The problem with the president of the United States breaking multiple treaties, including his own, repeatedly lying to just about every country on Earth, and holding peace talks as a perfidious ruse to murder other heads of state, means any promises he makes, oral or written, are worthless.
And I'd like to hear Poilievre and the Tories say "Let's sell natural resources now, while we can, and save the royalties to create capital investments in the future for new Canadian industries". I'd support that. But you never hear that message.
Instead it's all "Sell the Oil!" verb the noun slogan shit, pretending like selling more oil to the Americans would solve all our problems. In fact, selling oil to the Americans is part of why we're in this fix!
And I'd like to hear Poilievre and the Tories say "Let's sell natural resources now, while we can, and save the royalties to create capital investments in the future for new Canadian industries". I'd support that. But you never hear that message.
So we have to build industries that aren't dependent on selling oil and gas. And, actually, we really should be building economies that aren't dependent solely on natural resource staples, which can be unstable and are depletable. Remember Newfoundland and the cod fishery! At least cod can replenish
And it's going to reduce it's oil dependency regardless of whether you believe in climate change or not. Which is a really big problem for countries like Canada, with large oil resources that are also very expensive and difficult to extract.
I've said it before, and I will say it again: It’s all well and good for Canada to "make hay while the sun shines" with regard to selling oil and gas. But, it seems to me that the world on the whole is going to reduce its oil dependency in the foreseeable future. This is a big problem for Canada!
Usually, a bad economic situation is a big political headwind for the incumbent government. It may yet be for the Carney ministry as well. But, I think that Canadians are very well aware that this particular economic situation is being created by the fascist in Washington, so perhaps not also.
Yeah absolutely. Floor crossing is one of the few weapons that the backbencher has to check the power of party leaders. I can understand why voters would dislike it, but it has a legitimate function.
And given how much and how often everyone has lamented the erosion of power and influence of individual MPs and the concentration of power in leaders and parties, you have to ask whether you really want to introduce a new law that actually puts more emphasis on party stripe.
With floor crossing, the backbencher has an option if their leader behaves too tyrannously or otherwise unacceptably. Unhappy MPs can use it to send a strong message against a particular leader, which I think makes the party leaders tread more lightly.
I think it's important to note that while floor crossing may be a little bit of "dirty rugby" as it were, it has a function. I understand why a voter may be angry. But, floor crossing is also one of the few counterweights within our current system against the overweening power of the party leaders.
On a tangential point: We should adopt saying "hung parliament" instead of "minority parliament" and I encourage everyone to start working "hung parliament" into their day-to-day conversation.
Israel defines itself as a Jewish state? Yes it does. But many European countries have in the past defined themselves as Christian states, and as a Christian that doesn't make me responsible for the actions of those governments, nor do those governments reflect on me as a Christian.
I absolutely agree. Few things seem more likely to me to encourage antisemitism than to rhetorically make Jewish citizens of countries all over the world somehow responsible for the aggrandizing or aggressive or oppressive actions of a Middle Eastern country half the world away.
There is that Mike Tyson quote about how everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face. This is like going into a boxing match not expecting to be punched at all.
But we cannot say we need Reconciliation because the First Nations have some intangible eternal ownership of the land based in their blood. I don't believe that generally that's what is happening, but it's a potential pitfall we ought to steer around.
I guess my view is: The country desires and needs Reconciliation because it is morally right to make amends for past wrongs and because it is just to work to improve the lot of those worst off in our society, which is most usually indigenous communities.
Wasn't that something Hannah Arendt said about Adolf Eichmann? He couldn't express himself, he could speak about and articulate the reasons for his actions only in terms of cliches and slogans drawn from Nazi Party propaganda.
Of course Canada is the homeland of the indigenous peoples who lived here for thousands and thousands of years before Europeans. That's just historical fact. But we must avoid building a blood and soil myth out of that, as that never leads anywhere we want to go.
On the other, other hand, I think there is a liberal case to be made against land acknowledgements, one the Tories never make. As liberals, we ought to be averse about promoting a 'blood and soil' view that certain ethnic groups, by dint of ethnicity alone, have some special claim to some lands.
I'm of two minds about land acknowledgements. On the one hand, yeah they're generally harmless in and of themselves. On the other hand, that very harmlessness stems from their uselessness. A land acknowledgement does nothing at all to address the real and material problems of First Nations in Canada
Again, when this referendum starts I think we will be flooded with hostile propaganda from both within Canada and abroad. So it is important to note this now: Alberta separatism is not popular. Joining the US is even less so. Don't let people lie to you or mislead you on this.
Alberta - Independence Polling:
NDP Voters:
Remain: 96%
Independence: 4%
UCP Voters:
Remain: 53%
Independence: 30%
Join US: 5%
Leger / March 4, 2026
It also seems to me that we do have to understand the appeal of fascism and other reactionary thought in order to better fight against them.
When your remand population is much larger than the sentenced population, and still thousands of remanded offenders will be released because they didn't get a timely trial, I think the problems are much more with the administration of justice than the exact wording of the Criminal Code.
And that's with, as you note, approximately 10,000 cases a year dropped because they didn't receive a timely trial.
Like Stats Canada reports that in 23-24, the most recent statistics available, approximately 25,000 people were incarcerated in Canada. But only around 5,000 were actually sentenced, the other ~20,000 were simply held on remand.
Yes, true. While individual changes to bail conditions or self defence rights may be good, or bad, it really seems to be rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic when the most direly needed changes are more infrastructural and logistical in many cases.
In general? Depends on the case and context. The justice system certainly can err too far in concern for the accused without balance with concern for public order and the safety of victims. One thing I think we would agree to is better care must be taken to incapacitate and control repeat offenders.
