Next Canadian Election

Forum Sponsor
Evoex said:
Because we aren't campaigning. (Yet)
Click to expand...
Yeah, I’m gonna have to listen to Carney and Freeland make their case for the party while Pierre keeps the heat on them.

Until there is an election, we won’t know how anyone plans to manage the country.

If Trump can win with essentially no platform, I’m sure PP can win a majority the same way. The dark horse being the bloc and NDP votes cast that would have been Liberal and should go to PP.
 
nakkers said:
Had a rather lively discussion with one of my kids (they are in their twenties). He says Pierre doesn’t have to to make any changes and keep his foot on the neck of the liberals and NDP. They were leading by a land slide before the American election.

Now we have Trump in office, threats of tariffs, prorogue government while the Liberals figure out their next leader. I’m not as confident as my young grasshopper.

Maybe it’s age and growing more cynical over time?

All parties lie.

The next liberal leader candidates will tell us how they plan to run the country differently than Trudeau. No carbon tax but, let’s be honest they all fully supported the redistribution of carbon tax so , I’m not sure what scheme they plan to launch to replace it.

I’d like to know more how our country is going to deal with climate change, the economy, manage natural resources and deal with Trump.

No sound bites have really addressed this in any meaningful way.
Click to expand...
Part of what you're asking is Policy, the other is the plan for dealing with key issues. I think the PCs are pretty straightforward, look over their Policy Book.

When it comes to detailing plans, those are policy-driven specifics that political parties discuss carefully and in calculated ways as they head into an election. PP does get detailed on many of these plans, but you have to listen to speeches and watch interviews -- no media outlet is ready to sum it up for us, and until he gets a mandate, the playbook isn't usually shared.

Take Climate Change for example. He's promised to build LNG plants in the far North, a smart plan that uses our rich resources of natural gas and frigid climate to chill and process the cleanest possible LNG on the planet. Proximity to market keeps the gas cold and the shipping journey short, making our gas much more viable than dirty coal and US fracked gas. That's Policy and promises that touch on strengthening the economy, creating jobs, reducting Western Alienation, and Climate change.
 
The Carney Carnival has started.

Turns out his launch team plagiarized (or failed to do their due diligence) his campaign logo. Either way, sloppy.

MetCredit is a debt collector...



1737398167164.png
 
Brian P said:
Harper's muzzling of scientists is my big objection to that round of Conservative rule. I'm quite unconvinced that this round promises to be any better. Don't want to hear about climate change? Close your ears and drill, baby, drill. Bird flu? Head in the sand and let it rip.
Click to expand...

Yea those were the good times...
 
GreyGhost said:
Rosedale is too middle class for Carney.
Click to expand...
He was born in the NWT and raised in Edmonton. No silver spoon. He's gotten where he is with brains and hard work.
 
woot said:
He was born in the NWT and raised in Edmonton. No silver spoon. He's gotten where he is with brains and hard work.
Click to expand...
I'm not judging where he came from, I'm commenting on where he is now. Like ignatieff, if he fails to win, he will leave the country and not be concerned. Not the type of person I want to lead the country.
 
Mad Mike said:
I never understood why some (not all) govt employed scientists believe they are entitled to work product just because they draw a govt paycheque.

Tell me what line of business, academia excepted, where any employee is free to disclose work product or intellectual property without authorization?
Click to expand...

Politicians of all types lie and suppress information all the time. Government scientists should be able to publish results of studies and comment without government interference.

Harper was pretty successful in muzzling government employees from releasing info that Harper either disagreed with or somehow impeded his agenda or that of business. Want to reduce regulations to enable business? Don't actually address this directly, just defund government regulators and enforcers so that regulations can be safely ignored.
 
ReSTored said:
... Government scientists should be able to publish results of studies and comment without government interference....
Click to expand...
I'll ask for a few good justifications.

These 2 people were willing to share their scientific work, that didn't work out too well. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/winnipeg-lab-firing-documents-released-china-1.7130284

You might argue that federally funded research should be public, and I'm OK with that. Freedom of information can release that stuff.

There are some good reasons why Governments restrict information. Things that pose a risk to national security, like the research noted in the link above. That bio stuff could be dual-use, disease defense, and also an offensive bioweapon in the hands of a bad actor. The latter is why there was such a kerfuffle.

Another challenge is keeping step with political mandates. For example, image a scientist working for the Quebec Gov't determines Quebecers would be substantially better off by dropping French and changing to English. Or better yet, a scientist figures out society benefits by qualifying an athlete based on sex not gender. Or maybe a Gov't anthropologist figures out a formula that best fits races to types of employment?

The other challenge is maintaining accuracy and context, which science often struggles with. Ensuring each scientist presents findings responsibly, and without impartiality is also a challenge for science. There are no shortages of activists chasing assignments or funding to help support a prescribed outcome.

I see no difference in where a scientist is employed -- you get paid to do work for your employer -- the employer owns the work product.
 
I think in the matter of scientific research as it relates to national security, there is place to keep things under wraps.


But, in the case when scientific research doesn’t support your political ideology, it’s fair game. Don’t care how it impacts any government party in power or not.


It wasn’t clear to me during the Harper years their reasoning. I may support their fiscal management but, that doesn’t mean I agree with them on everything.
 
Last edited:
Fiscal management? Guess all those prisons count for some :rolleyes:
Pretty sure the largest cabinet since Mulroney doesn't.

As for the scientists, tossing 30 year of irreplaceable fresh water fisheries data literally in the trash speaks to anti-science ideology....which Canada will see again if PP wins a majority..
I'll vote as ex-pat but won't be for Harper clone.
Liberals have outworn their welcome but the cons live up to their moniker time and again since Progressive got lost in the swing to the right.. :coffee:
 
nakkers said:
I think in the matter of scientific research as it relates to national security, there is place to keep things under wraps.


But, in the case when scientific research doesn’t support your political ideology, it’s fair game. Don’t care how it impacts any government party in power or not.


It wasn’t clear to me during the Harper years their reasoning. I may support their fiscal management but, that doesn’t mean I agree with them on everything.
Click to expand...
My guess is Harper had a good handle on things like western alienation.

Stuff that activists like Steven Guilbeault’s can fund from their budgets to support some predetermined position can make governing tougher than it need be, and tougher on the population than it need be.

So politicians should be able to evaluate research using broader terms than what a single researcher might understand.

Maybe you don’t trust politicians. Have you ever considered scientists face the same scepticism and deploy the same activism?
 
Mad Mike said:
These 2 people were willing to share their scientific work, that didn't work out too well. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/winnipeg-lab-firing-documents-released-china-1.7130284
Click to expand...

Well, you're reaching a bit to justify your position. Of course there are going to be issues related to national security, maybe as well the Level 4 lab in Winnipeg that need to be closely held for obvious reasons.

I was referring to generic research done in the vast majority of ministries related to the environment, health, food safety, fisheries, agriculture, transportation etc......... Harper locked down everything and that was wrong.
 
Mad Mike said:
My guess is Harper had a good handle on things like western alienation.

Stuff that activists like Steven Guilbeault’s can fund from their budgets to support some predetermined position can make governing tougher than it need be, and tougher on the population than it need be.

So politicians should be able to evaluate research using broader terms than what a single researcher might understand.

Maybe you don’t trust politicians. Have you ever considered scientists face the same scepticism and deploy the same activism?
Click to expand...
Guilbeault and the cast of terrible people is supporting Carney. Carney isn't immediately rejecting their endorsements. That tells me all I need to know about Carneys morals.
 
GreyGhost said:
Guilbeault and the cast of terrible people is supporting Carney. Carney isn't immediately rejecting their endorsements. That tells me all I need to know about Carneys morals.
Click to expand...
I see Carneys adventure to be somewhat parallel to David Johnston’s (remember the special Rapporteur?)

A well respected elite with a distinguished career steps into the political ring where his hard earned respect and reputation get reduced to a stinky Ottawa Steamer left on the steps of Parliament Hill.
Forum Sponsor
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom