Canadian Election Thread, 2019 edition

[secundem_artem]

Living in a rural area among dairy farmers facing multiple threats to the survival of family farms, I think supply management is vital.

I grew up in a rural area, and both of my parents grew up on farms. I don't mean to understate the challenges faced by family farms. But I don't see how it's helpful when the only two positions that can be heard are "Get rid of supply management!" and "Don't touch supply management!"
Great as dramatic headlines, but hardly conducive to any rational change, including change for the better.

Yes, the black and white nature of the debate is a problem. 

Supply management is often supported based on maintaining family farms, but a lot of the quota gets gobbled up by large farms.  We have a chicken farm in my area (another supply managed sector) that has been expanding like crazy and by my estimates has over a dozen barns with capacity for millions of birds at any given time.  Meanwhile, a friend of mine with a farm growing cash crops wants to start farming chickens (beyond his limit allowed without quota) and cant because there is no quota available and when it becomes available it gets bought up by these large farms.  The value of quota itself is an issue since farmers can sell quota and it has become a commodity making farmers with quotas very protective of the system (its like cash in the bank).  So, a major issue with supply management is that while it is pitched as a mechanism to preserve the family farm it actually creates a barrier for small farmers to enter. 

Does this mean the whole system should be scrapped?  I dont think.  Some of the oversupply issues in some American states are a good example of why not.  However, this dosnt mean it should be left untouched and as a country we should be able to discuss the future of it to make sure that it actually protects family farms and allows would be farmers to enter the market without unreasonable barriers.

It is also an issue with all trade agreements.  Before Trump and NAFTA, we had to compromise for the TPP as well.  However, I view food security and self sufficiency as a national interest and dont think we should compromise too much on this.

Now that weed is legal, should we expect quotas/supply management/Canadian Ganja Marketing Board sort of tomfoolery?

[Kron3007]

Living in a rural area among dairy farmers facing multiple threats to the survival of family farms, I think supply management is vital.

I grew up in a rural area, and both of my parents grew up on farms. I don't mean to understate the challenges faced by family farms. But I don't see how it's helpful when the only two positions that can be heard are "Get rid of supply management!" and "Don't touch supply management!"
Great as dramatic headlines, but hardly conducive to any rational change, including change for the better.

Yes, the black and white nature of the debate is a problem. 

Supply management is often supported based on maintaining family farms, but a lot of the quota gets gobbled up by large farms.  We have a chicken farm in my area (another supply managed sector) that has been expanding like crazy and by my estimates has over a dozen barns with capacity for millions of birds at any given time.  Meanwhile, a friend of mine with a farm growing cash crops wants to start farming chickens (beyond his limit allowed without quota) and cant because there is no quota available and when it becomes available it gets bought up by these large farms.  The value of quota itself is an issue since farmers can sell quota and it has become a commodity making farmers with quotas very protective of the system (its like cash in the bank).  So, a major issue with supply management is that while it is pitched as a mechanism to preserve the family farm it actually creates a barrier for small farmers to enter. 

Does this mean the whole system should be scrapped?  I dont think.  Some of the oversupply issues in some American states are a good example of why not.  However, this dosnt mean it should be left untouched and as a country we should be able to discuss the future of it to make sure that it actually protects family farms and allows would be farmers to enter the market without unreasonable barriers.

It is also an issue with all trade agreements.  Before Trump and NAFTA, we had to compromise for the TPP as well.  However, I view food security and self sufficiency as a national interest and dont think we should compromise too much on this.

Now that weed is legal, should we expect quotas/supply management/Canadian Ganja Marketing Board sort of tomfoolery?

They had it for tobacco, so it wouldn't be out of character.  Also, LPs are licensed based on production capacity, so they are capped in some ways, but officially there is no overall cap.

[Anselm]

https://twitter.com/TPostMillennial/status/1178027994285260800
https://www.thepostmillennial.com/all-of-trudeaus-blackface-moments-so-far/

New video and pictures of Trudeau in black face.

[Parasaurolophus]

https://twitter.com/TPostMillennial/status/1178027994285260800
https://www.thepostmillennial.com/all-of-trudeaus-blackface-moments-so-far/

New video and pictures of Trudeau in black face.

Those aren't new instances.

[Parasaurolophus]

Met my local Green and Liberal candidates this weekend. They drew similar crowds, but the Green candidate was way, way better organized (and more articulate and substantial in his responses) than the Liberal, whose whole event was surprisingly rinkydink and ramshackle. His campaign team must be sucking up the party's money, because they're not getting much bang for their bucks.

The Conservative candidate came by to plant signs a few weeks ago, but it doesn't seem like she'll be doing a meet and greet here. Nor does it seem like the Poople's Party candidate will. No word from our NDP candidate, either.

The Greens here came second to the Liberals in the last provincial election. I wouldn't be suprised if they took it this time around. Everyone was laser-focused on climate change and the environment, and apparently that's been the story throughout the whole riding.

[kaysixteen]

One more set of questions.... Exactly what powers and duties does the governor-general have, how does one get to be that, and after an election if the ruling party switches, can the new PM immediately replace the GG with a member of his own party?

[Parasaurolophus]

The GG is basically The Queen unless Her Majesty is in the country. She has almost all of the Queen's powers, but can't really exercise them independently of Parliament without precipitating a constitutional crisis.

Governors General are appointed by the Queen, on the PM's advice. They serve at her pleasure, and so are only turfed or replaced by her. Usually, though, the minimum term is five years. The PM can't just replace her, because she's the head of state, and thus outranks him. Traditionally, GGs alternate between a Francophone and an Anglophone.

[Kron3007]

The GG is in essence just a figure head with no actual power.  They host visitors, give speaches, and live in a fancy house on our dime.  Obviously, I think the position should be abolished ..

[pedanticromantic]

The GG is in essence just a figure head with no actual power.  They host visitors, give speaches, and live in a fancy house on our dime.  Obviously, I think the position should be abolished ..

Along with half the Senate. The Senate has a purpose, I believe, to some extent, but I think we could do with half the numbers. Then again, I also think we should have more direct democracy and fewer MPs! Just too many servants on the public dime getting full pensions after only a few years.

[marshwiggle]

The GG is in essence just a figure head with no actual power.  They host visitors, give speaches, and live in a fancy house on our dime.  Obviously, I think the position should be abolished ..

The best argument I heard for the monarchy (and by extension, the GG) was that the monarch represents the institution of government, independent of the current partisan head of government (prime minister). We can give the Queen or her representative the pomp and circumstance due to the office, and not have to bestow all of that on the prime minister. You only have to look south of the border to see what it looks like to have the current office holder get all of the flag-waving, motorcades, etc. to see the alternative. (And also, in the US "First Lady" (or presumably some day, "First Gentleman") is a role with almost as much profile as the GG, but similarly ceremonial.) In politics as elsewhere, nature abhors a vacuum.

[Kron3007]

The GG is in essence just a figure head with no actual power.  They host visitors, give speaches, and live in a fancy house on our dime.  Obviously, I think the position should be abolished ..

The best argument I heard for the monarchy (and by extension, the GG) was that the monarch represents the institution of government, independent of the current partisan head of government (prime minister). We can give the Queen or her representative the pomp and circumstance due to the office, and not have to bestow all of that on the prime minister. You only have to look south of the border to see what it looks like to have the current office holder get all of the flag-waving, motorcades, etc. to see the alternative. (And also, in the US "First Lady" (or presumably some day, "First Gentleman") is a role with almost as much profile as the GG, but similarly ceremonial.) In politics as elsewhere, nature abhors a vacuum.

That may be the best argument, but I still dont buy it.  I generally oppose the monarchy and everything it represents.  I also wish the queen would get off my coins and we could celebrate Canadians instead.       

[marshwiggle]

The GG is in essence just a figure head with no actual power.  They host visitors, give speaches, and live in a fancy house on our dime.  Obviously, I think the position should be abolished ..

The best argument I heard for the monarchy (and by extension, the GG) was that the monarch represents the institution of government, independent of the current partisan head of government (prime minister). We can give the Queen or her representative the pomp and circumstance due to the office, and not have to bestow all of that on the prime minister. You only have to look south of the border to see what it looks like to have the current office holder get all of the flag-waving, motorcades, etc. to see the alternative. (And also, in the US "First Lady" (or presumably some day, "First Gentleman") is a role with almost as much profile as the GG, but similarly ceremonial.) In politics as elsewhere, nature abhors a vacuum.

That may be the best argument, but I still dont buy it.  I generally oppose the monarchy and everything it represents.  I also wish the queen would get off my coins and we could celebrate Canadians instead.       

And then Trudeau and future leaders could have new coins issued every year or so as the people pictured on them fall out of favour.

[kaysixteen]

I actually have long supported sundering the roles of head of state and head of government here, and giving the head of state president the authority to sack the head of government, whatever we'd end up calling that office, if he proved incompetent, corrupt, or mentally incompetent, and if needed to call a new election.  Our founding fathers never anticipated the imperial presidency as it has developed.

[pedanticromantic]

The GG is in essence just a figure head with no actual power.  They host visitors, give speaches, and live in a fancy house on our dime.  Obviously, I think the position should be abolished ..

The best argument I heard for the monarchy (and by extension, the GG) was that the monarch represents the institution of government, independent of the current partisan head of government (prime minister). We can give the Queen or her representative the pomp and circumstance due to the office, and not have to bestow all of that on the prime minister. You only have to look south of the border to see what it looks like to have the current office holder get all of the flag-waving, motorcades, etc. to see the alternative. (And also, in the US "First Lady" (or presumably some day, "First Gentleman") is a role with almost as much profile as the GG, but similarly ceremonial.) In politics as elsewhere, nature abhors a vacuum.

That may be the best argument, but I still dont buy it.  I generally oppose the monarchy and everything it represents.  I also wish the queen would get off my coins and we could celebrate Canadians instead.       

And then Trudeau and future leaders could have new coins issued every year or so as the people pictured on them fall out of favour.

Well that doesn't have to be the case: look at our paper money, as an example. Plenty of great Canadians to celebrate, and I vote for Tommy Douglas to be the first!

I like the original US constitution as a model, although I agree with Kaysixteen that the founding fathers never anticipated anything like today. The religion in politics, taking the currency off gold, and giving power to corporations has destroyed the original ideals. If the USA could go back to what the founding fathers had in mind, the country would be a much better place, IMO.

[mamselle]

Actually, the "real" Hamilton (not the character portrayed in the rap show) had precisely those fears.

M.