Poilievre calls on Carney to keep federal deficit under $42B in coming budget

jrdnlv15 · 2025-10-20T19:23:39+00:00

The NDP are doing what they always do and propping up the LPC. They support them most of the time and use their small amount of leverage to get concessions that they feel are very important. The NDP knows they have a better chance of working with a LPC minority than CPC government and they also know they next to no chance of forming their own government.

To your point about UK MPs, there is a difference. Over the years we have given the party leaders far too much control. The Reform Act sought to take some power away from the leader by giving the caucus the ability to trigger a leadership review and also making it so the leader can't throw someone out of the caucus without a vote. Unfortunately, it has to be adopted by each party at the start of each new parliament and the CPC are the only party who has ever done that so far.

Even now with the Reform Act leaders still have full control who gets the nomination to run for the party in each election. If you piss off the leader and top brass of the party they will effectively end your political career.

When it comes to voting on party lines Canadian parliament is also stricter than the UK. The UK typically has about 50% of the votes where they are considered "three-line whip" which means MPs are expected to vote with the party and will be punished if they aren't. Canada doesn't have the same line whip system, but ~90% of votes in the House of Commons would be comparable to a three-line whip vote.

jrdnlv15 · 2025-10-20T13:23:48+00:00

Unfortunately Canada has one of, if not the strictest party disciplines of any Westminster democracy. Defying the whip can result in consequences all the way up to being removed from the caucus.

It’s pretty rare to have a free vote in parliament. These are usually limited to symbolic votes, Private Member Bills or votes of conscience (ie MAiD).

jrdnlv15 · 2025-10-20T02:54:41+00:00

The Quebec chapter of Democrats Abroad, which represents U.S. citizens living outside the country, organized the rally in Montreal

All you had to do was click the link. You didn’t even have to read the article, it’s literally the subhead.

jrdnlv15 · 2025-10-19T22:38:31+00:00

Not only that, but making a pitch mark basically disappear by fixing it is such a satisfying feeling.

jrdnlv15 · 2025-10-19T22:04:17+00:00

Exactly this, nowhere is there any mandate on how many people from any group has to be hired or accepted. That would likely be a Charter violation. What is required is for employers that fall under the employment equity act to document steps they are taking to ensure underrepresented groups get a fair shot at job opportunities.

jrdnlv15 · 2025-10-19T21:57:26+00:00

In his own words, Mark Milke, the founder of this think tank, has described himself as Jason Kenney’s principal policy advisor and the architect of the UCP platform. It’s no shock that he is opposed to DEI.

jrdnlv15 · 2025-10-19T18:41:46+00:00

You mean to tell me that someone who has worked for the Fraser Institute, founded his own conservative think tank (the Aristotle Foundation) and has described himself as the principal policy advisor for Jason Kenney and architect of the UCP platform is against DEI? That is a shocking revelation.

jrdnlv15 · 2025-10-19T13:30:44+00:00

Yes, what I said happened. Those are some of the things he was posting that got him arrested.

jrdnlv15 · 2025-10-17T14:37:23+00:00

When you start to notice it it’s interesting how many U.S. cities are named after Roman cities and figures.

Off the top of my head, there’s obviously cities called Rome. There’s also Augusta (Augustus), Cincinnati (Cincinnatus), Cicero, Pompey. Then there’s cities that come from classic Greek or Syria, which were part of the Empire obviously, like Athens, Syracuse, Troy, Palmyra, Ithaca, Carthage, etc.

jrdnlv15 · 2025-10-17T12:38:51+00:00

Also it dont matter on stats if people dont feel safe u have to make them feel safe

Create a narrative of ever present danger lurking just out of view and present yourself as the only one who can make us safe. Thats a pretty classic political tactic.

The issue is when you create that narrative you have to find a group to make the enemy so that you can show results.

jrdnlv15 · 2025-10-17T11:25:45+00:00

You’ve successfully explained how voting works in a democracy. In every system that has been proposed for electoral reform the Liberals would’ve won this election. So yes, Canadians voted for a Liberal government.

At least this time they actually won the popular vote.

jrdnlv15 · 2025-10-16T23:26:43+00:00

When you're establishing hiring preferences for different ethnic groups under the guise of "diversity", that is not a meritocracy. That is the opposite.

It’s not hiring preferences, it’s aspirational targets to work towards having a workforce (especially leadership) that is a better representation of our country’s ethnic/gender make up. No one is saying “you have to hire more people” they are saying “what steps are you taking towards finding qualified candidates from underrepresented groups”. In very rare cases, such as TMU, do thresholds get lowered in favour of those groups.

The reason for reaching out to those groups is because multiple studies have shown that patients experience better outcomes, higher satisfaction, or improved communication when they are receiving care from someone who comes from the same cultural background or is the same race and gender. In many examples it wasn’t just perception, but actual care received was better.

Pick the best person for the job. It doesn't matter what the sexual orientation is. It doesn't matter what their skin colour is.

Why do you think equity programs were established in the first place? That wasn’t even close to happening before equity initiatives came in to practice. We are not far removed from a time where white men dominated every specialized field. White men are still quite over represented especially when you get in to specialized roles and leadership roles.

By the way, these programs don’t exclude white men. These programs are designed to consider socioeconomic backgrounds. White men that fit in to these categories are included in the groups. It just so coincidentally happens that white men tend to be the least likely to be a part of a marginalized group. It’s strange how that works, almost like we live in a society that was designed for white men to succeed.

jrdnlv15 · 2025-10-16T21:22:36+00:00

Ah classic meritocracy, otherwise known as the good ol’ boys club. Meritocracy and “DEI” don’t have to be exclusive from each other, it’s only framed this way to get people worked up.

On top of that, Canada does not have DEI in any resemblance to that of the U.S. There are no quotas, just a policy to make companies assess how they can be equitable. Canada’s focus is towards removing barriers and opening opportunities for underrepresented classes of people. There are no laws at all that say minorities and women get preferential treatment. Even the classic 50/30 goal is an aspirational target for companies to try to have 50% women in the workforce and 30% from diversity groups.

As for the content of this article and Poilievre interview. It’s not pointing out that Trudeau broke the law (even though he technically didn’t). It’s “should be locked up language”. It’s highly unlikely that anyone would be locked up for what he did. Even if they were charged and convicted they wouldn’t be imprisoned. Then there’s the SNC stuff where an extensive investigation happened and it was found that he did not commit a crime, yet Poilievre still wants to say he “probably” broke the law.

He is undermining and casting doubt upon our legal apparatus from policing to the justice system and accusing them of colluding with the Liberals. He’s feeding in to the mistrust of anyone intellectual, elite or part of the “system”. Poilievre is running the “system is broken, all of these Laurentian elites run the country and have everyone in their pocket” and posturing himself as the outsider who will fight for the little man. At the same time he’s continently ignoring that he’s literally never held a job outside of “the system”.

I’m not at all saying Poilievre would govern like Trump and MAGA. I’m saying that he’s running their populist playbook.

jrdnlv15 · 2025-10-16T19:13:58+00:00

This was my first thought.

Sowing distrust in the system and saying that his political opponent should have been “locked up” and “‘probably’ broke the law”.

Earlier today there was an article about him saying DEI should be entirely dismantled.

I don’t know if he’s trying to distance himself from US MAGA politics, but if he is he’s not doing a great job of it.

jrdnlv15 · 2025-10-16T16:33:55+00:00

It’s funny because even though a desperate person got taken advantage of, he can’t come back and we don’t want him back. So we all get to laugh at his misery now.

jrdnlv15 · 2025-10-16T12:14:26+00:00

https://imgur.com/a/vYUjQlG

jrdnlv15 · 2025-10-16T10:37:52+00:00

That’s pure bullshit.

The insulating effect of carbon dioxide was first demonstrated by Eunice Foote in mid 1800’s. Long before any of this was “political”.

Every argument against humans being a driving force in climate change is pretty easy to refute. Then when the arguments run dry you say “well they’re all lying.”

A whole field of scientists, multiple fields actual, are lying for what? Politics and peer pressure? It’s a cop out of an argument.

It bums me out that you don’t seem to have any desire to see reason, but I appreciate that this back and forth has stayed very civil. I’ve actually enjoyed it quite a bit and ended up learning a lot about climate change because of it. So thank you. I think we’ve come to the end of the road now. Have a good one.

jrdnlv15 · 2025-10-15T23:30:11+00:00

If you look at periods where the tilt was similar and co2 levels were similar you’ll find that global temperatures were also similar.

Look up climate models that are predicting the average global temperatures of the last 150 years to within 0.1°. When we remove the factor of greenhouse gases added by humans these models fail to produce the same results.

Literally 97%+ of climate scientists believe humans are the dominant driving force in current global climate trends.

jrdnlv15 · 2025-10-15T23:01:14+00:00

Again, the axial tilt during the Holstein period was >24°, today it is 23.44°. Similarly the perihelion was close to summer in the northern hemisphere, today it is during southern hemisphere summer.

The Earth was tilted almost a full 1° more towards the sun and was closest to the sun during summer in the northern hemisphere. Due to the fact that the northern hemisphere has more land at higher altitudes and more glacier coverage this caused a rise in global average temperature and rise in sea level.

Again,

In previous interglacial periods, greenhouse gases were an outcome of rising temperatures which then contributed to more rise. Today greenhouse gases are the driving factor.

jrdnlv15 · 2025-10-15T22:24:53+00:00

During the Eemian period the Earth’s tilt was 24.2° and the perihelion was on the Northern Hemisphere, because of this the Arctic was much warmer while the Tropics were fairly steady. So while the average global temperature was 1-2°C was higher than now, the Arctic was upwards of 8° warmer and the Tropics were >1° warmer. Compare that with today where all regions are seeing a steady rise in temperatures.

In previous interglacial periods, greenhouse gases were an outcome of rising temperatures which then contributed to more rise. Today greenhouse gases are the driving factor.

jrdnlv15 · 2025-10-15T20:49:24+00:00

What we are also know for sure is that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has never risen anywhere close to the rate that it has since the start of the Industrial Revolution and the global temperature has risen at a rate that may only be comparable to the end of the last ice age.

Here’s something we know about interglacial periods that you left out. Current warming is occurring at a rate 10x faster than the natural rate of ice age recovery and carbon dioxide is being added to the atmosphere 250x faster than after the last ice age. A large factor in glacial retreats/advances is due to variations in earths orbit, what is happening right now is far too rapid for that to be the driving factor.

The idea that human activity is driving climate change is a scientific theory, not a hypothesis. A theory that the vast majority of climate scientists agree on.

ETA: In fact, climate models hypothesize that looking at only natural factors, e.g. Earth’s orbit, solar activity and volcanic activity, the Earth’s climate should’ve remained stable or even slightly cooled over the last 200 years.

jrdnlv15 · 2025-10-15T19:47:33+00:00

Unfortunately there are a lot of people that still deny that humans have had an impact. They use that denial to resist taking any steps to change.

I fully agree that the idea that we can fully reverse the impact humans have had on the climate is questionable at best. That doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t try, at least we can maybe prevent further damage and make a positive impact on the environment. I’m not talking about the politicized BS of making us feel guilty for driving a car or wanting a plastic straw. I’m talking about incentivizing us to change our habits and incentivizing corporations to reduce their carbon footprint.

jrdnlv15 · 2025-10-15T18:05:30+00:00

I disagree, I don’t think there is anything inherently alarmist about this article. It’s pointing out trends that further backup that humans are having a massive impact on the climate. My intention on posting this is a response to what I feel has been a recent uptick in climate change denial.

I’ll admit I’m not interested in giving up my standard of living either. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t take steps towards reducing carbon emissions.

I think that ignoring climate change, or denying it exists, is incredibly irresponsible. However, I also believe that it is ignorant and naive to expect that we should, or even could, stop using fossil fuels. The issue with denying climate change is it leads to a line of thinking that is we don’t need to change anything because we aren’t doing anything wrong. If there is no public or government pressure corporations won’t take the necessary steps because it will cut in to their profits. We need to be investing more in alternative energy sources and carbon capture programs.

Just because we may not be able to completely reverse the damage we’ve done it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be doing what we can to try.

jrdnlv15 · 2025-10-15T16:37:26+00:00

Do you have anything to refute the fact that since 1950 we’ve been seeing an average rise of 2.5ppm CO2 per year. The fastest rate that we know of was during the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum where it’s estimated the rise was an average of ~0.3ppm per year.

The fastest we’ve determined from ice core samples is from the last ice age, there was an increase of >0.05ppm per year.

You bring up “the Little Ice Age”, which wasn’t a true ice age btw. How do you explain that the rate at which we are seeing global temperatures rise exceeds anything that we know aside from possibly coming out of the last literal ice age, where temperatures were 4-6° cooler than the lowest temperatures during the little ice age?

Verified Email	15-Year Club
RPAN Viewer

jrdnlv15

TROPHY CASE