Canadian Politics 2017: I've Got a Pipeline Straight to the Heart of You

A belatedly new thread for the new year

i just really dislike fptp because i don't really believe that a party that gets a <40% share of the electorate that bothered to vote has the legitimacy to have complete control of the legislative and executive functions of the government.
I agree but I think this could also be dealt with if there was less pressure for MPs to vote along party lines.

― My Body's Made of Crushed Little Evening Stars (Sund4r), Thursday, 2 February 2017 19:18 (one month ago) Permalink

i don't see how that sort of situation can be arrived at tho? is that a thing that has been introduced in other places/by what methods?

― Islamic State of Mind (jim in vancouver), Thursday, 2 February 2017 19:50 (one month ago) Permalink

So in reading about Michael Chong, it turns out that I was unaware that the original version of his Reform Act would have done most of what I was suggesting:
http://michaelchong.ca/2014/09/11/reform-act-2014-backgrounder/
http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&DocId=6520019&File=30#2

The version that got passed by Parliament in 2015 was pretty toned-down, though, but at least a step in the right direction:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&DocId=8058690&File=30#2

Also, is this the silliest controversy in a while?:
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/03/16/ndp-leadership-candidate-apologizes-for-beyonc-quote.html

Hm, looks like Chong is polling worse in the race than I thought: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Party_of_Canada_leadership_election,_2017#Opinion_polling

Articles like this one seem to be referring to polls of which candidate appeals most to Canadians, more generally, not ones who can vote for the CPC leadership.

His economic policy seems pretty regressive, although he's probably not worse than the other options:

A Conservative Party led by Michael Chong will:

Reduce personal income taxes by $14.9 billion a year. This would be an absolute reduction in personal income taxes of 10%
Flatten the personal income tax system from five rates to two rates, keeping the current 15% and 29% rates and the current thresholds

People who make under $142K would pay only 15% on their taxable income.

seriously? the guy who spews sociopathic bile on TV and doesn't even live here is leading the race? the hell?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/25/world/canada/syrian-refugees.html

seriously? the guy who spews sociopathic bile on TV and doesn't even live here is leading the race? the hell?

― Mad Piratical (The Cursed Return of the Dastardly Thermo Thinwall), Saturday, March 18, 2017 10:02 AM (one week ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

would not be particularly surprised if kevin o'leary is the next prime minister

http://www.ipsos-na.com/news-polls/pressrelease.aspx?id=7554

had no idea he was running for tory leadership

I like how the Post takes the opportunity to list some previous G&M scandals at the end of this:

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/globe-spikes-leah-mclarens-column-on-trying-to-breastfeed-mp-michael-chongs-baby-to-see-what-it-felt-like

The original column is here and it is one strange piece of, uh, journalism?

really bizarre story.

also funny how it sort of reflects badly on chong - ive heard more about this than anything else related to his campaign - even though he's completely blameless

Speaking of Michael Chong, who else has registered for a CPC membership to vote for him?

I couldn't do it after reading his economic platform. He doesn't look like a strong contender anyway.

Wow: http://m.torontosun.com/2017/03/31/liberals-would-lose-official-party-status-if-election-held-today-poll?token=274b7b591a7c900f182252c7dc0bad0b&utm_source=addThis&utm_medium=addthis_button_facebook&utm_campaign=Liberals+would+lose+official+party+status+if+election+held+today%3A+Poll+%7C+Ontario

When do we know for the conservative results?

Oh ok, it's only in May. For some reasons I believe it was coming during this week.

I think I'm ready to rejoin the NDP: https://www.ndp.ca/news/ndp-statement-us-air-strikes-syria

It is not clear what the impact of these missile strikes will be on the conflict. They are not part of a United Nations-sanctioned effort, and it is not clear if they form part of a larger plan to end this crisis.

New Democrats continue to believe that any successful response to this crisis in Syria must be multilateral and compatible with international law.

Now, more than ever, it is important that Canada work with our international partners to secure a lasting political solution to this crisis. Canada must also step up efforts on the humanitarian front, particularly in the face of drastic cuts to United Nations programs planned by the Trump administration.

Trudeau's response is disappointingly Liberal ("fully supportive" of the airstrikes but "working towards a diplomatic solution).

yeah that is a legit response

That's platitudes.

I'll take platitudes over active warmongering tbh

I'm sure the people of Syria thanks you for that.

Oh, fuck off. I'm parsing the official responses of our two leftmost (viable) parties and nothing more.

if it wasn't clear when I was referring to the NDP response, not the Liberal one.

Fred can you leave your unwanted dribblings to the American politics threads?

Just a shame that the average Canadian voter will be turned off by this correct stance by the NDP. If they even come to hear about it at all.

such a novel feeling to be Danesplained on a Friday night

#WellActually it's Saturday morning GMT.

And I'll get out of here. But if you're going to choose your party based on their response to what happens in other parts of the world, don't be mad if people from still other parts of the world calls you an idiot.

all canadians make all voting decisions based on the wording of foreign policy press releases, that's just how we do things. you wouldn't understand.

Fred, I'm all for more non-Canadians posting here, but if you're going to call me an idiot, you can at least back up your comment. How are those just platitudes, assuming you're talking about the NDP statement? It is a marked contrast to the Liberals' ("fully support[ive]") or Conservatives' ("strongly support[ive]") positions. (I'm guessing you prefer Trudeau and the Libs?) The NDP are raising imo valid concerns about the airstrikes: neither their impact nor the larger plan are clear, and, more to the point, they are not UN-sanctioned; if any action is to be taken against a sovereign state, it should be multilateral and legal, which unilateral airstrikes are not. The latter point should be a platitude but hardly anyone else is saying it now. And if we're going to start bombing places, we should have a sense of where it is going. Moreover, they stress that Canada should place its emphasis on addressing the humanitarian problem, another thing that no one seems to be focusing on, despite concern for "beautiful babies".

OK, reading the "controversial opinion" thread, I have a sense of where you're coming from:

Looking at the development the last five years, it's getting clearer and clearer that the West should have bombed Syria in 2013.

― Frederik B, Saturday, 8 April 2017 04:11 (five hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I'm saying it was worth the risk of regime change, of regional war, of whatever, because we did the opposite and it has failed disastrously, and whatever would have happened it would have been handled by Obama instead of Trump.

― Frederik B, Saturday, 8 April 2017 05:39 (four hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Maybe you prefer the Tories?

I have no idea whether or not you're an idiot, but if you're joining a political party because they manage to respond to the gassing of civilians with the right words, then you're acting like an idiot. They're raising 'valid concerns', but what are they going to do about it? Great if they have actual policies for helping refugees, but what are they going to do with Assad and Syria? What is their larger plan?

And I don't have one either, I'm just so fucking frustrated that we've gotten to this point, where Trump is doing what Obama should have been doing in 2013. Assad gassed his own people again. What was Trump supposed to do? And now Rubio is out there saying that perhaps Assad could use his wmd's on America as well, and boy, that will obviously turn out well.

The 'don't do stupid shit' of the Obama doctrine just kicked the can down the road, until a moron took over. Sometimes you need to do the shitty thing to ensure it won't be done less moronic.

I'm not sure what thread would be right to ask this question, but what would it take for people to consider that Obama might not have made the right choice in 2013? How much worse would it have to get?

Oh, and it's supposed to say it 'will' be done less moronic, of course.

Well, first, no, that wouldn't be my only reason for joining the party. I was a member in 2011 and have voted for them in every federal election except 1997. They had lost me over the last few years but I had already been considering whether to rejoin since a leadership convention is coming up (one of the few times when it makes a difference whether you join a party or not). People who read these threads semi-regularly instead of driving by to post snark probably have some context for this. The leadership convention is where you get to vote for a leader who hopefully has detailed policies and a plan. Joining a party doesn't even mean that you're necessarily voting for the party; it just means that, for a small fee, you get to be involved in deciding these thing.

Secondly, frankly, I think people who want to drop bombs on another country have more of a responsibility to show a larger plan. "OK, this is fucked up. We don't have all the answers yet so let's make sure that we're following international law and try to achieve some kind of multilateral consensus on how to deal with it, especially because we know the West has fucked up this kind of thing before" seems to me like a perfectly reasonable stance to take right now, especially for a Canadian opposition party.

"+ Right now, what we can do is try to help the people who are being hurt in a direct way."

Fred, the NDP are essentially leaderless at the moment. Words are pretty much all they have.

can we not call people idiots here please. this is the Canadian politics thread, we shouldn't be escalating things beyond "hoser".

Fred, do you even know who Don Cherry is?

The math has been overdone at this point, we have decades and decades of evidence than western military action in the middle east are doomed to catastrophe for everyone involved. It seems evident to me, like climate change and free health care. If it is a platitude to state a desire to increase the amount of refugees and not use bombs then vive les platitudes and vive le NDP.

Anyone here knows Peter Julian well? Alexandre Boulerice (perhaps one of the biggest NDP figure in Quebec) announced his support for him.

An actually critical article about Trudeau in the international press: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/apr/17/stop-swooning-justin-trudeau-man-disaster-planet?CMP=share_btn_fb

(I don't know enough about any of the NDP candidates yet tbh, probably the least about Julian.)

it's not guardian's first

i recall reading another one criticizing him but forget for what

how are we feeling about the BC election? I am not permitting myself to feel hope that Christy will get turfed

I didn't know there was one tbh. Being out of the country does this to you, apparently. So the NDP have been leading the polls for a while - this has happened before, hasn't it?

they were leading the polls last time around by a decent margin and not only did the liberals win, but in fact extended their majority.

I'm just back from vacation but i think i better start volunteering with my local ndp mla's campaign as our riding was fairly close last time

i am not confident, but will be bummed if the liberals win again

NDP in with a decent chance. Their platform rollouts have been good and generally well received. Fears about Horgan's electability seem to be dissipating. I was at the media thing where he announced the housing platform last week and was really quite impressed. He was really on point with media questions, talked about Site C dam, LNG and housing with intelligence and energy. Only needed a couple of small slams at the Liberals to totally win me over. Here in the city we maybe forget that this election has to be won in the interior and up north. He's a big guy, a logger's son who may end up being more appealing in the sticks than any of their leaders since Harcourt.

There is the usual narrative that the Greens will spoil the NDP's chances but we get that every time and it never really pans out. They are polling quite high at 18% supposedly, but maybe few people are actually aware of Andrew Weaver and what a spluttering mansplaining twat he is. Highest they ever got was 12% of the vote and that was with an excellent leader (Adriane Carr) and the NDP at their lowest point.

I'm hopeful (but usually wrong.) If the Liberals get back in then this town is truly fucked.

And, again, we're talking about a province with a giant cross in its National Assembly.

xp

I wasn't referring to you, sund4r, but to symsymsym ('laïcité is such bullshit') and to Simon H. ('JFC I fucking hate Quebec sometimes'). I mostly agree with everything you said. I think I'm just fed up with the two solitudes. When discussing this topic with a card-carrying PQ member I'll generally adopt a more radically liberal position; when it's brought up by anglophones who refuse to acknowledge Quebec's history and its culturally specific stance on religious phenomena in general, I'll go down the opposite route. For what it's worth, balance is my aim.

And I also agree that the cross at the National Assembly is a massive joke, a hypocrisy of sidereal proportions.

Anyhow, to reiterate, banning the burqa accomplishes absolutely nothing. I just don't think the logic behind it is exclusively racist and/or imperialist. It's more complicated than that.

I lived in QC (well, OK, Montreal) almost half my life, I get to cuss it out from time to time. and certainly the rest of the country is far from lily-white when it comes to xenophobia but it's folly to deny it's not of a particularly opportunistic and hypocritical vein in quebec politics.

yeah the rest of canada is also super fucking racist and islamophobic. that doesn't make laicite a good idea tho

i personally think children at public schools and public sector employees should be allowed to wear kippahs or turbans

I come from a country (Romania) that is slowly but surely setting itself up for a Byzantium-style religious dictatorship (see the Christian Orthodox-wrought, 'Socialist' Party-backed motion aimed at amending the constitution in order to redefine marriage more strictly as a contract between man and woman, in an already homophobic nation that will probably never legalize gay marriage to begin with). Refusing to acknowledge that certain religious strands can be a threat to equality – and let's not forget that there are quite a few muslims who take issue with the burqa – is as extremist as arguing that the right to free speech would flounder without neo-nazis. How we go about quarantining this risk is a different matter, however.

Nothing wrong with kippas/turbans/hijabs as far as I can tell. Like I said, it's complicated. For instance, how do we visually distinguish between a scientologist and a non-scientologist? In some ways, I think scientology is more harmful than, say, Salafism.

I've never been to Romania, but my grandparents were Jews from Transylvania, which is one of the reasons why I am skeptical of state regulation of religious minorities. I guess I don't see the laicite policies as sincere or even effective attempts to block the extremes of religious illiberalism. Instead, they are a way to enshrine the majority culture in law by discriminating against minorities, much as Romania is doing, and as countries with Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, and Christian majority populations do. France was one of the latest and the most resistant of the Western countries to legalize gay marriage, despite its policy of official secularism. I believe the Quebec contempt for the church is real, and its version of secularism is less extreme than France's, but all the proposed laicite laws only target religious minorities - none of them would materially affect the lives of devout Catholics.

Sadly there is a ton of Islamophobia in particular in all parts of Canada, which is very apparent if you ever make the mistake of reading the comments on a national news story that mentions the M-word. Kellie Leitch isn't from Quebec. There's a very strong impulse in all societies to demonize minorities, and we need to fight against this very dangerous impulse instead of using it as a basis for laws.

The discriminatory, murderous policies enacted by the Iron Guard during WW2 were religious in nature, not only because they targeted Jews but because they were aimed at preserving Romania's specifically Christian Orthodox 'essence' – after all, the Iron Guard was also called the Legion of the Archangel Michael. Of course, this didn't prevent them from exterminating Christian Orthodox Romani as well and the ostensibly atheist Romanian communist party was all too happy to see Romanian Jews emigrate to Israel.

In theory, French laïcité means that the state is above any and all forms of religious authority, including Christian ones (and Catholics routinely complain about it as well – here's a recent example among many: http://www.lemonde.fr/religions/article/2017/10/28/montretacroix-des-internautes-lancent-un-hashtag-pour-protester-contre-le-retrait-d-une-croix-en-bretagne_5207376_1653130.html). It's a laudable goal in my opinion, but problematic insofar as the state cannot be said to be altogether drained of religious elements, even in our secular age. This leads to all manner of paradoxes and contradictions, perhaps because, as Marcel Gauchet put it, Christianity is 'the religion whereby religion is left behind' ('la religion de la sortie de la religion').

yeah I don't think it's a workable goal...when the state is deciding which crosses and religious symbols and hair/face coverings are acceptable the state becomes the religious authority. and I think while taking down crosses (even the hypocritical National Assembly cross) is kind of silly, it's not the same as stopping Muslim women from riding buses or working in hospitals or as teachers.

Just to play devil's advocate for a second (once again, I don't agree with these bans, not on ideological grounds but because I don't believe them to be effective – quite the opposite), we are talking about a very specific, almost nonexistent subset (100 tops?) of muslim women living in Quebec, not Quebec muslim women as a whole. Besides, face-coverings are hardly integral to Islam: 'dress modestly' is a flexible rule if ever there was one.

So it's targeting a very small minority, so small in fact that they pose no real threat to the political order or social norms of Quebec or Canada? Doesn't seem like much of a defence.

If the only point was that the majority of Muslims might not be affected by the ban on face coverings, I do agree.

This particular ban only affects those hundred women, but the PQ wants to keep anyone wearing a hijab out of various jobs. It isn't the case that most Muslim women have nothing to worry about from laïcité.

So it's targeting a very small minority, so small in fact that they pose no real threat to the political order or social norms of Quebec or Canada? Doesn't seem like much of a defence.

― No purposes. Sounds. (Sund4r), Saturday, October 28, 2017 5:21 PM

If the only point was that the majority of Muslims might not be affected by the ban on face coverings, I do agree.

― No purposes. Sounds. (Sund4r), Saturday, October 28, 2017 5:21 PM

The latter point was what I was getting at with my devil's advocate hat on. The former is what I actually think.

This particular ban only affects those hundred women, but the PQ wants to keep anyone wearing a hijab out of various jobs. It isn't the case that most Muslim women have nothing to worry about from laïcité.

― jmm, Saturday, October 28, 2017 5:24 PM

Yes, but I believe this to be a different issue. Targeting the hijab per se is indefensible as far as I'm concerned.

As far as I can tell this is not ignorant Quebec-bashing. The PQ and Quebec nationalists have a long history of playing this game, going back to Lionel Groulx's abject antisemitism to today's decidedly anti-anglo sentimentality of passing motions that restricts the use of 'bonjour hi' to just 'bonjour'. Racism and xenophobia are some of the fondations of quebec nationalism, and now it is stronger than ever, perhaps influenced by the new conservatism in France. The wink wink of 'we lost because of the jews and Italians' on the referendum night in 1995 is now a building block of the PQ's values, the Chartre is just an extension of that. Some of the important sub-groups of quebec nationalism (Société St-Jean Baptiste, Mouvement Montréal Français) use Montreal has some sort of battleground on language and keep insisting that Montreal is a french metropolis only, erasing the memory of non-pure laine quebecois which includes these groups: working class anglos (usually Italians and Irish), poc and first nations people. Where's the freaking statue for Oscar Peterson? In Ottawa.

I think anyone in Canada has a right to object to these nationalist values, and criticizing these values is not 'quebec bashing', not at all. It does not represent what Quebec is. These values are not representative of the whole of Quebec the same way Quebec is not some sort of pure-laine fantasy with only Tremblays, Roys and Gagnons the nationalist are trying to sell. If you use a venn diagram you'll see a bunch of these anti-quebec racism from the 'ROC' were also horrified at Harper's use of 'old stock Canadians' and wish for a quicker resolution of the first nation crisis.

The thing is that the economy in Quebec is doing great thanks to Couillard, like him or not. Unemployment and the debt are at an all-time low, growth is reasonable and the government managed to do so without slashing too much in social programs, which continue to be the model for the rest of the entire north american continent (they just announced 35 millions for public psychologists program). The only thing Lisée (and to a lesser extent Legault) have to fight on now is the 'the quebec identity' and it will only get worse throughout the year as elections approach.

any politician in any part of canada advocating for something like the chartre can suck the shit out of my butt

managed to miss both the english and french spellings of charter/charte there lol

At least they're tackling the really important things: https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/11/30/quebec-lawmakers-pass-motion-calling-on-store-clerks-to-use-bonjour-greeting.html

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/canadian-government-gag-order-mk-ultra-1.4448933

ugh

Ugh *2

how big a deal do we think this Trudeau vacation business really is? I've lost my ability to measure such things

I'm skimming the report and don't see anywhere where the reasoning seems obviously wrong. It's not very clear on the purported family friendship between the Trudeaus and the Aga Khan's family. It doesn't say anything about the relationship between Pierre Trudeau and the Aga Khan from 1984 to 2000 (when Pierre died); and then Justin and the Aga Khan didn't meet between 2000 and 2013. How contingent is this family friendship on a Trudeau being in power?

Based on the CBC and Star news stories, before reading the actual report, my suspicion is that JT was genuinely oblivious to the potential conflict of interest, as a result having grown up in such privilege. Idk if this will turn out to be a big deal politically: there doesn't seem to be an allegation that the Aga Khan Foundation received favourable treatment as a result of this gift + the Aga Khan Foundation isn't exactly a nefarious organization or one that afaik enriches the Aga Khan himself. (Maybe I'm wrong?)

Props from me for the person itt who predicted Singh's nomination for the NDP to be a mistake.

"Racism and xenophobia are some of the fondations of quebec nationalism"

i will keep that in mind, that a lot of anglos think that of us, and act accordingly. how about this: québécois have different values than canadians and would like to run their society in a way that reflect those values. for those who don't know when it comes at social issues of the day, any day, it seems québécois usually are more socially conscious and reason-oriented , canadians more egocentric and profit-oriented. one would prefer to wait for studies before fracking willy nilly the other goes drill baby drill, one prefer to invest in rehabilitation of criminals because studies shows it work and the other rather build more prisons and be tough on crime etc etc etc

I am a francophone living in Quebec, that indictment is not only coming from anglos. The rest of your 'how about this' is pure quebec self-mythologising that has nothing to with reality: lots of 'ROC' canadians oppose fracking. Remind me how many times Jean Charest, great crusader fracking, was re-elected? Quebec does not have the monopoly of reason in Canada.

Remember this?

http://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/805067/quebec-canada-difference-ouvrage-racisme

what did jagmeet do now?

I was wondering the same thing.

Pomenitul, that's an interesting link. Without passing judgment on Quebecers or ROC Canadians, though, I'm not sure that asking people whether they would describe themselves as "a little racist" or "very racist" is the best way to measure levels of racism in a society. Also, wtf @ statistical measurements of <<joie de vivre>>.

What do British Columbians think of this Site C dam business?

(I mean, tbc, I'm sure there were options for "not at all racist" etc too. Just that I'm unconvinced that self-description is the best metric.)

i hope there was an "I'm the least racist person you've ever met" option

Site C seems to me like a boondoggle, and I am confused as to why our local right-wing wants to spend 10 billion dollars of public funds on a makework project. the more I read about its impact on local farmland and its contempt for indigenous treaties, the less I like it. That said, I can see why the NDP made the call to keep it, and I think they are avoiding short-term pain in exchange for long-term economic and environmental damage to our province.

I think the BC NDP is on a political tightrope and needs enthusiastic support from workers and environmentalists, and can't afford to lose any part of their base. even some flagging of enthusiasm will hurt their chances of ever forming majority govt.

Without passing judgment on Quebecers or ROC Canadians, though, I'm not sure that asking people whether they would describe themselves as "a little racist" or "very racist" is the best way to measure levels of racism in a society. Also, wtf @ statistical measurements of <<joie de vivre>>.

― No purposes. Sounds. (Sund4r), Saturday, December 23, 2017

Belated reply: methodologically, it's doomed from the start, yet I found it weirdly accurate in light of results across the border (51% admit to holding a negative opinion of African-Americans) and in France (35% consider themselves at least 'a little bit' racist).

What it comes down to, imho, at least these days, is that laïcité is used by some in Quebec as an excuse for all-out xenophobia, while others are aware of its risks yet knowingly cling to it in spite of its bad rep in the anglophone world because they believe that religion represents a dormant threat to modern societies. Quebec's relative outspokenness in the latter department is sometimes an awful thing (re: that superfluous burqa ban), sometimes a great one (I say this as someone who would never consider moving back to my home country, Romania, in no small part due to its increasingly theocratic, i.e. openly homophobic, sexist and racist, ideology).

i hope there was an "I'm the least racist person you've ever met" option

Lol.

I gather that BC NDP is basically siding with unions over environmentalists and FN groups on this?

(this = Site C)

Yeah, and I guess going along with what the mainstream media wants. This will cost them much of their activist base, but cancelling site C would have lost them a different part of their base. A political lose-lose decision that the Liberals left Horgan with.

good post pomenitul

OTM

lol:

http://www.timescolonist.com/opinion/columnists/peter-menzies-blame-quebec-when-your-netflix-bill-goes-up-1.23130188

that's an interesting op-ed niche...

The whole Netflix thing is so weird. I subscribe to Netflix so I don't really mind it not being taxed but it seems ridiculously unfair that Canadian companies that offer streaming services have to be taxed but any foreign companies offering the same service are not required to be taxed. Just seems like an obvious loophole that should be closed (either by taxing everyone or no one) and I don't even get why anybody is debating this.

What it comes down to, imho, at least these days, is that laïcité is used by some in Quebec as an excuse for all-out xenophobia, while others are aware of its risks yet knowingly cling to it in spite of its bad rep in the anglophone world because they believe that religion represents a dormant threat to modern societies. Quebec's relative outspokenness in the latter department is sometimes an awful thing (re: that superfluous burqa ban), sometimes a great one (I say this as someone who would never consider moving back to my home country, Romania, in no small part due to its increasingly theocratic, i.e. openly homophobic, sexist and racist, ideology).

― pomenitul, Tuesday, December 26, 2017 11:32 AM (two weeks ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I would agree it is sometimes a great one if the catholic religion was making a big comeback but it isn't. After all, the cross in the national assembly is here to stay. Really the only target is different very small religious minorities.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/quebec-opposition-parties-balk-at-marking-mosque-shooting-with-day-of-action/article37538523/?cmpid=rss&click=sf_globefb

But this week, the province's two main opposition parties made it clear that, while they support a commemoration, they believe Islamophobia is a loaded term.

The Parti Quebecois says the term is too controversial, while the Coalition Avenir Quebec deems the word inappropriate because Quebecers "are not Islamophobic."

Ihsaan Gardee, director of the Muslim council, attributed the parties' position to identity politics in an election year in Quebec.

"In our view, when arguing semantics, it draws attention away from the core issues of hate and Islamophobia and anti-Muslim discrimination that are being discussed and how to effectively address them," Gardee said Tuesday.

The whole Netflix thing is so weird. I subscribe to Netflix so I don't really mind it not being taxed but it seems ridiculously unfair that Canadian companies that offer streaming services have to be taxed but any foreign companies offering the same service are not required to be taxed. Just seems like an obvious loophole that should be closed (either by taxing everyone or no one) and I don't even get why anybody is debating this.

― silverfish, Wednesday, December 27, 2017 12:23 AM (one week ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

The alternative would be a special Netflix tax that would go to help funding Canadian cinema and television series. A bunch of european countries went this route, Germany and France notably. As you know I am certain, instead of that tax, Joly basically bargained with Netflix that they invest 500 millions here in Canada. I really do believe that Melanie Joly is making sure the 500 millions investment is managed by Netflix because 1. Telefilm has been absolutely incompetent at building up a lucrative film industry in Canada whereas Netflix has the strong incentive of building a more efficient and larger infrastructure, retaining talent, etc 2. Netflix is already a much better international distributor than anything Can-Con has ever had access to, 3. Ubisoft (a foreign company) and Cirque du Soleil (a Canadian one) have been successful content creating companies that got shit tons of subsidies (much more than Netflix is getting at the moment), 4. there was a danger that that big three telecoms was going to gobble up the entire private film/tv series content creation market, now there is not only one but two different alternative paths.

I am still not under 100% sure this is best idea. But I am certain that doing nothing would have been way worse.

I copied and pasted the recent posts to the 2018 thread: Dynasty, s3: Canadian Politics 2018