So, how do we promote or jump start the kind of discussion we need to have in a political environment where we seem most focussed on anger and tribalism? And when it seems logical to devote most of our attention to the threat we face from the South. The shift in polls, for example, seems to have been predicated almost entirely on moving away from one leader who many had come to dislike not on a sense of the policies either party represented. In fact, if you listed out 100 key policy proposals for each party (to the extent that you could find them with reasonable detail), it is likely that the policies linked to the guy we all wanted to get rid of would be more popular. And there is also an argument to be made that the poll shift reflects our discomfort with the personality and style of the alternative rather than our belief in policy alternatives being proposed.
And like it or not, even if we humans try to look at policy issues, we tend to do so only veneer deep. And this is understandable since so many of us are focussed on making it through the day, week, month with a myriad of other stresses and preoccupations.
Good questions. PP has used the Trump-i-an populist approach. Stirs-up emotions, avoids thinking about policies. He's likely to continue this. Frankly, listening to an adult (Carney) speak and discuss real challenges/ideas is refreshing and the work Charlie Angus is doing to rally the patriotism in Canadians to push-back on Trump is motivating Canadians to be more aware. PP will have a difficult time shedding his Maple-MEGA persona/behaviour. His lack of maturity and depth will be even more apparent by contrast to Carney.
If Carney gets a majority, the Libs will remember their recent near-death experience for all of a week or so - 2 weeks max. Their level of arrogance will be at an historic high by the end of their first parliamentary session.
I have left this in a letter to a maritime. This is what many want in coastal Nova Scotia.
Foremost, new legislation that prevents foreigners from owning any aspect of the fisheries in Canada.
I sent this in to Substacks this morning.
A Letter from a Maritimer invites a maritime-centric response. We reside in Nova Scotia in coastal communities.
There are so many challenges within the fisheries, the latest being threats of two levels of tariffs against seafood, one being from the United States and one from China, and that is just the overlay of fundamental issues that have yet not been solved or brought to resolution. The current crisis only highlights our vulnerability in the supply chain as it pertains to the fisheries.
We do need new friends and new partnerships.
There’s the issue of a finalization of what it means for First Nations to Fish a Moderate Livelihood. A December 12 court case, and while I don’t know the outcome of that point in time specifically, my understanding is that on the first nation’s (FN) side, time has been given for more deliberation and some might posit more manipulation of what needs to be a finalization. I don’t think we can rely on politicians as a veneer of decision-making. We need a judicial decision that must be adhered to by both FN and commercial fisherman. The commercial fisherman expect equal application of Canada‘s laws and under the current chaos St. Mary’s Bay, which is the lobster nursery of Canada is being raped and pillaged under the guise of a moderate livelihood fisheries, and has become instead a breeding ground for crime. This pulls in additional police presence, often too late. It’s costing taxpayer’s dollars to deal with the outcomes of crime, including violence, illegal drug activity, fear and insecurity in small communities being shaken to their core, all while putting a critical fishing resource in peril.
I think it’s extremely unfortunate that the truth of reconciliation process did not undergo a national conversation. While the parties at the table may be FN and the representative of the government of Canada, there are other stakeholders and much like the Meech Accord that came out of the conversation with Quebec, there should’ve been that dialogue.
With the perceived inertia of no finality to what a moderate livelihood means, commercial fisherman, feeling like they are hated by their government, with no finalization on the Martial decision, what continues to happen is a pitting of one social group against another in a critical resource called the fisheries, as well as associated communities. It’s become dangerous to be on the water. The enforcement side of DFO was not working for a period of time which only invited more criminal activity, more poaching of lobster, more poaching in the lucrative Elver fishery.
We require a review of the fisheries, a finalization of the Marshall decision most importantly, as we look to a new war cabinet being established for a new direction under the leadership of Mark Carney, the fisheries file must come under scrutiny, with an organizational review of the department of fisheries and oceans, including a change of Minister. Sentiments of despair and disgust continue over previous levels of corruption within the department. As it pertains to Elver fisheries, raising legislation to address poaching apparently is taking some 29 months to establish poaching as being illegal. Truth and faith in government process has been eroded, replaced with disgust and cynacism.
Under FSC and/or moderate livelihood, this has become a guise (for bad actors who are FN) for poaching and other illegal activity, the outcomes are traumatizing communities. People in our coastal communities, like the generations before them, have invested their lives and assets into the commercial fisheries. It is a terrible mess, and the outcome of no progress will result in social ills within the community, which will only escalate if the fisheries fail or stocks of species decline. A travesty and pox upon all of us, IF we do not steward our fisheries proactively into the future.
We must have a change from the top with the review of that ministry. There must be fair and equal application of the laws of Canada to all stakeholders.
A more fair and equitable of the fisheries, allowing younger generations opportunity to fish by dismantling quota would be a great start.
It’s a mess and coastal communities are suffering.
From healthcare to safety net programs to workplace regulations, Canada is closer to Europe (or Australia / New Zealand) than the United States. I think The Economist's cheeky idea of Canada joining the European Union should be prudently, thoroughly, and seriously considered.
As someone who does not have a political party affiliation, I would hope to see:
The Liberals recruiting candidates with proven track records in key government areas (health, economics, culture, etc). Public, non-profit and private sector people, just not career politicians, please.
The Conservatives should be creating a committee of notables (Harper, Manning, Ambrose, Armine Yalnizyan, Charest) who will advice Poilievre should he form government next (Polymarket gives him today a 60% chance)
The NDP telling voters the fact that they won't form government, but that they need a strong contingent of MPs to push whoever wins the election to create safety net programs for workers and families who will most definitively suffer economic harm through this period, as well as ensuring Indigenous rights are taking into consideration while fast-tracking big infrastructure projects.
I am done with those saying that we should be deferential to the current US Administration. Bullying should not be acceptable, and maybe in 2 years voters in the USA will stop this madness. In the meantime, we have to hang in there and plan for a new future... Maybe with Europe.
Are you suggesting that Poilievre, Harper, and Manning would have anything to add to a rational debate. They have proven themselves the vilest of creatures over and over. Manning, in particular, really but hate and divisiveness on steroids in Canada and Harper and Poilievre have continued his vile legacy. I have no more time for discussing anything they’d suggest than I do for any other Nazi ideologue.
Thanks for your comment, Ron. All I am suggesting is that based on the fact that the Conservative Party of Canada has, according to Polymarket today, a 59% odds in favour of forming the next government, the leader of the party will become Prime Minister and will need to navigate a complicated trade dispute.
You can pick a different group of conservative-leaning individuals with the experience to assist Mr. Poilievre, but parties tend to gravitate toward people who share their policy and political views. Danny Williams? Jason Kenney? Brad Wall? Allison Redford? Christy Clark? Pick your faves... Cheers!
The devil will be in the details, of course, but Carney recently signalled support for child care, dental care and pharmacare: https://www.makeusgreat.ca/p/mark-carney-and-the-future-of-canadas
That is great news!
"We must nonetheless fight for a country in which we commit to owing one another more" is a helluva line. Well said.
So, how do we promote or jump start the kind of discussion we need to have in a political environment where we seem most focussed on anger and tribalism? And when it seems logical to devote most of our attention to the threat we face from the South. The shift in polls, for example, seems to have been predicated almost entirely on moving away from one leader who many had come to dislike not on a sense of the policies either party represented. In fact, if you listed out 100 key policy proposals for each party (to the extent that you could find them with reasonable detail), it is likely that the policies linked to the guy we all wanted to get rid of would be more popular. And there is also an argument to be made that the poll shift reflects our discomfort with the personality and style of the alternative rather than our belief in policy alternatives being proposed.
And like it or not, even if we humans try to look at policy issues, we tend to do so only veneer deep. And this is understandable since so many of us are focussed on making it through the day, week, month with a myriad of other stresses and preoccupations.
Good questions. PP has used the Trump-i-an populist approach. Stirs-up emotions, avoids thinking about policies. He's likely to continue this. Frankly, listening to an adult (Carney) speak and discuss real challenges/ideas is refreshing and the work Charlie Angus is doing to rally the patriotism in Canadians to push-back on Trump is motivating Canadians to be more aware. PP will have a difficult time shedding his Maple-MEGA persona/behaviour. His lack of maturity and depth will be even more apparent by contrast to Carney.
If Carney gets a majority, the Libs will remember their recent near-death experience for all of a week or so - 2 weeks max. Their level of arrogance will be at an historic high by the end of their first parliamentary session.
I have left this in a letter to a maritime. This is what many want in coastal Nova Scotia.
Foremost, new legislation that prevents foreigners from owning any aspect of the fisheries in Canada.
I sent this in to Substacks this morning.
A Letter from a Maritimer invites a maritime-centric response. We reside in Nova Scotia in coastal communities.
There are so many challenges within the fisheries, the latest being threats of two levels of tariffs against seafood, one being from the United States and one from China, and that is just the overlay of fundamental issues that have yet not been solved or brought to resolution. The current crisis only highlights our vulnerability in the supply chain as it pertains to the fisheries.
We do need new friends and new partnerships.
There’s the issue of a finalization of what it means for First Nations to Fish a Moderate Livelihood. A December 12 court case, and while I don’t know the outcome of that point in time specifically, my understanding is that on the first nation’s (FN) side, time has been given for more deliberation and some might posit more manipulation of what needs to be a finalization. I don’t think we can rely on politicians as a veneer of decision-making. We need a judicial decision that must be adhered to by both FN and commercial fisherman. The commercial fisherman expect equal application of Canada‘s laws and under the current chaos St. Mary’s Bay, which is the lobster nursery of Canada is being raped and pillaged under the guise of a moderate livelihood fisheries, and has become instead a breeding ground for crime. This pulls in additional police presence, often too late. It’s costing taxpayer’s dollars to deal with the outcomes of crime, including violence, illegal drug activity, fear and insecurity in small communities being shaken to their core, all while putting a critical fishing resource in peril.
I think it’s extremely unfortunate that the truth of reconciliation process did not undergo a national conversation. While the parties at the table may be FN and the representative of the government of Canada, there are other stakeholders and much like the Meech Accord that came out of the conversation with Quebec, there should’ve been that dialogue.
With the perceived inertia of no finality to what a moderate livelihood means, commercial fisherman, feeling like they are hated by their government, with no finalization on the Martial decision, what continues to happen is a pitting of one social group against another in a critical resource called the fisheries, as well as associated communities. It’s become dangerous to be on the water. The enforcement side of DFO was not working for a period of time which only invited more criminal activity, more poaching of lobster, more poaching in the lucrative Elver fishery.
We require a review of the fisheries, a finalization of the Marshall decision most importantly, as we look to a new war cabinet being established for a new direction under the leadership of Mark Carney, the fisheries file must come under scrutiny, with an organizational review of the department of fisheries and oceans, including a change of Minister. Sentiments of despair and disgust continue over previous levels of corruption within the department. As it pertains to Elver fisheries, raising legislation to address poaching apparently is taking some 29 months to establish poaching as being illegal. Truth and faith in government process has been eroded, replaced with disgust and cynacism.
Under FSC and/or moderate livelihood, this has become a guise (for bad actors who are FN) for poaching and other illegal activity, the outcomes are traumatizing communities. People in our coastal communities, like the generations before them, have invested their lives and assets into the commercial fisheries. It is a terrible mess, and the outcome of no progress will result in social ills within the community, which will only escalate if the fisheries fail or stocks of species decline. A travesty and pox upon all of us, IF we do not steward our fisheries proactively into the future.
We must have a change from the top with the review of that ministry. There must be fair and equal application of the laws of Canada to all stakeholders.
A more fair and equitable of the fisheries, allowing younger generations opportunity to fish by dismantling quota would be a great start.
It’s a mess and coastal communities are suffering.
From healthcare to safety net programs to workplace regulations, Canada is closer to Europe (or Australia / New Zealand) than the United States. I think The Economist's cheeky idea of Canada joining the European Union should be prudently, thoroughly, and seriously considered.
As someone who does not have a political party affiliation, I would hope to see:
The Liberals recruiting candidates with proven track records in key government areas (health, economics, culture, etc). Public, non-profit and private sector people, just not career politicians, please.
The Conservatives should be creating a committee of notables (Harper, Manning, Ambrose, Armine Yalnizyan, Charest) who will advice Poilievre should he form government next (Polymarket gives him today a 60% chance)
The NDP telling voters the fact that they won't form government, but that they need a strong contingent of MPs to push whoever wins the election to create safety net programs for workers and families who will most definitively suffer economic harm through this period, as well as ensuring Indigenous rights are taking into consideration while fast-tracking big infrastructure projects.
I am done with those saying that we should be deferential to the current US Administration. Bullying should not be acceptable, and maybe in 2 years voters in the USA will stop this madness. In the meantime, we have to hang in there and plan for a new future... Maybe with Europe.
Are you suggesting that Poilievre, Harper, and Manning would have anything to add to a rational debate. They have proven themselves the vilest of creatures over and over. Manning, in particular, really but hate and divisiveness on steroids in Canada and Harper and Poilievre have continued his vile legacy. I have no more time for discussing anything they’d suggest than I do for any other Nazi ideologue.
Thanks for your comment, Ron. All I am suggesting is that based on the fact that the Conservative Party of Canada has, according to Polymarket today, a 59% odds in favour of forming the next government, the leader of the party will become Prime Minister and will need to navigate a complicated trade dispute.
You can pick a different group of conservative-leaning individuals with the experience to assist Mr. Poilievre, but parties tend to gravitate toward people who share their policy and political views. Danny Williams? Jason Kenney? Brad Wall? Allison Redford? Christy Clark? Pick your faves... Cheers!