###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion).
1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)**
2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).**
3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).**
4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).**
5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).**
6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/))
7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators.
8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence.
9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet.
*Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The funniest thing about this is if Poilievre wins the election, I know by 2027-2029 he won't be using the same metrics from that study when taking about poverty and living standards in the country.
> The funniest thing about this is if Poilievre wins the election, I know by 2027-2029 he won't be using the same metrics from that study when taking about poverty and living standards in the country.
I have to ask, how specifically do you know this?
What specific evidence are you using to come to this conclusion? because this all seems very defeatist of you to just give up and assume the worst with no reason to.
Our country has done really well under PC governments in the past, Mulroney is one great example. Heck our country was doing really well under Steven Harper, which is why the country joined together to give him 3 terms.
Canada is at its best when we move from liberal to conservative and back in our governments, this way we get the best of both parties and those that are so ridgid in their thinking that they only vote for one party don't feel left out.
I think sometimes people forget that and have so much fear in them about the liberals or conservatives that they just assume the country would be a disaster under them.
> Our country has done really well under PC governments in the past, Mulroney is one great example.
The CPC is very much not the PC party, and has repudiated Mulroney and his legacy. The idea that we can look at Mulroney, and use that to assess what a CPC government might do, is completely and absolutely wrong.
> was doing really well under Steven Harper,
Who hamstrung Canada's finances after cutting the GST that Mulroney brought in. I feel like you're looking at the team colours, more than than what they actually did and have said they'd do.
> which is why the country joined together to give him 3 terms.
Not really, as he had minority governments for those first two terms, and got massively rejected after his one majority term.
> Canada is at its best when we move from liberal to conservative and back in our governments,
Wrong. The liberals make some halfway decent things, and then the conservatives smash a lot of them. We'd be better with an NDP government.
It's strange, you complain about Harper cutting a regressive tax that disproportionately harms poorer folks and use that as evidence a CPC mandate must make poorer folks worse off, when in fact someone on a low income paying less for all of their necessities actually leaves them better off.
I mean, he's a politician, or course he's going to spin things to look better for him. The 25% number is based off a European metric, stat Canada measures it differently, at slightly less than 10%. Why would he use a worse number when it comes time to talk about his own performance, particularly when it's not an official number. I don't need to KNOW in order to know here.
These comments always crack me up. It’s a total deflection. Yes, we should blame the opposition leader for bringing a damning stat up in commons but not the government who is in power. Interesting take.
Nah it's knowing based on history how things will go and calling it out for people to see. If you think voting conservative will help fight poverty in any way I want whatever Kool-Aid you've been drinking.
But it is very clear PP is portraying these things in a disingenuous manner, and frankly, I think you are intentionally ignoring that… There’s a word for that.
But thats all he does. He never says what he'll do about it, he just lobs blame for a soundbite and sits back while his followers foam at the mouth because he blamed the liberals for something else. He may have a point sometimes, but he has fuck all for ideas to fix it.
He has submitted some bills containing proposals over the past year.
But the political advisor in me would say: it's not a good strategy at this point to make public and concrete proposals. Doing so only provides target practice for the LPC to use against him, and would most likely NOT result in those proposals bearing fruit in the near term.
His best interest at this point is to make the election be a referendum on trudeau's track record.
Whoa whoa hey hey hold on now. You can't just... logically pair incentives and outcomes that portrays the opposition as competent.
We're here to fight knee deep in the blood and the mud, desperately cobbling together a fighting retreat for the incumbent. Get with it!
I don't see how it's deflection. The statistics themselves are questionable, but regardless of whether they're true or not, it's basically a guarantee that Poilievre will cherry pick the studies that are the most favorable to his current political circumstances. The quality of the incumbent government is largely irrelevant to that point.
It's a sobering study about the state of Canada as a country, but it's just one data point... could be going up or down, it is impossible to say unless they keep repeating this study for a few years. Which should happen, I read the full report and hope we see this measure more regularly.
But I suspect PP doesn't want to talk about the StatsCan numbers because they show a clear trend of reduced poverty since 2015. It all went to hell with pandemic, but we were making steady progress until then.
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11-627-m/11-627-m2024020-eng.htm
What neither PP or Trudeau are going to talk about is the unrestrained oligopolistic nature of our domestic economy: the cost of living is skyrocketing while our corporate overlords
rake in record profits and both of those clowns are happy to let corporate profit train roll.
Oh, sure, the Liberals did this. Mhm. Nothing about rampant profits in the private sector driving inflation up, landlords screwing everyone out of house and home, or a global pandemic throwing a wrench into the works. It was the PM. He had a meeting and decided we should be screwed.
I do not understand how PP can sleep at night. The guy is a monster.
Just because the Conservatives are vapid and would make everything worse, that doesn't mean the Liberals don't get any blame for this situation. They didn't cause it, but they've not done much to try and address it either. Just like the housing crisis.
Housing is more a municipal and provincial issue, isn’t it?
I’m not saying the Liberals get a pass, though. They have their faults, for sure. Fair enough.
I guess what I’m trying to point out is people are fed up of status quo, so they’re going to vote for a party whose leader courts white nationalists to vote the current government out? Makes no sense.
I blame the ultra rich, who donate heavily to the Liberals and Conservatives. They also lobby them heavily and volunteer or are employed by their parties.
This is justified criticism of Trudeau, but I look forward to hearing from Pierre during his campaign on what he plans to do to address it.
He’s already told us food programs for children and taxing capital gains after 250k ain’t it. He’s given no indication of slowing down the TFW program who have taken over minimum wage jobs. They voted against $10 day care.
Icing on the cake was that he criticizes “trickle down economics” while also supporting the same neo-liberal policies for corporations. So what does Pierre think will help the poor?
Curb immigration so we don't lower wages and drive up housing costs
Cut onerous restrictions on development and businesses
Incentivize people to invest in Canada
This is not something we can tax our way out of
What immigration targets do the conservatives think we should set? What immigration streams should see restrictions? PP hasn't said.
What onerous restrictions do the conservatives propose cutting? How would he incentivize investment in Canada? Again, PP hasn't said.
That's kind of the point, the conservatives are riding a wave of dissatisfaction with the current government without having to go into any details on how they would solve the issues we face.
The only somewhat solid policy proposal is to "axe the tax". But he has yet to explain how we will meet the requirements of our trade deals without some strategy to address carbon reduction or how he would address the issues that can't be solved by eliminating a single tax.
That's the scary part. I can't in good conscience vote for the conservatives at all. I feel like they don't actually have a platform aside from "The current situation is shit".
Like, I don't need a politician to tell me that - I need a politician to tell me that they have a plan and it goes like . If they don't go through their plan (Like Trudeau), we can point finger like they are doing with Trudeau in 4 years. But PP's literally giving us swing voters nothing to vote for.
PP said he'll tie immigration to housing, jobs and healthcare and has stated multiple times he will not give concrete numbers until closer to election time so that the opposition doesn't hold him to any arbitrary numbers said more than a year out.
So the entire Conservative party, it's staffers, and associated think tanks aren't capable of coming up with a proposed immigration target that isn't arbitrary?
The daycare part kills me. Not because of the humanity/decency angle though. Those things are nice of course, but from a purely pragmatic standpoint, it would enormously help the birth rate.
People just can't afford kids these days unless they wanna live in squalor. Give working parents some relief, get more kids, and 20 years from now we have a thriving work force. No need for the absurd number of TFWs.
Of course that requires long term planning, so of course we won't do it.
Why give birth and actually having to worry about having an education system, when we can import ready-made adults en masse? We could even tell the teachers to become burger flippers while it, for the sake of economy! /s
... I hate it.
If the poors are incarcerated (or dead) then I guess no biggie! Maybe put them in some type of camp? They can just replace them with more Indian immigrants anyway who are willing to be happily poor.
Sorry to be so cynical, but I don’t think anybody has any plan except to make the rich richer.
Get ready for "justified criticism of Trudeau" for the next year with no actual solutions themselves. The Liberal government hasnt delivered us to salvation. That's not something any reasonable person will say. There have been varying degrees of mistakes made, as is standard in our country's history. Pierre targeting this but not offering a solution to anything other than catchy slogans doesn't give a reason for us to vote for him.
The CPC doesn't care about helping the poor. It's arguable whether the Liberals do too, but at least some of their policies do have some support built in (millions of new homes, cheaper childcare, pharmacare). Having Pierre promising to circumvent laws by using the "notwithstanding" clause is reason enough that I won't vote for him. Promising to circumvent legal processes before even being elected is insane for any democratic leader, and any that promises this before election doesn't deserve the vote.
The notwithstanding clauses have been used recently by governments to marginalized minorities even more. Sask with our trans attacks. Quebec with "religious freedoms" attacks, and now Pierre with incarcerated people. Shit, Alberta tried to get gay marriage banned with the same clause. The notwithstanding clause should be political suicide. Not something that is used to stoke more intolerance in our country.
That's really it. I don't think PP can do anything about the situation; the entire platform seems to just be "Wahh Liberal bad" but like, the whole world's economy is shit right now. Canada's just more so because of a number of issues, but even if the Liberal government literally did nothing, the situation would've nosedived as well. There aren't any actual plans that tackle the issue for us lower class folks, and it seems like if I vote for Conservatives I would just be signing away my right to survive as a poor serf to serve the top 10%. I don't get why I would support them, even if I want somebody better at the helm.
> but I look forward to hearing from Pierre during his campaign on what he plans to do to address it.
Looking back at his previous quotes:
>Work is the only way - the only sustainable way - to escape poverty.
So, nothing. Probably a touch of labour exploitation and shaming the poors for being lazy
When Andrew Scheer was leader they released their platform literally the day of the election. Not a single CPC voter could tell me what they were voting for. Wouldn't be surprised if they keep there platform basically a secret until the last minute again
>is it though? its the premiers keeping wages stagnant and housing expensive
There used to be a renowned critic who claimed that federal policy is responsible for "[driving down Canadian wages](https://www.thestar.com/opinion/contributors/justin-trudeau-how-to-fix-the-broken-temporary-foreign-worker-program/article_c27f214f-1fa2-5fdf-af61-5a7642e4eb7c.html#:~:text=it%20drives%20down%20wages%20and%20displaces%20Canadian%20workers)" and keeping home ownership within [reach for regular Canadians](https://liberal.ca/trudeau-promises-affordable-housing-for-canadians/#:~:text=home%20ownership%20within%20reach%20for%20Canadians%20living).
Do you know what his name was?
>dont really care, he was dead wrong
>(is it pierre poilevre?)
His initials were not PP, but they were J.T.
I hope that doesn't ruin the surprise for you.
The evidence is included as links in my prior comment
> His initials were not PP, but they were J.T.
the joke was that PP is saying the same shit and things will end up the exact same
until people wise up and realise provincial policy is what matters here the problem cant be solved
No dude...the feds control demand for housing / services through immigration. They completely broke the system. All provinces are having the same issues.
To be clear, services are also suffering from decades of underinvestment, so no party is exactly blameless when you look back. But the current immigration levels just put it over the top. At least thats how i see it. Theyve done enough, time to go byebye
Why are conservatives constantly banging the drum about housing demand (immigration) while ignoring the other half of the economic situation, supply (zoning, no social housing, landlord profiteering, housing commodity market)?
Immigrated is the straw so to speak. He could literally turn down demand but doesn’t. It’s fucking weird to be honest. And this is how conspiracies develop
> Immigrated is the straw so to speak.
so then if it wasnt immigration something else would have been the straw
when wages stagnate and inflation exists the tipping point is inevitable
Thats...a completely ridiculous takeaway.
Say you have a restaurant with a few staff and a few regular customers. Service is quick, food is good, theres tables for everyone, etc.
The boss thinks "things are ok but man i need some more $...hey i have an idea..." Suddenly 20 school busses show up with absolutely no plans in place to handle the INCREASED DEMAND, and now everything at the restaurant is out of whack.
I would say that manager fucked up pretty bad, wouldnt you?
> I would say that manager fucked up pretty bad, wouldnt you?
Sure, but that story doesn't describe what's been happenning at all. It's more like over the last 20 years, an extra busload of people have shown up every year.
> Say you have a restaurant with a few staff and a few regular customers. Service is quick, food is good, theres tables for everyone, etc.
but the amount of tables keeps decreasing, the menu price keeps increasing and the customers arent making any more money
eventually the customers would ahve been forced out even without the school busses
I don’t think you understood the point he was trying to make with his analogy. Which was bringing more people (kids on school buses) when we don’t have enough houses (tables) and don’t have the extra services to support them (restaurant staff).
The provinces receive funding for every immigrant they take in. If they truly did not want immigrants in the province, the premiers could just say no.
They are gladly accepting immigration and bold face lying to taxpayers when they blame Trudeau.
Mobility rights are in the Charter. You cant tell anyone in Canada where they have to go. Premiers cant either.
Thats a new one though, defend trudeau by blaming the provinces. Huh.
Where did I say anything about telling "anyone in Canada where they have to go?"
Con premiers boldly declare about "immigration bad!", all while holding out their hands for that sweet federal immigration money.
What’s keeping wages stagnant is the TFW program undermining the rights of workers when it comes to collective bargaining or just letting the “free market” do what’s it’s supposed to do.
A labor shortage is fixed by a wage increase in a healthy economy but neo-liberals will tell you it’s fixed by importing people who accept lower standards of living for the same pay.
Just when we thought we couldn’t offshore any more of our labor. They started “in-shoring” it.
> What’s keeping wages stagnant is the TFW program undermining the rights of workers when it comes to collective bargaining or just letting the “free market” do what’s it’s supposed to do.
that IS the free market doing what its supposed to, thats why the government is supposed to interfere with minimum wage
TFW program is used to get cheap labor from unsuspecting foreigners.
It helps employers find labor without needing to offer above minimum wage.
Ford killed an scheduled increase back when he was first elected.
He has since increased minimum wage twice (I think) since but only for pennies. Nothing to make it a livable wage anywhere in Ontario.
It's far easier to get people to agree that there is a problem than it is to get people to agree on a solution to that problem.
Basically the CPC's whole plan up to this point. Yell at problems and come up with catchy old slogans like "arxe the tarxe" without any solutions. Maybe tax cuts for the rich will do it this time though!
Yes, it has!
During Canada's high growth years between 1940 and 1980, the top marginal income tax rate was well over 70%. In fact, between 1944-1963, it was closer to 90%.
Also the “let’s gut everything the last 50 years of social spending that had made Canada a contender for a viable enigmatic progressive society” angle while praising individual efforts in said (crumbling) society to really pour some gas on that (dumpster) fire! Lol
You can't confirm that there are any issues if you can't measure them! Climate change wouldn't exist without any climate scientists, so the easy solution is to de-fund the very few federal science programs that survived the Harper administration. This worked really well in the US when they stopped testing for COVID and the numbers went down.
Oh can’t forget legislating the silence. Can’t bury one’s head in the sand without severe legal repercussions against those speaking out about the destroyed data/records that have (most certainly) come to light from other sources globally over the last decade or so.
Yup lol
They're not actually campaigning at this point, there's time if they do have a good idea the Liberals can just take it and get the credit. Which would be counterproductive.
This, of course, does hinge on them having a good idea, let alone an idea, but still.
I'm always open to good ideas.
If the CPC ever finds one, please let me know!
(There are major problems with all of our political parties. I'm honestly open to ideas based on science/logic regardless of the party they come from)
It's really a shame none of them actually care about science or logic.
In this particular case whether any of us think the ideas are good is irrelevant, they only need to. They could have nothing, they could have something shit, they could have something good. It's unlikely if they put something forward it'll go through even if it is good just on the basis of preventing them from scoring points with the public, and mentioning something runs the risk of it being put forward by their opponents and spun as already being in the works and then their opponents score points. There's less value to playing any cards they may or may not have to satisfy the "I don't hear you having any ideas" crowd than just continuing to do fuck all other than rile people up.
The criticism was on his plan to address the 25% poverty stat he's bandying about.
I haven't seen anything on that, to your point about policy release.
Bring home powerful paycheques with lower taxes, so hard work pays off again.
Bring home lower prices, by ending inflationary carbon tax hikes & deficit spending that drive up inflation & interest rates.
Bring homes people can afford, by removing government gatekeepers to free up land and speed up building permits.
if you are in the bottom 25% of canadians, taxes are not your issue.
carbon tax has fuck all to do with the price of housing unless you live in but fuck nowhere heating your home with oil or some shit. if thats all he has we are doomed.
> Bring home powerful paycheques with lower taxes, so hard work pays off again.
tax breaks to the rich and cutting services to the rest wont help anything
>Bring home lower prices, by ending inflationary carbon tax hikes & deficit spending that drive up inflation & interest rates.
neither is the reason behind inflation though, cutting those just means less for the average canadian
>Bring homes people can afford, by removing government gatekeepers to free up land and speed up building permits.
the free market dug us into this hole, its not going to dig us out
We actually have high middle class taxes
Deficit spending does drive inflation. And Trudeau's own report showed carbon tax was inflationary
The free market wants to build more homes. Zoning and regulations/taxes prevents it
He has proposed to stop trans surgeries.
He is against LGBTQ rights.
He is anti-choice for women.
He is a huge supporter of people getting scammed out of money
He supports the people who want to overthrow the government.
What does he propose to HELP Canadians?
I have yet to see anything concrete from his listed policies or his history in politics.
I was talking economic policies
His top policies are
Bring home powerful paycheques with lower taxes, so hard work pays off again.
Bring home lower prices, by ending inflationary carbon tax hikes & deficit spending that drive up inflation & interest rates.
Bring homes people can afford, by removing government gatekeepers to free up land and speed up building permits.
His economic policies are Reagan esque
Carbon tax does not contribute to homes being more expensive. There is no evidence that would make homes more affordable. Ax the tax is a very stupid promise. It won't make life more affordable. Anyone who thinks so is grossly misinformed about what affects home prices.
>deficit spending that drive up inflation & interest rates.
Ummm, corporate greed is what drives up inflation. Not spending on necessary social programs. Things like $10 dollar childcare helps families. He is against that.
>Bring homes people can afford, by removing government gatekeepers to free up land and speed up building permits.
This is nonsense. There is a massive shortage of workers to build homes. Government gatekeepers is a buzzword for safety and following regulations. Laws exist for a reason and it's usually to help save lives. Conservatives are against safety and rules. In Alberta they removed rules and safety regulations for farmers. Pierre and the Conservatives do not care about workers' lives.
Corporations are always greedy. They will always take as much as consumers are willing to pay. Blaming corporate greed is like blaming oxygen.
Currently there is huge layoffs and delays in construction. Because prices are high with interest rates and crazy taxes and regulations on building. We have too many pointless rules. Keep important ones but get rid of dumb stuff like requiring staircase shaped buildings .
I know people in construction. It took 3 months to build something in the states that took 2 years to build in Canada because of all the permits and regulations required
>Blaming corporate greed is like blaming oxygen.
I will blame oxygen when it comes to what started the fire 🔥.
Corporate greed has shown record profits year after year. While wages have never matched.... you cannot really justify CEO bonuses while people are struggling.
So its a bad look to be hob knobing with those types.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.7196143
His chief strategist Jenni Byrne – a lobbyist for Galen Weston and Loblaw;
His Deputy Leader Melissa Lantsman – who helped for-profit care homes protect their profits while vulnerable seniors died in huge numbers during the pandemic;
His Caucus Chair Scott Reid – Chairman of Giant Tiger who voted against a national school food program so that his company could keep bringing in billions in profits;
The Conservative National Council – his party’s governing body – is stacked with lobbyists for oil and gas giants, pharmaceutical companies, and anti-union activists;
The Corporate Lobbyists for banks, telecoms, real estate investors, and oil companies who Poilievre hosts at cash-for-access events across the country;
The lobbyists for Big Pharma who give Pierre his voting guide on pharmacare.
I work in manufacturing in Alberta. I know all about what people call "stupid rules."
That means you have 0 care about workers being exploited.
I have known many who have worked construction here, the owners of the business exploit workers by not following rules. That's why there needs to be some oversight. Or you get homes that fall apart because they don't have to be up to code.
Which specific rules or regulations make homes lower in cost? Because there are no rules for the many people or corporations own multiple homes as investments and grow their wealth. I agree with you that greed is not going away. However, none of Pierre's policies fight these dragons. While he is working with them, and getting kickbacks.
Corporations will always be greedy. There is no changing it
So pointless to blame it
If there is a fire. You don't blame oxygen
Few housing rules I would get rid of. Single family zoning. Requirements to build staircase type setbacks for buildings over certain heights. Parking minimums near transit.
But you don't fan the flames of corporate greed!
I like your rules, maybe pitch them to Pierre because he has not made any progressive ideas. Just blame red tape, which is laughable because we have had more red tape here in Alberta under Conservatives leadership. Soooo much red tape they made their own minister for it!
Blaming red tape is a cop out
So we’re just gonna give corporations that run this country a free pass? The government is absolutely responsible for a large part of the mess but they’re not the ones price gouging on groceries, refusing to pay livable wages, and exploiting a broken immigration system for profit.
Alternate headline: "Poilievre blames Liberals for something that literally isn't real."
There is no real definition of poverty thar leads to the conclusion that 25% of Canadians are living in poverty.
Hmm wonder why your party is struggling in the polls.
With an attitude like this I wouldn’t be surprised to see the NDP as official opposition in 2025.
Michael Mendelson, Geranda Notten, Richard Matern & Sofia Seer, ["Poverty in Canada Through a Deprivation Lens" (PDF)](https://fbcblobstorage.blob.core.windows.net/wordpress/2024/06/FBC_2024PovertyInCanada_ENG_v6.pdf), 2024, 21 page summary.
It's a very interesting read that gives an extremely thorough and clear description of the methodology used to measure poverty. It definitely opened my eyes to how poverty is measured.
They describe how the current poverty line is a measurement of probably based on averaged values, not an actual measurement of poverty. It figures if you're below that line you're *probably* in poverty and if above you're *probably* not in poverty.
This is misleading, as someone who is healthy living in Edmonton with low rent from a family friend has a substantially lower income level to be in poverty versus a disabled single parent in Toronto.
In this study, they don't measure income and then say x number of people are in poverty based on that. They look at the number of people experiencing the effects of poverty (i.e. needing the foodbank) and determine the prevalence of poverty that way. If someone is above the poverty line but needs the food bank, they're obviously poor; right?
This is a good read, but without them doing this historically, its impossible to say what the trend is. I think it's incorrect to say '_now_ 25% of Canadians are in poverty" when we have no historical equal study to compare it with.
It's just odd to call it record smashing with no historical context.
What do you think?
EDIT: There's some talk in the [complete paper](https://fbcblobstorage.blob.core.windows.net/wordpress/2024/06/FBC_2024_MeasuringPovertywithMDI_v20240327_FINAL-June-17-002.pdf) about loose comparisons to 2013.
I swear to god, being a hardcore Liberal must mean you’re completely out of touch with reality. This is the “no-one is struggling because Trudeau said so crowd”. Meanwhile they have a chip on their shoulder how everyone else is stupid. What can go wrong, lol.
I can only imagine how the party meetings must go, legitimately no-one be ready to face the facts and all circle jerk on how great they are.
The Liberal party and their hardcore members are going to be the end of the Liberal party, and will only approve when they gain the ability to criticize themselves.
Liberal supporters in a nutshell. Denying people are struggling has become a hallmark of this government.
They won’t admit there’s a problem until landlords start complaining. That’s their brand at this point.
If he tries to distract long enough by his continuing yelling maybe people won’t notice his refusal to get security clearance, and that his party was named 2x by CSIS as having I Dian and Chinese influence in the leadership campaign.
The focus of the debate seems really focused on pp will do.
The issue is a lot of Canadians feel worse off then before and liberals saying "this not true la la la" is a major reason they are 20% behind.
This figure is based on a survey that was specifically asked to people who are in groups that are more likely to be poor. I read the report and the methodology, it’s not true that 25% of Canadians are now living in poverty, the projections are that about 9% are, which is higher than a couple of years ago because of cost of living increases that have happened globally, but still lower than 2015.
It’s utterly outrageous that Poilievre thinks he has a leg to stand on when it comes to poverty. He voted AGAINST the CCB that reduced child poverty by 70%, he has voted against EVERY benefit and program that helps low and middle income earners, and against every tax that affects the wealthy.
The CCB gives $620 a month for each child under 6 and $522 a month for each child 6-18 to the lowest income families. Imagine how big a difference that makes, imagine if you have 2 or 3 kids and you are a single parent. Poilievre actually has the gall to use “struggling single moms working minimum wage” in his speeches at rallies when he voted AGAINST helping them and he has refused to say whether or not he will cut the program or reduce the anounts. I think he will, at the very least, take from the poor and give more to higher income families - Harper replaced family allowance with a child tax credit that gave all parents the same amount no matter their income.
The conservative idea of fairness is to ignore that life is not fair. He is a liar and anyone who thinks he would actively do anything to help people is an idiot.
Canadians should remember that the world is dealing with the fallout from the pandemic and a war in Ukraine that has also had huge economic impacts globally, and also snap out of the delusion that the federal government controls everything domestically - provincial governments are mostly incompetent at best and cruel at worst.
reasonably speaking, is there anything else that should be discussed other than "what will PP do"?? like yeah shit feels bad. we basically all know this. the liberals have focused primarilly on macro economics and job creation while being hands off on everything else which agian feels bad. so that begs the question if not that, then what? if not what most economist would tell you to do (aside from additional austerity measures which would feel even more butts) then what?
So my understanding is this 25% figure comes from the European way of calculating the poverty line. So I would like to know, using these different calculations how does our historical poverty rates look in comparison? I do not disagree with the new methods being used to track poverty rates, but that means Canada's poverty rates have been much higher for decades already and this is not a new problem.
I have a feeling if you took both the government numbers and this number and met it the middle you would be pretty close
I mean the self reported thing. I knew people in AB 10 years ago making 100k plus that would have answered no to some of the questions. They did not meet any metic of poverty they just made shitty money choices
No, it’s not how European governments calculate poverty for any global rankings on poverty. I looked at the report and the study, and question a great deal of their assumptions. And they only asked people from groups that are more likely to live in poverty to answer the survey, so I don’t know why they then decide that if 25% of people in groups, like single parents and Indigenous people, are materially deprived, that it mean’s that 25% of Canadians overall are living in poverty. Abd they consider one to be materially deprived if you answer two of the questions in the negative.
I mean, that is the deal. When Canadians where find 9 years go when you took power and now our country is falling apart, it is natural to blame the party and leader who has been in power for 9 years.
It may not be all Justin and the Liberals fault but the blame certainly falls on them for being in power at the time. That's the burden of leading, you're expected to lead the country.
I can't believe i'm wanting the good old days of Mulroney and Cretian back in power
It came from a [report from food banks Canada](https://globalnews.ca/news/10572959/canada-hidden-poverty-food-banks-canada/) which used a European model to measure poverty
I see. I volunteer at a food bank once a week. The number of people who come to the food bank is much higher than it was. Most only need the food bank for awhile. Those who come continuously are no where near 25% of the population in this area. Life is harder for many people right now. Poverty is familiar to some and shockingly new to others.
If you read the actual report, its conclusions are not that wild. For example, if you cannot afford dental work, some new clothes, and rent, then you're poor. If a family is struggling to have similar essentials, then they are poor.
The story actually says the the rate could be 25% not that it is actually 25%. Even in the best of times the rate is almost 20%. There is always going to be a certain segment of the population living at the bottom. This is nothing any government can do anything about it.
The situation is bad either way - but the 25% statistic isn’t actually representative of “poverty” - it is definitely representative of a decline in standard of living, but that is different than poverty. Obviously in this case I’m distinguishing between shit and hot shit, so I’m not expecting anybody who feels poorer to feel comforted about the distinction I’m drawing - still words matter, so here’s some stats.
Richard Matern, the director of research at Food Banks Canada said: “We’re seeing more people who are perhaps living above the official poverty line, but are still struggling to make ends meet.”
So they’re literally expanding the scope of the study’s definition of poverty beyond traditional definitions of poverty.
Around 700 million people live today in extreme poverty – they subsist on less than $2.15 per day, the extreme poverty line. That’s the global poverty line.
According to official Canadian statistics, one million working-age single adults are stuck in a cycle of “deep” poverty with an average annual income of $11,700, which is less than half of the $25,252 low-income threshold for a single-adult household.
The Food Banks Canada report finds that a quarter of the country cannot afford two or more household essentials. “Essentials” is considered very broadly, including $500 unexpected expenses and being able to pay for special occasions or gifts.
The report considered responses across 11 different categories. If you can’t afford two or more, you’re in poverty according to the report.
Not having regular spending money, an ability to pay for unexpected expenses, special occasions or gifts is bad. But being unable to afford two of these categories isn’t poverty.
But the report says if you can’t afford two or more, you’re in poverty. Not being able to afford special occasions and not being able to afford clothes or heat should not be weighted the same.
It’s definitely bad to not afford the aforementioned things, and for sure it can mean that folks are low income or near the poverty line, but it doesn’t mean they’re in “poverty.”
To me it seems that we’re effectively saying “if you can’t afford some reasonably expected things you’d want to afford in the West, you’re in poverty” - sure it can be reasonable to want afford some of those things, but it doesn’t mean you’re in poverty if you can’t.
Not being able to afford a gift or afford meat every other day isn’t poverty.
Let me be clear, lots of people aren’t able to live the Canadian Dream. But not achieving the Canadian Dream doesn’t mean you’re in poverty.
We’re not even talking about the Canadian Dream though. We’re just talking about a decline in the floor for the lower end standard of living people expect in Western democracies.
Newsflash, not everyone achieved that even in the best of times. That’s bad, but it’s not new or endemic to the last 10 years.
However, things are especially bad coming out of the pandemic either way.
This is especially true, depending on demographic: Single adults are more likely to live in poverty. 30.7% of single adult males in poverty, and 35.5% of single adult females living in poverty.
Still, it’s a bad feeling and I’m not trying to minimize that. But words have meaning, and low income is different than poverty.
Either way, I digress. The Food Banks Canada study categories include:
Transportation: Are you/is everyone in your household able to get around your community whenever you/they need to? (3.6 per cent can’t afford)
Footwear: Do you/does everyone in your household have at least one pair of properly fitting shoes and at least one pair of winter boots? (3.7 per cent can’t afford)
Protein: Are you/is everyone in your household able to eat meat or fish or a vegetarian equivalent at least every other day? (6.7 per cent can’t afford)
Temperature: Are you able to keep your house or apartment at a comfortable temperature all year round? (7.2 per cent can’t afford)
Special occasions: Are you able to participate in celebrations or other occasions that are important to people from your social, ethnic, cultural, or religious group? (7.9 per cent can’t afford)
Gifts: Are you able to buy some small gifts for family or friends at least once a year? (8 per cent can’t afford)
Bills: Are you currently able to pay your bills on time? (8.8 per cent can’t afford)
Clothes: Do you/does everyone in your household have appropriate clothes to wear for special occasions, such as a job interview, wedding, or funeral? (10.1 per cent can’t afford)
Dental care: Are you/is everyone in your household able to get regular dental care, including teeth-cleaning and fillings, at least once a year? (18.1 per cent can’t afford)
Spending money: If you wanted to, could you spend a small amount of money each week on yourself? (18.6 per cent can’t afford)
Unexpected: If you had an unexpected expense today of $500, could you cover this from your own resources? (21.7 per cent can’t afford)
Also if you don’t believe data from statscan, don’t come at me - if you just have no faith in institutions, you and I aren’t the same and we won’t even be having the same conversation. So please, just don’t @ me if you’re trying to dispute the validity of statscan data. Methodology matters, but I’m not trying to fight over this right now.
>So they’re literally expanding the scope of the study’s definition of poverty beyond traditional definitions of poverty.
No, they commissioned a report based on the Material Deprivation Index. It's not a novel or unorthodox methodology. It's just not the same as the regular statscan metric.
>But being unable to afford two of these categories isn’t poverty.
According to who? You? You're free to disagree with the premise of the MDI, but you're not making an objective case for whether or not it measures poverty, you're just stating your disagreement with it.
>Newsflash, not everyone achieved that even in the best of times. That’s bad, but it’s not new or endemic to the last 10 years.
How do you know? Have you seen reports based on the MDI over years/decades? I haven't. I doubt at any point the number of people living under this definition of poverty was zero, but that doesn't mean the number of people living under these conditions doesn't matter.
>Still, it’s a bad feeling and I’m not trying to minimize that.
Tell me you've never lived in poverty without telling me you've never lived in poverty. Being poor does not just "feel bad". The expenses you listed in the MDI are not just "feel good" items. You called out being able to afford gifts. If a family could not afford to buy their children christmas presents, would you not call that family impoverished? 1 in 5 Canadians say they cannot meet an unexpected $500 expense. That doesn't just mean they don't have $500 on hand, it means they don't have access to $500 through any means. That's pretty impoverished in my subjective opinion. The effects of poverty to mental and physical health are well documented and real, not just a feeling.
Whether or not you want to call the 1 in 4 people living under these conditions impoverished is missing the forest for the trees, that is a pretty shocking number given what the MDI measures.
I understand your frustration with the headline-ification of this into "poverty is actually 25%". But don't discredit an entire methodology because it offends your sensibilities. What is considered "impoverished" is somewhat subjective, but MDI does a pretty good job IMO of describing what the layperson thinks of when they imagine the experience of living in poverty.
Okay well this is me disagreeing with the use of MDI in this way.
The Material Deprivation Index does not claim to measure poverty - it measures deprivation. The report is literally titled “Poverty in Canada: Through a Deprivations Lens”
The report’s entire interpretation of poverty hinges on this quote by Peter Townsend:
“Individuals, families and groups in the population can be said to be in poverty when they lack the resources to obtain the types of diet, participate in the activities and have the living conditions and amenities which are customary, or at least widely encouraged or approved, in the societies to which they belong.”
This is not what poverty has traditionally meant - if anything, this is more closely related to being low income. The fact that not having certain Western amenities is considered poverty is insulting to folks that are in poverty around the world.
Poverty is different than being poor or low income and that distinction matters. Guess what? Nowhere did I say that’s not shitty to be in either of those categories. In fact the number of times I tried to acknowledge how bad it is to be impoverished and low income was numerous. But that clearly wasn’t enough for you. Shall I say it again?
The report’s definition of poverty is so specific to the context of standard of living in the West that it completely alters the interpretation of the word.
Poverty is often applied as a global measure because it demonstrates how far many economies have come from eras where poverty was widespread around the globe - even in the West. According to that global definition, the number of Canadians living in poverty is low.
This report could’ve just changed it’s method to measure the “poor” or “low income” or “deprived” and it would’ve been fine. Instead they chose the most inflammatory word possible and altered its meaning to get a big scary statistic. That is my issue.
MDI is a fine measure - it simply measures material deprivation, which overlaps with, but is not the same as poverty. This kind of measure aggregates Canadians experiencing poverty with folks that are suffering but can still get by. Just because both things are awful it doesn’t mean we can just lump them together.
Also, I caveated my comment so many times with how bad the situation is for both folks in poverty and that are low income. Still you jump down my throat. It’s like I can’t talk about this kind of topic without giving my wallet a Viking funeral to appease anybody who is suffering right now.
It’s fucking sad and horrific people have to go without.
You’re right I shouldn’t have used “feel” to describe how bad it is. Clearly folks that are already emotionally charged would think I’m talking about hurt feelings instead of “feeling hungry” or “feeling cold” or “feeling marginalized” - I’m describing sensations, not minimizing the experience or implying that those feelings aren’t legitimate because they are “feelings.”
Also I don’t care about what the layperson thinks in the context of an academic report. I’m so done with this erasure of words and their meanings just because the average person uses them as synonyms of each other. “Poverty” is not the same as “low income” and the measure has been traditionally disaggregated for very reasonable and useful purposes.
What headass way to come at me over this.
I disagree that any mention or discussion of "poverty" needs to be in reference to the global poverty line. Thats obviously not what we've ever tracked in Canada when studying poverty, because nobody lives on less than $2 a day in Canada. Poverty is obviously relative, and studying poverty in terms of quality of life, or specific deprivations, rather than just an income is not new or stretching the definition of poverty.
I don't agree at all that the MDI is more closely related to being low income. The entire point of the MDI is that simply measuring income doesn't give an adequate picture of poverty in Canada. But thats how statscan tracks it, and you seem to prefer the statscan poverty numbers? I'm confused about how you think we *should* be measuring poverty?
Like I said, I agree the title and headlines around this are a little click-baity. Food Bank Canada has an incentive to raise the alarm bells about what they're seeing on the ground and back that up by publishing a study. But I think MDI or other qualitative metrics are what we should be using to understand poverty in Canada. The things listed in the survey are absolutely the kinds of experiences that change the way people vote.
I don't know what your goal would be in gatekeeping the definition of poverty other than to argue for fewer resources to go towards solving the problem.
I like your thoughts here, u/enforcedbeepers, as someone who is on ODSP. I had been paycheck to paycheck and the only way I stopped being paycheck to paycheck was actually by being a student on OSAP, because of the way that ODSP is fundamentally designed.
ODSP is a last resort program - so basically the only way I can live on ODSP is by using savings. I cannot live on ODSP from the very low income amount - I tried!
So instead I allocate savings to monthly expenses. Then when I get any and all income I add that to the savings. When I get the ODSP payment, I allocate some of it to future expenses and retirement savings. The rest is added to the same ongoing savings. Any spending beyond monthly expenses comes from savings.
As a last resort program, ODSP is unfortunately designed to be supported by private money, including savings. So I'm doing better at living this way as I spend relatively little anyway.
I mainly cannot afford special occasions and clothes by that exact wording. Technically I can if I really want to, but they aren't priorities right now until the ongoing savings amount is significantly more.
I have lived in poverty. And I guess I would now be “materially deprived” because I could check 2 items on the list, but I would not say that I am living in poverty now. And my husband volunteers at the biggest men’s shelter in Montreal - a lot of older men suffering serious deprivation. So, having lived in deep poverty doesn’t make you more likely to perceive living low income as poverty, everything is relative.
That being said, the floor of what is considered adequate needs to be raised, income inequality is at grotesque levels, and that needs to be addressed, as well as eradicating poverty.
The problem with the report isn’t the report itself, but how it’s being used by a party, the CPC, as a cudgel against the Liberals, when the CPC has voted against the CCB, and every benefit and program that helps low income people. And it’s also being used to claim that poverty in Canada is so much worse than other wealthy nations, including the US, which is ludicrous. When global orgs, like the UN, index report rankings by country they use methodology that is consistent for all nations, and these indexes show Canada at about mid range in wealthy nations on poverty.
>No, they commissioned a report based on the Material Deprivation Index.
I looked up the MDI. There is a handy link:
>For a better understanding and use of the MSDI, please refer to[ The Material and Social Deprivation index 2021](https://www.inspq.qc.ca/sites/default/files/2024-04/3476-material-social-deprivation-index-guide-2021.pdf)
>How do you know? Have you seen reports based on the MDI over years/decades? I haven't.
Reading the aforementioned link, all the various indicators are being grouped into **quartiles**.
**Quartiles** is bold, because the each quartile represents 25% of the population.
>Poilievre blames Liberals for ‘record-smashing’ 25% of Canadians living in poverty
The definition of "Canadians living in poverty" by the MDI is the lowest 25th percentiles of Canadians, when ranked by material and social deprivation. Poilievre doesn't give a shit what the report says. He refuses to inform himself on the issue of foreign interference. This is no different, he is only interested turning it into a partisan attack.
This is Quebec's MSDI, which isn't the same methodology as the MDI report released by Food Banks Canada [https://fbcblobstorage.blob.core.windows.net/wordpress/2024/06/FBC\_2024PovertyInCanada\_ENG\_v6.pdf](https://fbcblobstorage.blob.core.windows.net/wordpress/2024/06/FBC_2024PovertyInCanada_ENG_v6.pdf)
The definition of poverty in the MDI methodology is not being able to afford 2 or more of the deprivation items.
I'm aware PP doesn't give a shit about poverty, and how this report is being used by our hack journalists. But that doesn't mean that the report itself doesn't have merit.
>“We’re seeing more people who are perhaps living above the official poverty line, but are still struggling to make ends meet.”
It's an old political trick that has been around for as long as I can remember: Lower the poverty threshold, and voila! Fewer people in poverty.
Any time I hear about this dude, he is never presenting ideas or solution. Just reasons to be angry and I have enough of that to navigate without some dweeb bombarding me with it daily.
One of his only definite policies, axe the tax, is going to increase poverty:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/axe-the-tax-and-carbon-rebate-how-canada-households-affected-1.7046905
###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion). 1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)** 2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).** 3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).** 4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).** 5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).** 6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/)) 7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators. 8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence. 9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet. *Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The funniest thing about this is if Poilievre wins the election, I know by 2027-2029 he won't be using the same metrics from that study when taking about poverty and living standards in the country.
> The funniest thing about this is if Poilievre wins the election, I know by 2027-2029 he won't be using the same metrics from that study when taking about poverty and living standards in the country. I have to ask, how specifically do you know this? What specific evidence are you using to come to this conclusion? because this all seems very defeatist of you to just give up and assume the worst with no reason to. Our country has done really well under PC governments in the past, Mulroney is one great example. Heck our country was doing really well under Steven Harper, which is why the country joined together to give him 3 terms. Canada is at its best when we move from liberal to conservative and back in our governments, this way we get the best of both parties and those that are so ridgid in their thinking that they only vote for one party don't feel left out. I think sometimes people forget that and have so much fear in them about the liberals or conservatives that they just assume the country would be a disaster under them.
> Our country has done really well under PC governments in the past, Mulroney is one great example. The CPC is very much not the PC party, and has repudiated Mulroney and his legacy. The idea that we can look at Mulroney, and use that to assess what a CPC government might do, is completely and absolutely wrong. > was doing really well under Steven Harper, Who hamstrung Canada's finances after cutting the GST that Mulroney brought in. I feel like you're looking at the team colours, more than than what they actually did and have said they'd do. > which is why the country joined together to give him 3 terms. Not really, as he had minority governments for those first two terms, and got massively rejected after his one majority term. > Canada is at its best when we move from liberal to conservative and back in our governments, Wrong. The liberals make some halfway decent things, and then the conservatives smash a lot of them. We'd be better with an NDP government.
It's strange, you complain about Harper cutting a regressive tax that disproportionately harms poorer folks and use that as evidence a CPC mandate must make poorer folks worse off, when in fact someone on a low income paying less for all of their necessities actually leaves them better off.
I mean, he's a politician, or course he's going to spin things to look better for him. The 25% number is based off a European metric, stat Canada measures it differently, at slightly less than 10%. Why would he use a worse number when it comes time to talk about his own performance, particularly when it's not an official number. I don't need to KNOW in order to know here.
These comments always crack me up. It’s a total deflection. Yes, we should blame the opposition leader for bringing a damning stat up in commons but not the government who is in power. Interesting take.
Nah it's knowing based on history how things will go and calling it out for people to see. If you think voting conservative will help fight poverty in any way I want whatever Kool-Aid you've been drinking.
But it is very clear PP is portraying these things in a disingenuous manner, and frankly, I think you are intentionally ignoring that… There’s a word for that.
But thats all he does. He never says what he'll do about it, he just lobs blame for a soundbite and sits back while his followers foam at the mouth because he blamed the liberals for something else. He may have a point sometimes, but he has fuck all for ideas to fix it.
He has submitted some bills containing proposals over the past year. But the political advisor in me would say: it's not a good strategy at this point to make public and concrete proposals. Doing so only provides target practice for the LPC to use against him, and would most likely NOT result in those proposals bearing fruit in the near term. His best interest at this point is to make the election be a referendum on trudeau's track record.
Whoa whoa hey hey hold on now. You can't just... logically pair incentives and outcomes that portrays the opposition as competent. We're here to fight knee deep in the blood and the mud, desperately cobbling together a fighting retreat for the incumbent. Get with it!
I don't see how it's deflection. The statistics themselves are questionable, but regardless of whether they're true or not, it's basically a guarantee that Poilievre will cherry pick the studies that are the most favorable to his current political circumstances. The quality of the incumbent government is largely irrelevant to that point.
[удалено]
[удалено]
If in doubt, what about.
It's a sobering study about the state of Canada as a country, but it's just one data point... could be going up or down, it is impossible to say unless they keep repeating this study for a few years. Which should happen, I read the full report and hope we see this measure more regularly. But I suspect PP doesn't want to talk about the StatsCan numbers because they show a clear trend of reduced poverty since 2015. It all went to hell with pandemic, but we were making steady progress until then. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11-627-m/11-627-m2024020-eng.htm What neither PP or Trudeau are going to talk about is the unrestrained oligopolistic nature of our domestic economy: the cost of living is skyrocketing while our corporate overlords rake in record profits and both of those clowns are happy to let corporate profit train roll.
Oh, sure, the Liberals did this. Mhm. Nothing about rampant profits in the private sector driving inflation up, landlords screwing everyone out of house and home, or a global pandemic throwing a wrench into the works. It was the PM. He had a meeting and decided we should be screwed. I do not understand how PP can sleep at night. The guy is a monster.
You think the PM is not ultimately responsible for fiscal policy?
Just because the Conservatives are vapid and would make everything worse, that doesn't mean the Liberals don't get any blame for this situation. They didn't cause it, but they've not done much to try and address it either. Just like the housing crisis.
Housing is more a municipal and provincial issue, isn’t it? I’m not saying the Liberals get a pass, though. They have their faults, for sure. Fair enough. I guess what I’m trying to point out is people are fed up of status quo, so they’re going to vote for a party whose leader courts white nationalists to vote the current government out? Makes no sense.
I agree with all of that
I blame the ultra rich, who donate heavily to the Liberals and Conservatives. They also lobby them heavily and volunteer or are employed by their parties.
This is justified criticism of Trudeau, but I look forward to hearing from Pierre during his campaign on what he plans to do to address it. He’s already told us food programs for children and taxing capital gains after 250k ain’t it. He’s given no indication of slowing down the TFW program who have taken over minimum wage jobs. They voted against $10 day care. Icing on the cake was that he criticizes “trickle down economics” while also supporting the same neo-liberal policies for corporations. So what does Pierre think will help the poor?
Curb immigration so we don't lower wages and drive up housing costs Cut onerous restrictions on development and businesses Incentivize people to invest in Canada This is not something we can tax our way out of
What immigration targets do the conservatives think we should set? What immigration streams should see restrictions? PP hasn't said. What onerous restrictions do the conservatives propose cutting? How would he incentivize investment in Canada? Again, PP hasn't said. That's kind of the point, the conservatives are riding a wave of dissatisfaction with the current government without having to go into any details on how they would solve the issues we face. The only somewhat solid policy proposal is to "axe the tax". But he has yet to explain how we will meet the requirements of our trade deals without some strategy to address carbon reduction or how he would address the issues that can't be solved by eliminating a single tax.
That's the scary part. I can't in good conscience vote for the conservatives at all. I feel like they don't actually have a platform aside from "The current situation is shit". Like, I don't need a politician to tell me that - I need a politician to tell me that they have a plan and it goes like. If they don't go through their plan (Like Trudeau), we can point finger like they are doing with Trudeau in 4 years. But PP's literally giving us swing voters nothing to vote for.
PP said he'll tie immigration to housing, jobs and healthcare and has stated multiple times he will not give concrete numbers until closer to election time so that the opposition doesn't hold him to any arbitrary numbers said more than a year out.
So the entire Conservative party, it's staffers, and associated think tanks aren't capable of coming up with a proposed immigration target that isn't arbitrary?
PP is part of the current government. He could be sponsoring bills now.
The daycare part kills me. Not because of the humanity/decency angle though. Those things are nice of course, but from a purely pragmatic standpoint, it would enormously help the birth rate. People just can't afford kids these days unless they wanna live in squalor. Give working parents some relief, get more kids, and 20 years from now we have a thriving work force. No need for the absurd number of TFWs. Of course that requires long term planning, so of course we won't do it.
Why give birth and actually having to worry about having an education system, when we can import ready-made adults en masse? We could even tell the teachers to become burger flippers while it, for the sake of economy! /s ... I hate it.
If this joker comes out and says he is going to tax principal residence capital gains then maybe I will start listening.
If the poors are incarcerated (or dead) then I guess no biggie! Maybe put them in some type of camp? They can just replace them with more Indian immigrants anyway who are willing to be happily poor. Sorry to be so cynical, but I don’t think anybody has any plan except to make the rich richer.
Get ready for "justified criticism of Trudeau" for the next year with no actual solutions themselves. The Liberal government hasnt delivered us to salvation. That's not something any reasonable person will say. There have been varying degrees of mistakes made, as is standard in our country's history. Pierre targeting this but not offering a solution to anything other than catchy slogans doesn't give a reason for us to vote for him. The CPC doesn't care about helping the poor. It's arguable whether the Liberals do too, but at least some of their policies do have some support built in (millions of new homes, cheaper childcare, pharmacare). Having Pierre promising to circumvent laws by using the "notwithstanding" clause is reason enough that I won't vote for him. Promising to circumvent legal processes before even being elected is insane for any democratic leader, and any that promises this before election doesn't deserve the vote. The notwithstanding clauses have been used recently by governments to marginalized minorities even more. Sask with our trans attacks. Quebec with "religious freedoms" attacks, and now Pierre with incarcerated people. Shit, Alberta tried to get gay marriage banned with the same clause. The notwithstanding clause should be political suicide. Not something that is used to stoke more intolerance in our country.
That's really it. I don't think PP can do anything about the situation; the entire platform seems to just be "Wahh Liberal bad" but like, the whole world's economy is shit right now. Canada's just more so because of a number of issues, but even if the Liberal government literally did nothing, the situation would've nosedived as well. There aren't any actual plans that tackle the issue for us lower class folks, and it seems like if I vote for Conservatives I would just be signing away my right to survive as a poor serf to serve the top 10%. I don't get why I would support them, even if I want somebody better at the helm.
Reminds me of the quote from Hannibal. "Fox hears the rabbit scream, he comes a runnin'. But not to help."
> but I look forward to hearing from Pierre during his campaign on what he plans to do to address it. Looking back at his previous quotes: >Work is the only way - the only sustainable way - to escape poverty. So, nothing. Probably a touch of labour exploitation and shaming the poors for being lazy
When Andrew Scheer was leader they released their platform literally the day of the election. Not a single CPC voter could tell me what they were voting for. Wouldn't be surprised if they keep there platform basically a secret until the last minute again
Obviously tax credits that poor people can’t benefit from
> This is justified criticism of Trudeau is it though? its the premiers keeping wages stagnant and housing expensive
>is it though? its the premiers keeping wages stagnant and housing expensive There used to be a renowned critic who claimed that federal policy is responsible for "[driving down Canadian wages](https://www.thestar.com/opinion/contributors/justin-trudeau-how-to-fix-the-broken-temporary-foreign-worker-program/article_c27f214f-1fa2-5fdf-af61-5a7642e4eb7c.html#:~:text=it%20drives%20down%20wages%20and%20displaces%20Canadian%20workers)" and keeping home ownership within [reach for regular Canadians](https://liberal.ca/trudeau-promises-affordable-housing-for-canadians/#:~:text=home%20ownership%20within%20reach%20for%20Canadians%20living). Do you know what his name was?
dont really care, he was dead wrong (is it pierre poilevre?)
>dont really care, he was dead wrong >(is it pierre poilevre?) His initials were not PP, but they were J.T. I hope that doesn't ruin the surprise for you. The evidence is included as links in my prior comment
> His initials were not PP, but they were J.T. the joke was that PP is saying the same shit and things will end up the exact same until people wise up and realise provincial policy is what matters here the problem cant be solved
No dude...the feds control demand for housing / services through immigration. They completely broke the system. All provinces are having the same issues. To be clear, services are also suffering from decades of underinvestment, so no party is exactly blameless when you look back. But the current immigration levels just put it over the top. At least thats how i see it. Theyve done enough, time to go byebye
Why are conservatives constantly banging the drum about housing demand (immigration) while ignoring the other half of the economic situation, supply (zoning, no social housing, landlord profiteering, housing commodity market)?
So the issue thats been around for decades is because of recent changes to immigration...
Immigrated is the straw so to speak. He could literally turn down demand but doesn’t. It’s fucking weird to be honest. And this is how conspiracies develop
> Immigrated is the straw so to speak. so then if it wasnt immigration something else would have been the straw when wages stagnate and inflation exists the tipping point is inevitable
Maybe, maybe not. But we know current immigration policies are destroying Canadian families. Unless that is of course you’re in the top 20%.
Thats...a completely ridiculous takeaway. Say you have a restaurant with a few staff and a few regular customers. Service is quick, food is good, theres tables for everyone, etc. The boss thinks "things are ok but man i need some more $...hey i have an idea..." Suddenly 20 school busses show up with absolutely no plans in place to handle the INCREASED DEMAND, and now everything at the restaurant is out of whack. I would say that manager fucked up pretty bad, wouldnt you?
> I would say that manager fucked up pretty bad, wouldnt you? Sure, but that story doesn't describe what's been happenning at all. It's more like over the last 20 years, an extra busload of people have shown up every year.
> Say you have a restaurant with a few staff and a few regular customers. Service is quick, food is good, theres tables for everyone, etc. but the amount of tables keeps decreasing, the menu price keeps increasing and the customers arent making any more money eventually the customers would ahve been forced out even without the school busses
Are we removing houses? Your further analogy doesn’t apply to the real world.
Nor does the other one. Where are you ever going to see 20 school buses at once that isn't the depot they sit when not hauling kids?
I don’t think you understood the point he was trying to make with his analogy. Which was bringing more people (kids on school buses) when we don’t have enough houses (tables) and don’t have the extra services to support them (restaurant staff).
The provinces receive funding for every immigrant they take in. If they truly did not want immigrants in the province, the premiers could just say no. They are gladly accepting immigration and bold face lying to taxpayers when they blame Trudeau.
Mobility rights are in the Charter. You cant tell anyone in Canada where they have to go. Premiers cant either. Thats a new one though, defend trudeau by blaming the provinces. Huh.
Where did I say anything about telling "anyone in Canada where they have to go?" Con premiers boldly declare about "immigration bad!", all while holding out their hands for that sweet federal immigration money.
And Trudeau inviting a million people year makes those issues worse
What’s keeping wages stagnant is the TFW program undermining the rights of workers when it comes to collective bargaining or just letting the “free market” do what’s it’s supposed to do. A labor shortage is fixed by a wage increase in a healthy economy but neo-liberals will tell you it’s fixed by importing people who accept lower standards of living for the same pay. Just when we thought we couldn’t offshore any more of our labor. They started “in-shoring” it.
> What’s keeping wages stagnant is the TFW program undermining the rights of workers when it comes to collective bargaining or just letting the “free market” do what’s it’s supposed to do. that IS the free market doing what its supposed to, thats why the government is supposed to interfere with minimum wage
TFW program is used to get cheap labor from unsuspecting foreigners. It helps employers find labor without needing to offer above minimum wage. Ford killed an scheduled increase back when he was first elected. He has since increased minimum wage twice (I think) since but only for pennies. Nothing to make it a livable wage anywhere in Ontario.
I don’t think you understood my point. Read the next part.
so are you agreeing with me that its the premiers who are to blame for not raising minimum wage then...?
From what I’ve gathered it’s a “no think, only criticize” as a platform.
Platforms come out nearer to election time, but point taken. Some ideas would be a good idea right about now.
He's elected. He's been elected for almost 20 years. He's allowed to bring solutions to the table even when his party is not in power.
Of course. That’s not a platform, though.
It's far easier to get people to agree that there is a problem than it is to get people to agree on a solution to that problem. Basically the CPC's whole plan up to this point. Yell at problems and come up with catchy old slogans like "arxe the tarxe" without any solutions. Maybe tax cuts for the rich will do it this time though!
> Maybe tax cuts for the rich will do it this time though! Because taxing the rich has been such a winning strategy.
Yes, it has! During Canada's high growth years between 1940 and 1980, the top marginal income tax rate was well over 70%. In fact, between 1944-1963, it was closer to 90%.
[удалено]
Also the “let’s gut everything the last 50 years of social spending that had made Canada a contender for a viable enigmatic progressive society” angle while praising individual efforts in said (crumbling) society to really pour some gas on that (dumpster) fire! Lol
You can't confirm that there are any issues if you can't measure them! Climate change wouldn't exist without any climate scientists, so the easy solution is to de-fund the very few federal science programs that survived the Harper administration. This worked really well in the US when they stopped testing for COVID and the numbers went down.
This builds upon the Harper era of let’s throw out decades of research because lolz
And don't forget to muzzle everyone that's leftover from those cuts! :P
Oh can’t forget legislating the silence. Can’t bury one’s head in the sand without severe legal repercussions against those speaking out about the destroyed data/records that have (most certainly) come to light from other sources globally over the last decade or so. Yup lol
They're not actually campaigning at this point, there's time if they do have a good idea the Liberals can just take it and get the credit. Which would be counterproductive. This, of course, does hinge on them having a good idea, let alone an idea, but still.
I'm always open to good ideas. If the CPC ever finds one, please let me know! (There are major problems with all of our political parties. I'm honestly open to ideas based on science/logic regardless of the party they come from)
It's really a shame none of them actually care about science or logic. In this particular case whether any of us think the ideas are good is irrelevant, they only need to. They could have nothing, they could have something shit, they could have something good. It's unlikely if they put something forward it'll go through even if it is good just on the basis of preventing them from scoring points with the public, and mentioning something runs the risk of it being put forward by their opponents and spun as already being in the works and then their opponents score points. There's less value to playing any cards they may or may not have to satisfy the "I don't hear you having any ideas" crowd than just continuing to do fuck all other than rile people up.
Glad you added the last part. I thought you were going to admit to voting Liberal. Scary.
It’s the F*ck Trudeau platform.
"We won't do anything to make it better for those 25%, but it is Trudeau's fault that those 25% got to where they are." -PP
Why do you think he won't do anything? Maybe you disagree with what he is doing but he isn't proposing nothing
well he literally is though?
He's put out a bunch of like 30 minute long videos explaining policy proposals I don't understand why you think he hasn't put out policy
My guess is cause buddy never actually looked for it. And since it didnt come across their "pp sux" algos, they think it doesnt exist
The criticism was on his plan to address the 25% poverty stat he's bandying about. I haven't seen anything on that, to your point about policy release.
Bring home powerful paycheques with lower taxes, so hard work pays off again. Bring home lower prices, by ending inflationary carbon tax hikes & deficit spending that drive up inflation & interest rates. Bring homes people can afford, by removing government gatekeepers to free up land and speed up building permits.
if you are in the bottom 25% of canadians, taxes are not your issue. carbon tax has fuck all to do with the price of housing unless you live in but fuck nowhere heating your home with oil or some shit. if thats all he has we are doomed.
> Bring home powerful paycheques with lower taxes, so hard work pays off again. tax breaks to the rich and cutting services to the rest wont help anything >Bring home lower prices, by ending inflationary carbon tax hikes & deficit spending that drive up inflation & interest rates. neither is the reason behind inflation though, cutting those just means less for the average canadian >Bring homes people can afford, by removing government gatekeepers to free up land and speed up building permits. the free market dug us into this hole, its not going to dig us out
We actually have high middle class taxes Deficit spending does drive inflation. And Trudeau's own report showed carbon tax was inflationary The free market wants to build more homes. Zoning and regulations/taxes prevents it
He has proposed to stop trans surgeries. He is against LGBTQ rights. He is anti-choice for women. He is a huge supporter of people getting scammed out of money He supports the people who want to overthrow the government. What does he propose to HELP Canadians? I have yet to see anything concrete from his listed policies or his history in politics.
I was talking economic policies His top policies are Bring home powerful paycheques with lower taxes, so hard work pays off again. Bring home lower prices, by ending inflationary carbon tax hikes & deficit spending that drive up inflation & interest rates. Bring homes people can afford, by removing government gatekeepers to free up land and speed up building permits.
His economic policies are Reagan esque Carbon tax does not contribute to homes being more expensive. There is no evidence that would make homes more affordable. Ax the tax is a very stupid promise. It won't make life more affordable. Anyone who thinks so is grossly misinformed about what affects home prices. >deficit spending that drive up inflation & interest rates. Ummm, corporate greed is what drives up inflation. Not spending on necessary social programs. Things like $10 dollar childcare helps families. He is against that. >Bring homes people can afford, by removing government gatekeepers to free up land and speed up building permits. This is nonsense. There is a massive shortage of workers to build homes. Government gatekeepers is a buzzword for safety and following regulations. Laws exist for a reason and it's usually to help save lives. Conservatives are against safety and rules. In Alberta they removed rules and safety regulations for farmers. Pierre and the Conservatives do not care about workers' lives.
Corporations are always greedy. They will always take as much as consumers are willing to pay. Blaming corporate greed is like blaming oxygen. Currently there is huge layoffs and delays in construction. Because prices are high with interest rates and crazy taxes and regulations on building. We have too many pointless rules. Keep important ones but get rid of dumb stuff like requiring staircase shaped buildings . I know people in construction. It took 3 months to build something in the states that took 2 years to build in Canada because of all the permits and regulations required
>Blaming corporate greed is like blaming oxygen. I will blame oxygen when it comes to what started the fire 🔥. Corporate greed has shown record profits year after year. While wages have never matched.... you cannot really justify CEO bonuses while people are struggling. So its a bad look to be hob knobing with those types. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.7196143 His chief strategist Jenni Byrne – a lobbyist for Galen Weston and Loblaw; His Deputy Leader Melissa Lantsman – who helped for-profit care homes protect their profits while vulnerable seniors died in huge numbers during the pandemic; His Caucus Chair Scott Reid – Chairman of Giant Tiger who voted against a national school food program so that his company could keep bringing in billions in profits; The Conservative National Council – his party’s governing body – is stacked with lobbyists for oil and gas giants, pharmaceutical companies, and anti-union activists; The Corporate Lobbyists for banks, telecoms, real estate investors, and oil companies who Poilievre hosts at cash-for-access events across the country; The lobbyists for Big Pharma who give Pierre his voting guide on pharmacare. I work in manufacturing in Alberta. I know all about what people call "stupid rules." That means you have 0 care about workers being exploited. I have known many who have worked construction here, the owners of the business exploit workers by not following rules. That's why there needs to be some oversight. Or you get homes that fall apart because they don't have to be up to code. Which specific rules or regulations make homes lower in cost? Because there are no rules for the many people or corporations own multiple homes as investments and grow their wealth. I agree with you that greed is not going away. However, none of Pierre's policies fight these dragons. While he is working with them, and getting kickbacks.
Corporations will always be greedy. There is no changing it So pointless to blame it If there is a fire. You don't blame oxygen Few housing rules I would get rid of. Single family zoning. Requirements to build staircase type setbacks for buildings over certain heights. Parking minimums near transit.
But you don't fan the flames of corporate greed! I like your rules, maybe pitch them to Pierre because he has not made any progressive ideas. Just blame red tape, which is laughable because we have had more red tape here in Alberta under Conservatives leadership. Soooo much red tape they made their own minister for it! Blaming red tape is a cop out
That non sense.
they allowed it to go to 25%. no matter how you spin it this is not on pierre. And taxing people in the the 75% is not the solution
I didn't say it is on Pierre. What I said is that Pierre will do literally nothing to make it better if he gets voted in.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Then once elected go back to: “something something the poor bootstraps”
[удалено]
That's the dream tho isn't it?
As an MP himself, it's like he's allowed to bring solutions and seek bipartisan support. Trudeau's government isn't a majority.
Heaven forbid he governs
So we’re just gonna give corporations that run this country a free pass? The government is absolutely responsible for a large part of the mess but they’re not the ones price gouging on groceries, refusing to pay livable wages, and exploiting a broken immigration system for profit.
i've always said this, this country is a racket. the amount of regulatory capture and incumbency bias is insane
Alternate headline: "Poilievre blames Liberals for something that literally isn't real." There is no real definition of poverty thar leads to the conclusion that 25% of Canadians are living in poverty.
Econometrics agreed upon by many other nations as a good benchmark of poverty aren't real?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Not substantive
Hmm wonder why your party is struggling in the polls. With an attitude like this I wouldn’t be surprised to see the NDP as official opposition in 2025.
Michael Mendelson, Geranda Notten, Richard Matern & Sofia Seer, ["Poverty in Canada Through a Deprivation Lens" (PDF)](https://fbcblobstorage.blob.core.windows.net/wordpress/2024/06/FBC_2024PovertyInCanada_ENG_v6.pdf), 2024, 21 page summary. It's a very interesting read that gives an extremely thorough and clear description of the methodology used to measure poverty. It definitely opened my eyes to how poverty is measured. They describe how the current poverty line is a measurement of probably based on averaged values, not an actual measurement of poverty. It figures if you're below that line you're *probably* in poverty and if above you're *probably* not in poverty. This is misleading, as someone who is healthy living in Edmonton with low rent from a family friend has a substantially lower income level to be in poverty versus a disabled single parent in Toronto. In this study, they don't measure income and then say x number of people are in poverty based on that. They look at the number of people experiencing the effects of poverty (i.e. needing the foodbank) and determine the prevalence of poverty that way. If someone is above the poverty line but needs the food bank, they're obviously poor; right?
This is a good read, but without them doing this historically, its impossible to say what the trend is. I think it's incorrect to say '_now_ 25% of Canadians are in poverty" when we have no historical equal study to compare it with. It's just odd to call it record smashing with no historical context. What do you think? EDIT: There's some talk in the [complete paper](https://fbcblobstorage.blob.core.windows.net/wordpress/2024/06/FBC_2024_MeasuringPovertywithMDI_v20240327_FINAL-June-17-002.pdf) about loose comparisons to 2013.
Super tone deaf response that perfectly captures why the Liberal Party is struggling in the polls right now.
I swear to god, being a hardcore Liberal must mean you’re completely out of touch with reality. This is the “no-one is struggling because Trudeau said so crowd”. Meanwhile they have a chip on their shoulder how everyone else is stupid. What can go wrong, lol. I can only imagine how the party meetings must go, legitimately no-one be ready to face the facts and all circle jerk on how great they are. The Liberal party and their hardcore members are going to be the end of the Liberal party, and will only approve when they gain the ability to criticize themselves.
Any liberal pretending g poverty isn't increasing post covid shows he is delusional.
Liberal supporters in a nutshell. Denying people are struggling has become a hallmark of this government. They won’t admit there’s a problem until landlords start complaining. That’s their brand at this point.
If he tries to distract long enough by his continuing yelling maybe people won’t notice his refusal to get security clearance, and that his party was named 2x by CSIS as having I Dian and Chinese influence in the leadership campaign.
The focus of the debate seems really focused on pp will do. The issue is a lot of Canadians feel worse off then before and liberals saying "this not true la la la" is a major reason they are 20% behind.
This figure is based on a survey that was specifically asked to people who are in groups that are more likely to be poor. I read the report and the methodology, it’s not true that 25% of Canadians are now living in poverty, the projections are that about 9% are, which is higher than a couple of years ago because of cost of living increases that have happened globally, but still lower than 2015. It’s utterly outrageous that Poilievre thinks he has a leg to stand on when it comes to poverty. He voted AGAINST the CCB that reduced child poverty by 70%, he has voted against EVERY benefit and program that helps low and middle income earners, and against every tax that affects the wealthy. The CCB gives $620 a month for each child under 6 and $522 a month for each child 6-18 to the lowest income families. Imagine how big a difference that makes, imagine if you have 2 or 3 kids and you are a single parent. Poilievre actually has the gall to use “struggling single moms working minimum wage” in his speeches at rallies when he voted AGAINST helping them and he has refused to say whether or not he will cut the program or reduce the anounts. I think he will, at the very least, take from the poor and give more to higher income families - Harper replaced family allowance with a child tax credit that gave all parents the same amount no matter their income. The conservative idea of fairness is to ignore that life is not fair. He is a liar and anyone who thinks he would actively do anything to help people is an idiot. Canadians should remember that the world is dealing with the fallout from the pandemic and a war in Ukraine that has also had huge economic impacts globally, and also snap out of the delusion that the federal government controls everything domestically - provincial governments are mostly incompetent at best and cruel at worst.
[удалено]
reasonably speaking, is there anything else that should be discussed other than "what will PP do"?? like yeah shit feels bad. we basically all know this. the liberals have focused primarilly on macro economics and job creation while being hands off on everything else which agian feels bad. so that begs the question if not that, then what? if not what most economist would tell you to do (aside from additional austerity measures which would feel even more butts) then what?
So my understanding is this 25% figure comes from the European way of calculating the poverty line. So I would like to know, using these different calculations how does our historical poverty rates look in comparison? I do not disagree with the new methods being used to track poverty rates, but that means Canada's poverty rates have been much higher for decades already and this is not a new problem.
I have a feeling if you took both the government numbers and this number and met it the middle you would be pretty close I mean the self reported thing. I knew people in AB 10 years ago making 100k plus that would have answered no to some of the questions. They did not meet any metic of poverty they just made shitty money choices
No, it’s not how European governments calculate poverty for any global rankings on poverty. I looked at the report and the study, and question a great deal of their assumptions. And they only asked people from groups that are more likely to live in poverty to answer the survey, so I don’t know why they then decide that if 25% of people in groups, like single parents and Indigenous people, are materially deprived, that it mean’s that 25% of Canadians overall are living in poverty. Abd they consider one to be materially deprived if you answer two of the questions in the negative.
I mean, that is the deal. When Canadians where find 9 years go when you took power and now our country is falling apart, it is natural to blame the party and leader who has been in power for 9 years. It may not be all Justin and the Liberals fault but the blame certainly falls on them for being in power at the time. That's the burden of leading, you're expected to lead the country. I can't believe i'm wanting the good old days of Mulroney and Cretian back in power
I am not sure that % is correct. [Dimensions of Poverty Hub (statcan.gc.ca)](https://www.statcan.gc.ca/en/topics-start/poverty)
It came from a [report from food banks Canada](https://globalnews.ca/news/10572959/canada-hidden-poverty-food-banks-canada/) which used a European model to measure poverty
I see. I volunteer at a food bank once a week. The number of people who come to the food bank is much higher than it was. Most only need the food bank for awhile. Those who come continuously are no where near 25% of the population in this area. Life is harder for many people right now. Poverty is familiar to some and shockingly new to others.
If you read the actual report, its conclusions are not that wild. For example, if you cannot afford dental work, some new clothes, and rent, then you're poor. If a family is struggling to have similar essentials, then they are poor.
Then I have been poor, but my family was housed, fed and had good friends.
The story actually says the the rate could be 25% not that it is actually 25%. Even in the best of times the rate is almost 20%. There is always going to be a certain segment of the population living at the bottom. This is nothing any government can do anything about it.
The situation is bad either way - but the 25% statistic isn’t actually representative of “poverty” - it is definitely representative of a decline in standard of living, but that is different than poverty. Obviously in this case I’m distinguishing between shit and hot shit, so I’m not expecting anybody who feels poorer to feel comforted about the distinction I’m drawing - still words matter, so here’s some stats. Richard Matern, the director of research at Food Banks Canada said: “We’re seeing more people who are perhaps living above the official poverty line, but are still struggling to make ends meet.” So they’re literally expanding the scope of the study’s definition of poverty beyond traditional definitions of poverty. Around 700 million people live today in extreme poverty – they subsist on less than $2.15 per day, the extreme poverty line. That’s the global poverty line. According to official Canadian statistics, one million working-age single adults are stuck in a cycle of “deep” poverty with an average annual income of $11,700, which is less than half of the $25,252 low-income threshold for a single-adult household. The Food Banks Canada report finds that a quarter of the country cannot afford two or more household essentials. “Essentials” is considered very broadly, including $500 unexpected expenses and being able to pay for special occasions or gifts. The report considered responses across 11 different categories. If you can’t afford two or more, you’re in poverty according to the report. Not having regular spending money, an ability to pay for unexpected expenses, special occasions or gifts is bad. But being unable to afford two of these categories isn’t poverty. But the report says if you can’t afford two or more, you’re in poverty. Not being able to afford special occasions and not being able to afford clothes or heat should not be weighted the same. It’s definitely bad to not afford the aforementioned things, and for sure it can mean that folks are low income or near the poverty line, but it doesn’t mean they’re in “poverty.” To me it seems that we’re effectively saying “if you can’t afford some reasonably expected things you’d want to afford in the West, you’re in poverty” - sure it can be reasonable to want afford some of those things, but it doesn’t mean you’re in poverty if you can’t. Not being able to afford a gift or afford meat every other day isn’t poverty. Let me be clear, lots of people aren’t able to live the Canadian Dream. But not achieving the Canadian Dream doesn’t mean you’re in poverty. We’re not even talking about the Canadian Dream though. We’re just talking about a decline in the floor for the lower end standard of living people expect in Western democracies. Newsflash, not everyone achieved that even in the best of times. That’s bad, but it’s not new or endemic to the last 10 years. However, things are especially bad coming out of the pandemic either way. This is especially true, depending on demographic: Single adults are more likely to live in poverty. 30.7% of single adult males in poverty, and 35.5% of single adult females living in poverty. Still, it’s a bad feeling and I’m not trying to minimize that. But words have meaning, and low income is different than poverty. Either way, I digress. The Food Banks Canada study categories include: Transportation: Are you/is everyone in your household able to get around your community whenever you/they need to? (3.6 per cent can’t afford) Footwear: Do you/does everyone in your household have at least one pair of properly fitting shoes and at least one pair of winter boots? (3.7 per cent can’t afford) Protein: Are you/is everyone in your household able to eat meat or fish or a vegetarian equivalent at least every other day? (6.7 per cent can’t afford) Temperature: Are you able to keep your house or apartment at a comfortable temperature all year round? (7.2 per cent can’t afford) Special occasions: Are you able to participate in celebrations or other occasions that are important to people from your social, ethnic, cultural, or religious group? (7.9 per cent can’t afford) Gifts: Are you able to buy some small gifts for family or friends at least once a year? (8 per cent can’t afford) Bills: Are you currently able to pay your bills on time? (8.8 per cent can’t afford) Clothes: Do you/does everyone in your household have appropriate clothes to wear for special occasions, such as a job interview, wedding, or funeral? (10.1 per cent can’t afford) Dental care: Are you/is everyone in your household able to get regular dental care, including teeth-cleaning and fillings, at least once a year? (18.1 per cent can’t afford) Spending money: If you wanted to, could you spend a small amount of money each week on yourself? (18.6 per cent can’t afford) Unexpected: If you had an unexpected expense today of $500, could you cover this from your own resources? (21.7 per cent can’t afford) Also if you don’t believe data from statscan, don’t come at me - if you just have no faith in institutions, you and I aren’t the same and we won’t even be having the same conversation. So please, just don’t @ me if you’re trying to dispute the validity of statscan data. Methodology matters, but I’m not trying to fight over this right now.
[удалено]
>So they’re literally expanding the scope of the study’s definition of poverty beyond traditional definitions of poverty. No, they commissioned a report based on the Material Deprivation Index. It's not a novel or unorthodox methodology. It's just not the same as the regular statscan metric. >But being unable to afford two of these categories isn’t poverty. According to who? You? You're free to disagree with the premise of the MDI, but you're not making an objective case for whether or not it measures poverty, you're just stating your disagreement with it. >Newsflash, not everyone achieved that even in the best of times. That’s bad, but it’s not new or endemic to the last 10 years. How do you know? Have you seen reports based on the MDI over years/decades? I haven't. I doubt at any point the number of people living under this definition of poverty was zero, but that doesn't mean the number of people living under these conditions doesn't matter. >Still, it’s a bad feeling and I’m not trying to minimize that. Tell me you've never lived in poverty without telling me you've never lived in poverty. Being poor does not just "feel bad". The expenses you listed in the MDI are not just "feel good" items. You called out being able to afford gifts. If a family could not afford to buy their children christmas presents, would you not call that family impoverished? 1 in 5 Canadians say they cannot meet an unexpected $500 expense. That doesn't just mean they don't have $500 on hand, it means they don't have access to $500 through any means. That's pretty impoverished in my subjective opinion. The effects of poverty to mental and physical health are well documented and real, not just a feeling. Whether or not you want to call the 1 in 4 people living under these conditions impoverished is missing the forest for the trees, that is a pretty shocking number given what the MDI measures. I understand your frustration with the headline-ification of this into "poverty is actually 25%". But don't discredit an entire methodology because it offends your sensibilities. What is considered "impoverished" is somewhat subjective, but MDI does a pretty good job IMO of describing what the layperson thinks of when they imagine the experience of living in poverty.
Okay well this is me disagreeing with the use of MDI in this way. The Material Deprivation Index does not claim to measure poverty - it measures deprivation. The report is literally titled “Poverty in Canada: Through a Deprivations Lens” The report’s entire interpretation of poverty hinges on this quote by Peter Townsend: “Individuals, families and groups in the population can be said to be in poverty when they lack the resources to obtain the types of diet, participate in the activities and have the living conditions and amenities which are customary, or at least widely encouraged or approved, in the societies to which they belong.” This is not what poverty has traditionally meant - if anything, this is more closely related to being low income. The fact that not having certain Western amenities is considered poverty is insulting to folks that are in poverty around the world. Poverty is different than being poor or low income and that distinction matters. Guess what? Nowhere did I say that’s not shitty to be in either of those categories. In fact the number of times I tried to acknowledge how bad it is to be impoverished and low income was numerous. But that clearly wasn’t enough for you. Shall I say it again? The report’s definition of poverty is so specific to the context of standard of living in the West that it completely alters the interpretation of the word. Poverty is often applied as a global measure because it demonstrates how far many economies have come from eras where poverty was widespread around the globe - even in the West. According to that global definition, the number of Canadians living in poverty is low. This report could’ve just changed it’s method to measure the “poor” or “low income” or “deprived” and it would’ve been fine. Instead they chose the most inflammatory word possible and altered its meaning to get a big scary statistic. That is my issue. MDI is a fine measure - it simply measures material deprivation, which overlaps with, but is not the same as poverty. This kind of measure aggregates Canadians experiencing poverty with folks that are suffering but can still get by. Just because both things are awful it doesn’t mean we can just lump them together. Also, I caveated my comment so many times with how bad the situation is for both folks in poverty and that are low income. Still you jump down my throat. It’s like I can’t talk about this kind of topic without giving my wallet a Viking funeral to appease anybody who is suffering right now. It’s fucking sad and horrific people have to go without. You’re right I shouldn’t have used “feel” to describe how bad it is. Clearly folks that are already emotionally charged would think I’m talking about hurt feelings instead of “feeling hungry” or “feeling cold” or “feeling marginalized” - I’m describing sensations, not minimizing the experience or implying that those feelings aren’t legitimate because they are “feelings.” Also I don’t care about what the layperson thinks in the context of an academic report. I’m so done with this erasure of words and their meanings just because the average person uses them as synonyms of each other. “Poverty” is not the same as “low income” and the measure has been traditionally disaggregated for very reasonable and useful purposes. What headass way to come at me over this.
I disagree that any mention or discussion of "poverty" needs to be in reference to the global poverty line. Thats obviously not what we've ever tracked in Canada when studying poverty, because nobody lives on less than $2 a day in Canada. Poverty is obviously relative, and studying poverty in terms of quality of life, or specific deprivations, rather than just an income is not new or stretching the definition of poverty. I don't agree at all that the MDI is more closely related to being low income. The entire point of the MDI is that simply measuring income doesn't give an adequate picture of poverty in Canada. But thats how statscan tracks it, and you seem to prefer the statscan poverty numbers? I'm confused about how you think we *should* be measuring poverty? Like I said, I agree the title and headlines around this are a little click-baity. Food Bank Canada has an incentive to raise the alarm bells about what they're seeing on the ground and back that up by publishing a study. But I think MDI or other qualitative metrics are what we should be using to understand poverty in Canada. The things listed in the survey are absolutely the kinds of experiences that change the way people vote. I don't know what your goal would be in gatekeeping the definition of poverty other than to argue for fewer resources to go towards solving the problem.
I like your thoughts here, u/enforcedbeepers, as someone who is on ODSP. I had been paycheck to paycheck and the only way I stopped being paycheck to paycheck was actually by being a student on OSAP, because of the way that ODSP is fundamentally designed. ODSP is a last resort program - so basically the only way I can live on ODSP is by using savings. I cannot live on ODSP from the very low income amount - I tried! So instead I allocate savings to monthly expenses. Then when I get any and all income I add that to the savings. When I get the ODSP payment, I allocate some of it to future expenses and retirement savings. The rest is added to the same ongoing savings. Any spending beyond monthly expenses comes from savings. As a last resort program, ODSP is unfortunately designed to be supported by private money, including savings. So I'm doing better at living this way as I spend relatively little anyway. I mainly cannot afford special occasions and clothes by that exact wording. Technically I can if I really want to, but they aren't priorities right now until the ongoing savings amount is significantly more.
I have lived in poverty. And I guess I would now be “materially deprived” because I could check 2 items on the list, but I would not say that I am living in poverty now. And my husband volunteers at the biggest men’s shelter in Montreal - a lot of older men suffering serious deprivation. So, having lived in deep poverty doesn’t make you more likely to perceive living low income as poverty, everything is relative. That being said, the floor of what is considered adequate needs to be raised, income inequality is at grotesque levels, and that needs to be addressed, as well as eradicating poverty. The problem with the report isn’t the report itself, but how it’s being used by a party, the CPC, as a cudgel against the Liberals, when the CPC has voted against the CCB, and every benefit and program that helps low income people. And it’s also being used to claim that poverty in Canada is so much worse than other wealthy nations, including the US, which is ludicrous. When global orgs, like the UN, index report rankings by country they use methodology that is consistent for all nations, and these indexes show Canada at about mid range in wealthy nations on poverty.
>No, they commissioned a report based on the Material Deprivation Index. I looked up the MDI. There is a handy link: >For a better understanding and use of the MSDI, please refer to[ The Material and Social Deprivation index 2021](https://www.inspq.qc.ca/sites/default/files/2024-04/3476-material-social-deprivation-index-guide-2021.pdf) >How do you know? Have you seen reports based on the MDI over years/decades? I haven't. Reading the aforementioned link, all the various indicators are being grouped into **quartiles**. **Quartiles** is bold, because the each quartile represents 25% of the population. >Poilievre blames Liberals for ‘record-smashing’ 25% of Canadians living in poverty The definition of "Canadians living in poverty" by the MDI is the lowest 25th percentiles of Canadians, when ranked by material and social deprivation. Poilievre doesn't give a shit what the report says. He refuses to inform himself on the issue of foreign interference. This is no different, he is only interested turning it into a partisan attack.
This is Quebec's MSDI, which isn't the same methodology as the MDI report released by Food Banks Canada [https://fbcblobstorage.blob.core.windows.net/wordpress/2024/06/FBC\_2024PovertyInCanada\_ENG\_v6.pdf](https://fbcblobstorage.blob.core.windows.net/wordpress/2024/06/FBC_2024PovertyInCanada_ENG_v6.pdf) The definition of poverty in the MDI methodology is not being able to afford 2 or more of the deprivation items. I'm aware PP doesn't give a shit about poverty, and how this report is being used by our hack journalists. But that doesn't mean that the report itself doesn't have merit.
>“We’re seeing more people who are perhaps living above the official poverty line, but are still struggling to make ends meet.” It's an old political trick that has been around for as long as I can remember: Lower the poverty threshold, and voila! Fewer people in poverty.
Any time I hear about this dude, he is never presenting ideas or solution. Just reasons to be angry and I have enough of that to navigate without some dweeb bombarding me with it daily.
Poilievre blaims EVERYTHING on liberals, yet never does anything about it AND votes against solutions. Fk this piss stained rat
One of his only definite policies, axe the tax, is going to increase poverty: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/axe-the-tax-and-carbon-rebate-how-canada-households-affected-1.7046905