PM Justin Trudeau's Canada

[Northern Light]

Approximately 5B over 6 years for NORAD modernization being announced by Ottawa.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/anand-norad-radar-continental-defence-1.6494658

 

[Jonny5]

Tomorrow is Climate Action Incentive payment day.

This program was previously done through the CRA, but it was changed to direct quarterly payments starting for this year. This payment is a double one as they didn't get the change approved in time to do it for March. Even as a single-person household, I am told I should get about $180. Some family households will collect up to $500. If you use direct deposit with the CRA it should be in your back account by end of day tomorrow, if not first thing in the morning. If not, you will get a cheque from Canada Post. I heard they dropped off the cheques to Canada Post last night, so some will get their cheque tomorrow, the rest on Monday.

This is all because Ford wouldn't do a carbon tax and so the federal government had to bluntly impose one on Ontario which requires a rebate scheme to consumers. Same to Manitoba, Alberta, and Saskatchewan. The other six provinces do have a carbon tax, so they won't get payments tomorrow.

 

[kEiThZ]

This is all because Ford wouldn't do a carbon tax and so the federal government had to bluntly impose one on Ontario which requires a rebate scheme to consumers. Same to Manitoba, Alberta, and Saskatchewan. The other provinces do have a carbon tax, so they won't get payments tomorrow.

I honestly think the federal backstop is the best carbon price plan. I wouldn't trust the provinces to reinvest the proceeds properly. The rebates also substantially reduce opposition to carbon pricing.

 

[Jonny5]

This will be an interesting story to see play out.
Lots of long memories out there....

https://twitter.com/x/status/1547635091148402697

 

[Northern Light]

We normally sort Supreme Court cases for Canada into the federal political thread, so that's what I'll do with this one......

An interesting decision that I'm still mulling over this morning from the SCC in denying leave to appeal and ordering a new trial for a man charged with sexual assault.

The person in question had consensual sex with a partner, twice over the course of one evening.
The partner in the first instance, explicitly required condom-use.
And the accused complied.

In the second instance, there was, apparently, no additional spoken communication, and otherwise consensual sex occurred, except, the accused did not put on a condom.
The partner in this case, apparently presumed/understood that a condom was on, since it has been made clear earlier in the evening that that was a condition of the sex.
The accused, contended that at no time did he engage in fraud, or claim to be wearing a condom, and his partner clearly consented to the sex, only objecting after she realized he did not wear a condom.

The original trial judge dismissed the case based on an SCC precedent around condom use called R v. Hutchinson.

The Court of appeal disagreed and ordered a new trial; and the accused appealed that.

The SCC today, denied leave of appeal, thereby ordering a new trial.

The case in brief is here: https://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/cb/2022/39287-eng.aspx

The full judgement is here: https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/19458/index.do

All 9 judges agreed that a new trial was required, and I support that when you read up on the case.

But they split 5-4 on an important point of law, essentially whether 'fraud' in some form is a requirement of the case against the accused.
The majority deciding it was not a requirement, with the dissenters saying that it was, but that a new trail was required to ascertain the facts of the case.

 

[picard102]

Interesting, kind of like stealthing, but without the intentional act mid coitus.

 

[ShonTron]

We normally sort Supreme Court cases for Canada into the federal political thread, so that's what I'll do with this one......

An interesting decision that I'm still mulling over this morning from the SCC in denying leave to appeal and ordering a new trial for a man charged with sexual assault.

The person in question had consensual sex with a partner, twice over the course of one evening.
The partner in the first instance, explicitly required condom-use.
And the accused complied.

In the second instance, there was, apparently, no additional spoken communication, and otherwise consensual sex occurred, except, the accused did not put on a condom.
The partner in this case, apparently presumed/understood that a condom was on, since it has been made clear earlier in the evening that that was a condition of the sex.
The accused, contended that at no time did he engage in fraud, or claim to be wearing a condom, and his partner clearly consented to the sex, only objecting after she realized he did not wear a condom.

The original trial judge dismissed the case based on an SCC precedent around condom use called R v. Hutchinson.

The Court of appeal disagreed and ordered a new trial; and the accused appealed that.

The SCC today, denied leave of appeal, thereby ordering a new trial.

The case in brief is here: https://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/cb/2022/39287-eng.aspx

The full judgement is here: https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/19458/index.do

All 9 judges agreed that a new trial was required, and I support that when you read up on the case.

But they split 5-4 on an important point of law, essentially whether 'fraud' in some form is a requirement of the case against the accused.
The majority deciding it was not a requirement, with the dissenters saying that it was, but that a new trail was required to ascertain the facts of the case.

It was interesting. Some of the more conservative justices, like Wagner, were in the minority of a rare 5-4 SCC decision, but at least the law, and how they interpreted it, rather than pure ideology, led to the split.

 

[kEiThZ]

^ This probably explains this:

Sabrina Maddeaux: Pierre Poilievre is eating Jagmeet Singh's lunch

Younger Canadians stampede to the right

nationalpost.com

Poilievre may be a charlatan. But the LPC's almost pathological indifference to the economic plight of younger voters (particularly those who are out of poverty but still struggling) is going to bring about a reverse 2015, that makes Poilievre the next PM.

 

[afransen]

I hope PP is just feeding the base some red meat and will moderate his positions when he is leader. Feels like on some files Canada is going to be going from ditch to ditch every time government changes, particularly climate policy and carbon pricing. Industry wants stability more than anything as they are making investment decisions.

 

[kEiThZ]

I hope PP is just feeding the base some red meat and will moderate his positions when he is leader.

Doubtful. He seems like a true believer to me. It's going to be ironic when he trashes climate policy only to then see further turmoil in investment. But that's how populists roll.

 

[Northern Light]

^ This probably explains this:

Sabrina Maddeaux: Pierre Poilievre is eating Jagmeet Singh's lunch

Younger Canadians stampede to the right

nationalpost.com

Poilievre may be a charlatan. But the LPC's almost pathological indifference to the economic plight of younger voters (particularly those who are out of poverty but still struggling) is going to bring about a reverse 2015, that makes Poilievre the next PM.

Inducing a massive housing correction aside; I think the Libs have had some potential policy winners with younger voters, but they've been slow to deliver on those.

The commitment to cut cell phone /internet bills was one that would resonate well. The truth is getting there in the short-term is not a free-market play, its a regulatory play. Both in forcing more competition into the market
and in re-regulating prices, at least for entry-level packages.

But ultimately, the Libs have gone nowhere fast on that commitment.

***

On wages, the private market is starting to drive those up w/the current labour shortage, but the Libs by increasing immigration and foreign student targets are both adding near-term pressure to the housing market, while reducing pressure
on employers to raise wages.

To be clear, I'm not at all opposed to immigration or foreign students, my point being that if you increase labour supply you drive down wages and then require other action if you want to support wages; just as with housing;
if you increase demand, and the market can't or won't meet that with adequate supply a policy/expenditure intervention is required.

Childcare, which got pushed, is not a bad policy, but its one that primarily benefits Canadians in the 30-45 age group, which the Libs aren't shedding any voters in.

They need to put something substantive in the window for the under 30 set.

 

[kEiThZ]

Childcare and lower cellphone bills are nice and all. But not going to do much if you takes you 27 years to save for a downpayment in the GTA (a real stat from a G&M podcast I listened to recently). Housing is literally the crisis of everything. It's a major contributor to inequality. It's a major contributor to lagging productivity. It's a major contributor to homelessness. It's the reason people are getting married later and having fewer kids. Etc.

The housing theory of everything - Works in Progress

Western housing shortages do not just prevent many from ever affording their own home. They also drive inequality, climate change, low productivity growth, obesity, and even falling fertility rates.

www.worksinprogress.co

The token announcements they make of 100 affordable homes in Middle-Of-Nowhere, Atlantic Canada are starting to feel more like trolling than policy at this point. And I think young people feel this.

 

[Northern Light]

Childcare and lower cellphone bills are nice and all. But not going to do much if you takes you 27 years to save for a downpayment in the GTA (a real stat from a G&M podcast I listened to recently). Housing is literally the crisis of everything. It's a major contributor to inequality. It's a major contributor to lagging productivity. It's a major contributor to homelessness. It's the reason people are getting married later and having fewer kids. Etc.

The housing theory of everything - Works in Progress

Western housing shortages do not just prevent many from ever affording their own home. They also drive inequality, climate change, low productivity growth, obesity, and even falling fertility rates.

www.worksinprogress.co

The token announcements they make of 100 affordable homes in Middle-Of-Nowhere, Atlantic Canada are starting to feel more like trolling than policy at this point. And I think young people feel this.

I don't disagree.

Though, fully correcting the market with any haste, while hugely popular with buyers and the young, will go over like a lead balloon for everyone else.

(I'd still be in favour); even now, with current Interest rate moves, we may see a correction on the order of ~10-20% and that will put a lot of recent buyers under water if they have short-term/variable mortgages.

That will be a political challenge for any party.

Building more housing is an answer, but the lag time on delivery is a problem, the remaining alternative, as noted, is raising incomes. Most people will like that, give or take some inflationary pressures; but business may be less enthused.

Again, I'm pro shrinking the labour supply to some degree; in the short-term, in some sectors; and raising the minimum wage, substantially.

Though, the latter is largely a provincial matter.

 

[kEiThZ]

That will be a political challenge for any party.

Sure. But when you're in office, you wear it.

And the federal government does own several levers that impact housing affordability. From controlling capital inflows into the country (we're now one of the world's destinations for money laundering aka snow washing), to setting immigration targets, to setting CMHC policy, to fiscal policies and social programs. So young people aren't entirely misplaced in their antipathy against this government's policies. It is a real contributor to their hardships.

I just wish the Liberals would snap out of it and get moving. They keep plodding along and putting up milquetoast incremental policies. They are giving off strong Wynne Liberal vibes. She just didn't understand how angry the middle class was either. And right now, I would expect a similar result. Especially if the coming recession comes down harder on Millennials, right as they reach high voter participation age.

 

[afransen]

Not sure what is in federal jurisdiction and would have a meaningful impact on affordability other than strongly curtailing lending and trying to nuke the housing market, which would be incredibly unpopular.

It baffles me that Doug was just re-elected and completely skated on the issue of housing affordability when arguably the province has a much larger role to play in supply.