3 ms·

There is absolutely no way he will be looked at as one of the better Canadian PMs.. By all accounts he will be looked at as one of the worst considering the po

There is absolutely no way he will be looked at as one of the better Canadian PMs.. By all accounts he will be looked at as one of the worst considering the position Canada was in at the start and end of his government. Inflation, unemployment, housing, homelessness, healthcare, crime, national unity, the overall economy. .. Just all of these things are significantly worse than 2015. With that being said I do think cannabis + child care were both wins... but like at what cost. Also feels like with cannabis all of society was already trending there seemed like a very easy win. Then with childcare it is a win but it is also complicated as many daycares have unenrolled from the program because it doesn't cover enough of the cost.

notevenremotely 2y ago
Half of those issues are provincial. Canadian politics is the Spiderman meme with local, provincial and federal governments all pointing their fingers at each other. If healthcare in your province sucks blame your Premier.
- joshlemer 2y ago
  It's more complicated than that. Technically healthcare is a provincial responsibility in the constitution but the feds bought their way into healthcare and regulate it through the Canada Health Act. The Feds cannot legally compel provinces to comply with the CHA but if they don't comply with it, they won't receive the federal health transfers which would essentially bankrupt the province. The province would still be getting taxed at the high federal rates, but without getting it back, to the tune of ~12% of total Provincial revenues. Coming at it from a separate angle, it would be quite a coincidence if it just so happened that every single province in the country, over decades, has had their healthcare systems failing in basically the same way with the same problems for end users, despite having totally different geographies, economies, even languages, run by all kinds of different provincial parties across the extremes of the political spectrum. The parsimonious explanation is that there's a systematic issue in Canadian Healthcare as it's defined or operates across the country.
  - notevenremotely 2y ago
    "Coming at it from a separate angle, it would be quite a coincidence if it just so happened that every single province in the country, over decades, has had their healthcare systems failing in basically the same way with the same problems for end users" It isn't though. These problems that are now being hard-felt in Toronto and Vancouver have plagued the Atlantic provinces for decades.
  - danbolt 2y ago
    > The parsimonious explanation is that there's a systematic issue in Canadian Healthcare as it's defined or operates across the country. There is! It’s because healthcare is expensive and 20th century social democracy is out of fashion. Your premier can increase expenditures by improving healthcare infrastructure, or simply kick the can down the road for the next government to deal with. Many voters don’t like taxes or debt, so the latter is an easier sell. Occasionally, the premier can roll a 20 on persuasion and suggest that it’s the Prime Minister’s problem too. Now, the Prime Minister could look to changing the CHA and increasing services/taxes, but it’s probably too much of a can of worms to attempt to fix in our current political climate.
adrr 2y ago
Unemployment during his term besides covid was at record lows and still below the historic average of 7.5%. https://www.statista.com/statistics/808294/unemployment-rate-in-canada/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/808294/unemployment-rate...
- loceng 2y ago
  He increased size of Federal government by 43% since 2015 - from Grok: "By March 31, 2024, the federal government's payroll included 367,772 employees, up from 257,034 in 2015." That's 110,738 new people on pay roll - but not that are actually productive for the economy, they are counted but are not the same as free market jobs - they're actually the opposite and a negative to the economy. This also doesn't account for the economic harm and suffocation to local Canadians already here struggling to find work, much of the work instead going to the millions of temporary foreign workers and those on student visas.
  - SirSavary 2y ago
    You’re conflating separate issues here—federal employment growth, economic productivity, and temporary foreign workers (TFWs)—in an attempt to overwhelm the conversation. First off, the claim of ‘millions of TFWs’ is pure hyperbole. TFWs currently make up around 4.1% of the workforce [1], or roughly 1.1M workers—not ‘millions.’ Ironically, if TFWs are such a large share of the workforce, the federal job increase (~110,000) seems even less significant by comparison. And it’s odd that Grok is used to cite federal employment numbers, but you conveniently ignore its data on TFWs or international students, who are key contributors to Canada’s economy. Cherry-picking data like this only distracts from the real issues. [1] https://www.statcan.gc.ca/o1/en/plus/7457-temporary-foreign-workers-canada-explained https://www.statcan.gc.ca/o1/en/plus/7457-temporary-foreign-...
    - loceng 2y ago
      I referenced TFW + student visas. Otherwise you missed my points of the economic harm of TFWs displacing Canadians already here looking for work but won't accept work The same "debate" is going on passionately in the US in regards to the H-1B program. Otherwise I'll avoid engaging further with you since you "cherrypicked" what you read of mine, and then you try to subtly demonize/put me down by claiming "in an attempt to overwhelm the conversation."

notevenremotely 2y ago

Half of those issues are provincial. Canadian politics is the Spiderman meme with local, provincial and federal governments all pointing their fingers at each other. If healthcare in your province sucks blame your Premier.

joshlemer 2y ago
It's more complicated than that. Technically healthcare is a provincial responsibility in the constitution but the feds bought their way into healthcare and regulate it through the Canada Health Act. The Feds cannot legally compel provinces to comply with the CHA but if they don't comply with it, they won't receive the federal health transfers which would essentially bankrupt the province. The province would still be getting taxed at the high federal rates, but without getting it back, to the tune of ~12% of total Provincial revenues. Coming at it from a separate angle, it would be quite a coincidence if it just so happened that every single province in the country, over decades, has had their healthcare systems failing in basically the same way with the same problems for end users, despite having totally different geographies, economies, even languages, run by all kinds of different provincial parties across the extremes of the political spectrum. The parsimonious explanation is that there's a systematic issue in Canadian Healthcare as it's defined or operates across the country.
- notevenremotely 2y ago
  "Coming at it from a separate angle, it would be quite a coincidence if it just so happened that every single province in the country, over decades, has had their healthcare systems failing in basically the same way with the same problems for end users" It isn't though. These problems that are now being hard-felt in Toronto and Vancouver have plagued the Atlantic provinces for decades.
- danbolt 2y ago
  > The parsimonious explanation is that there's a systematic issue in Canadian Healthcare as it's defined or operates across the country. There is! It’s because healthcare is expensive and 20th century social democracy is out of fashion. Your premier can increase expenditures by improving healthcare infrastructure, or simply kick the can down the road for the next government to deal with. Many voters don’t like taxes or debt, so the latter is an easier sell. Occasionally, the premier can roll a 20 on persuasion and suggest that it’s the Prime Minister’s problem too. Now, the Prime Minister could look to changing the CHA and increasing services/taxes, but it’s probably too much of a can of worms to attempt to fix in our current political climate.

adrr 2y ago

Unemployment during his term besides covid was at record lows and still below the historic average of 7.5%. https://www.statista.com/statistics/808294/unemployment-rate-in-canada/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/808294/unemployment-rate...

loceng 2y ago
He increased size of Federal government by 43% since 2015 - from Grok: "By March 31, 2024, the federal government's payroll included 367,772 employees, up from 257,034 in 2015." That's 110,738 new people on pay roll - but not that are actually productive for the economy, they are counted but are not the same as free market jobs - they're actually the opposite and a negative to the economy. This also doesn't account for the economic harm and suffocation to local Canadians already here struggling to find work, much of the work instead going to the millions of temporary foreign workers and those on student visas.
- SirSavary 2y ago
  You’re conflating separate issues here—federal employment growth, economic productivity, and temporary foreign workers (TFWs)—in an attempt to overwhelm the conversation. First off, the claim of ‘millions of TFWs’ is pure hyperbole. TFWs currently make up around 4.1% of the workforce [1], or roughly 1.1M workers—not ‘millions.’ Ironically, if TFWs are such a large share of the workforce, the federal job increase (~110,000) seems even less significant by comparison. And it’s odd that Grok is used to cite federal employment numbers, but you conveniently ignore its data on TFWs or international students, who are key contributors to Canada’s economy. Cherry-picking data like this only distracts from the real issues. [1] https://www.statcan.gc.ca/o1/en/plus/7457-temporary-foreign-workers-canada-explained https://www.statcan.gc.ca/o1/en/plus/7457-temporary-foreign-...
  - loceng 2y ago
    I referenced TFW + student visas. Otherwise you missed my points of the economic harm of TFWs displacing Canadians already here looking for work but won't accept work The same "debate" is going on passionately in the US in regards to the H-1B program. Otherwise I'll avoid engaging further with you since you "cherrypicked" what you read of mine, and then you try to subtly demonize/put me down by claiming "in an attempt to overwhelm the conversation."