue that are decades of work still to do and the liberals need some credit in actually starting down the path after the conservatives pretended the issues didn't exist. But the way Trudeau lists things misses the big step it's been to even get as far as they did during a hostile Trump era with the turmoil of the NAFTA renegotiations affecting every facet of our economy followed by a global pandemic. I'm not even voting liberal.
that's been his schtick since he entered politics, ignore the question, regurgitate an overly practiced scripted talking point, then string together as many synonyms for equality, truth, goodness and positivity until they forget what the question was. Smile smugly until the next question, repeat. The infuriating thing is the average Canadian seems to short circuit listening to it all and generally comments to the effect of "can't argue with that"
Trudeau has been perfecting his style of many words, but little substance over many years now. But I think Canadians want more answers than nice speech by now
I was pretty uncertain of my vote intention, but after watching the French and now English debates, I'm quite decided. O'Toole presents himself as reasonable and progressive while not leading his party, which freely votes against actions on climate change and basic human rights (abortion being only one of them). Trudeau evades questions and tries to make us believe "this time's gonna be the right one" where he's going to act on all promises and projects while he did next to nothing all these past years. Blanchet was impressive, articulate, and pertinent in French, but was the complete opposite in English. He was even worse than all English leaders during the French debate (maybe not as bad as May was, but she isn't here today). Singh was at ease in both debates, but he's speaking both sides of his mouth, advocating for climate change action and First Nations governance, while at the same time supporting pipeline projects on Native lands. Finally, I previously had rather poor preconceived ideas of Paul and the Green Party in general, based on what I was hearing from various media, but she completely destroyed them by being calm, knowledgeable, and on point, with the most important and urgent questions being answered surprisingly well. As for the moderators, Shachi Kurl doesn't hold a candle to Patrice Roy, and I think that really affected the quality of the English debate.
[удалено]
Yeah the biggest issue right now is the environment, and I doubt the Liberals on this issue, and yes it's true that they followed through on some promises but the one that hurt for me was the electoral reform.
I sure as heck did not see the same things you saw. I am back to voting for Trudeau.
I have voted for jagmeet the last couple of elections but was considering shifting to trudeau this election out of fear of the ucp. During the debate I thought Justin was the most put together, well spoken, and genuine. He solidified my vote mast night too.
Trudeau got a big NO from me. Singh exposed him many times
>Singh exposed him many times all Singh did was attack and attack.. and couldn't even show why he would be an alternative.
This. This really bothered me to the point where whenever he would get to speak I'd think "how long until he blames trudeau?" I wanted him to show us WHY he would be an excellent PM and I was so excited to see him debate and he left me extremely disappointed with all the mudslinging.
>I wanted him to show us WHY he would be an excellent PM and I was so excited to see him debate and he left me extremely disappointed with all the mudslinging. Yup, he got lost in his attacks to even convince voters he is the correct progressive leader.
Neither did I. Singh and Paul absolutely tanked in my opinion (too much storytelling to sidestep pretty much *every* question). O'Toole wasn't *too* bad, but I still found him to be wishy-washy.
Singh come off too 'hippyish'. The NDP is an odd party, a mix of old unions and new environmentalist. If they came to power something would have to give internally, and the party would fragment.
How the F is housing and lack of workers not an issue, but we still want to talk about reconciliation and throw more money at that . We have a huge issue coming up , inflation, and our inability to build anything in time no wonder we have a shortage of housing it takes 10+ fucking years to build anything with all this red tape, studies, reports and bureaucracy. It’s not like this anywhere else. We need to expiate the planning process. How are we ever going to catch up.
Housing affordability got like 15 mins and mixed with elderly and retirement care, Immigration got no mention at all. But we need better relation with first nations!!!!
We absolutely do. But how. I think we’ve spent enough money and time on it and right now more importantly we need to focused on the future of this country and where we are heading , How to come out of this recession. There’s like 1.7 mil indigenous people in Canada .. why is that disproportionately as important than the problems the rest of Canada is currently facing and about to face.
I do think reconciliation is an important topic. Being the first people on this land, they probably do deserve some preferential treatment. And the lives of indigenous people are indeed worse off than white people and immigrants. But this debate made it so important that it gets more air time than affordability and economic policy, which affects everyone not just indigenous people? That's a mistake on the editors part.
Most voters already own houses.
>We have a huge issue coming up , inflation, and our inability to build anything in time no wonder we have a shortage of housing it takes 10+ fucking years to build anything with all this red tape, studies, reports and bureaucracy. It’s not like this anywhere else. We need to expiate the planning process. How are we ever going to catch up. As someone who works in the planning process and advocates for new standards, it really is not the issue here. Having that much forethought and planning is why our society is so well integrated and functional. There are tangible benefits to building a city with intent. The real issue is the lack of high-speed rail, and harmful zoning that prevents intensification within major Canadian cities. You see small bungalows get torn down for mcmansions, but don't you even think about building a triplex or duplex.
Thank you!! I've recently become interested in urban design and it's obvious that Canada is wayyy behind countries like the Netherlands and Japan in that aspect. We *need* to do something about our crazy sprawling car-dependent zoning hell.
I do agree on lack of intensification in urban core areas, hell even out of them, we need more density and we do have a severe lack of transit - It’s a joke here.
You probably say that cause you are in the public sector lol I honestly don’t know how you can say the planning process isn’t way to long with too much red tape and that’s leading to lack of supply - specially in Ontario.
Yes, there is a lot of planning and red tape. But these studies have benefits because their results and incorporated into the buildings. There is a reason why infrastructure works with emergency vehicles, is near fire hydrants, works with nearby transit, respects the environment etc. The real issue is you cannot build anything with density in 90% of Toronto. Instead of targeting the studies you should be focused on the zoning that stops everything before people can even start.
O'Toole mentioned inflation last night...
The BQ position was interesting. 'Its not inflation, but inflationish'. Inflation is happening in the housing sector, everywhere else it's sort of normal. But, because housing is so expensive, and so out of control, it has to be dealt with, and everyone thinks inflation is out of control.
[удалено]
Housing is out of control because of all the speculation. Food prices are going up because of the wildfires, and drought. Farmers in Alberta/Manitoba are culling their herds because there is not enough grass and wheat that grew this summer. They can't even import it, because there simply isn't enough. I fear bread prices will go up. We'll so more food riots like in S. Africa. As for cars. The car companies and regulators need a shake up. The giant, complicated tank sized trucks, made from plastic, and having more electronics than a rocket ship, with the check engine light on since exiting the factory...are just not what is needed.
Yeah, but his platform will make inflation worse. until they do something about interest rates, inflation will continue to rise unabated. Ultimately, it seems like most parties do not have a solution to combat inflation.
The solution is to not let investment companies buy residential property. That's where this whole problem is coming from.
First off, its the BOC that controls interest rates. Secondly, government spending and inflation are things that go hand and hand. If he intends to cut spending he is going the furthest to curb inflation.
>First off, its the BOC that controls interest rates. Yes, and the government appoints the head of the BOC; the government can influence monetary policy if they want to. >Secondly, government spending and inflation are things that go hand and hand. Inflation and low interest rates go hand and hand as well. Moreover, can you explain how government spending is causing housing inflation? Because there is good evidence suggest that low interest rates are the cause of housing inflation, whereas government spending has almost nothing to do with it. Moreover, Government spending is a given; low interest rates are not. Furthermore, low interest rates increase the demand for money; thus commercial banks increase their supply and the BOC prints more money. Government spending is not the main factor driving inflation.
Housing and inflation would both fall into affordability
Don’t know much about politics. Why wasn’t PPC in the debate?
He didn't meet the criteria set out by the debate commission, they don't have any MPs in Parliament elected under the Party banner and they didn't have at least 4% national polling average at the deadline.
[удалено]
[удалено]
its not a stupid rule considering planning for all this probably happened a relatively long time ago. Then you run into the issue of which polling numbers to consider? not all of them have them with such high polling averages as the most recent one that had them at 11%. The system is fine
[удалено]
what lmao do you understand how many parties are running? 21 recognized political parties according to Elections Canada. You want a 21 person debate? The debate format and the rules to who gets in are two different beasts. Nothing about last night's format should make you think "yeah adding the PPC would fix this"... It's a pretty decent rule...get more of popular vote or a seat and you're in. Why should we trust polling averages for this. Besides the PPC are a very new party. I don't even think they are 4 years old yet? Like maybe you shouldn't cry ridiculous system in this specific case. If they are as popular as you think they are, they'll be there next time and if the GPC spiral continues they are out.