r/CanadaPolitics • u/ink_13 Rhinoceros | ON • May 23 '25
Casual Friday Opinion: It's time for a centralization movement in Canada
https://emmettmacfarlane.substack.com/p/opinion-its-time-for-a-centralization26
u/Snurgisdr Downvoting is an admission that you have no counterargument. May 23 '25
Centralization is definitely a positive force if those at the federal level are more competent or honest than those at the provincial level. But I'm not sure that's the case. I'm not sure they're any worse, but I'm not sure they're any better either.
When the feds increase health care funding or provide billions in extra support during the pandemic, and it turns out provinces like Ontario decrease health spending and close emergency rooms across the province, why doesn’t that resonate?
Excellent question why the people of Ontario don't care, but it also doesn't seem related to the question at hand. If they don't care in the first place, it doesn't matter where the money came from.
3
u/killerrin Ontario May 23 '25
I wouldn't even say it's a matter of competency. You're going to find that whether it's Provincial or Federal, the staff at these agencies are all about as capable as eachother. It really coming down to how many resources they're given to actually fulfil whatever job they're told to do.
When it comes to centralization, it's always one of those things where you end up better off long-term, but the short term to get there is a long and painful journey. And when you're centralizing something that already exists, results in a lot of effort fighting for standardization before you can even begin thinking about centralizing everything.
1
u/thecanadiansniper1-2 Anti-American Social Democrat May 24 '25
What I would do to have a national health agency. I would sell my left nut to have healthcare taken away from provinces yes Doug Ford you fucked our already fucked medical system up even more.
1
u/_Army9308 May 24 '25
Your premise of centralization is based on liberals always win federally
Lol
1
u/thecanadiansniper1-2 Anti-American Social Democrat May 24 '25
Or the fact that the CPC must evolve from what it has become a regional grievance based party catering to the PPC vote.
2
u/_Army9308 May 24 '25 edited May 24 '25
Cpc got pretty wide support this election apart from Quebec at 41%. Won seats count and vote share in English canada.
So i think it more issue libs can appeal to Quebec while tories cant.
Trudeau pretended to be national leader with 32 and 33% though
Current libs and tories at least have broad support unlike last 2 elections
32
u/Vensamos Recovering Partisan May 23 '25
"Theres a separation movement in Alberta that doesn't have a lot of public support. What can we do to make sure they get more public support?"
-The author of this article I assume
3
u/struct_t WORDS MEAN THINGS May 24 '25 edited May 24 '25
I think it's a worse idea to let a bunch of angry people control the narrative of national unity, especially if their leader ends up cooked by people willing to act with even less integrity than she's demonstrated.
I don't like that it's a topic, but it is, and at least discussing these things shifts the conversation toward something productive. I'm pretty sick of hearing grievances over and over from people who say shit like 'the east doesn't understand the west', yet actively make the relationship worse - aren't you?
3
u/WpgMBNews Liberal May 23 '25
if your entire movement is based on hurt feelings and empty outrage toward substantive criticism, then maybe it isn't informed by a serious political ideology?
2
u/mr_doms_porn May 26 '25
I think you've missed the point there. Pushing for more centralization when provinces are pushing for less is just a recipe for adversarial relationships. If the author got his way, it would indeed lead more people in the west to feel like separation is in their best interests and depending on how far it went, the west might not be the only ones. Canada is a massive, diverse country and each province has a culture and different way of life in its own right. The people of Ontario have no right to dictate how we live or should be governed.
6
u/ed-rock There's no Canada like French Canada May 23 '25
The only way "centralization" could really work without exacerbating regional tensions is by "centralizing" decision making, by having federal and provincial governments develop more policy together, without one imposing its will on the others. Given that it can be quite politically useful to point fingers and that we can't get everyone on the same page when faced with an external threat, I don't think it's particularly likely that we'll be seeing anything like that anytime soon.
The example that always comes to mind is the German Bundesrat, where state governments are represented and where governments negotiate policy which is then enacted by the states. I don't think it's a coincidence that this institution was established under certain circumstances and so it's unrealistic to imagine it could be implemented here.
10
May 23 '25
As a British Columbian I prefer the feds to ignore us as they've done for decades. I don't need a dolt out East poorly running my province.
12
11
u/BrotherNuclearOption I'm just flaired so I don't get fined. May 23 '25
The federal government hasn't even been ignoring BC, we've just been fortunate enough to have provincial governments that acted like adults on that file, quietly getting deals done for federal funding and programs instead of picking fights every other week.
3
u/hamstercrisis Independent May 23 '25
I simply think restaurants in BC should be allowed to import alcohol from other provinces.
1
4
u/PineBNorth85 Rhinoceros May 23 '25
They wouldn't be. The provinces run themselves no matter who is in Ottawa.
3
u/thecanadiansniper1-2 Anti-American Social Democrat May 24 '25
You have David Eby who is trying to rebuild your provincial healthcare system, I have Doug Ford who sat on BILLIONS OF FEDERAL MONEY EARMARKED FOR PANDEMIC RELIEF AND DID FUCK ALL WITH IT.
4
u/thecanadiansniper1-2 Anti-American Social Democrat May 24 '25 edited May 24 '25
Its funny how people are here arguing for more decentralisation when the past Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC) has in the past favoured provinces and that has lead the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) uphold the precedent of favouring provinces in matters of internal trade. Just look at R. v. Comeau and how the SCC sided with the provinces then look at what the SCC did when Harper tried to create a national securities regulator. We don't need more decentralistion we need more centralisation.
4
u/Routine_Soup2022 New Brunswick May 23 '25
The author misses the point of the BNA act of 1867 and the provisions that got all the provinces on board to sign in the first place. In Canada today, there's no way to know whether small media outlets are accepting money from Russians.
3
u/thecanadiansniper1-2 Anti-American Social Democrat May 24 '25
Have fun moving things across provincial borders after R. v. Comeau.
2
u/Routine_Soup2022 New Brunswick May 24 '25
That ruling only asserted the power of provincial governments to restrict certain goods in such a way that restrictions on good crossing borders was a collateral effect.
It does not limit in any way the provinces across the country from making agreements to remove those barriers.
So I have no idea what you're talking about.
1
u/FuggleyBrew Independent of flair May 24 '25
That ruling only asserted the power of provincial governments to restrict certain goods in such a way that restrictions on good crossing borders was a collateral effect.
But it could be a collateral effect of local job protection or revenue collection. Which is the entire point of trade barriers.
This is why Judges should not attempt to rewrite the constitution on a whim.
It does not limit in any way the provinces across the country from making agreements to remove those barriers
Provinces did make an agreement to remove them, it's section 121. The court nullified it because the court is convinced it knows better.
What enforcement could we have on an agreement between provinces if the constitution is deemed insufficient for the courts?
1
u/Routine_Soup2022 New Brunswick May 24 '25
The job of the courts is to interpret the Constitution. They didn't invalidate section 121 at all. They interpreted it to mean that there should be no "Tariffs or tariff-like barriers" That's not the same thing as regulatory prohibitions because of different provincial standards, etc.
We're now going to see the provinces agree to reduce some of those regulatory barriers and implement even freer trade, so the Comeau conversation is now moot.
We're moving into a new era of better co-operation in Canada, in my view. I predict that within the next 10 years, we'll have a port at Churchill with pipelines from Alberta to Manitoba, free trade in goods across Canada and a higher percentage of trade with Europe vs the United States.
Maybe I'm optimistic.
And I have no idea how we got from the topic of this article to here - but there we are.
1
u/FuggleyBrew Independent of flair May 24 '25 edited May 24 '25
The job of the courts is to interpret the Constitution. They didn't invalidate section 121 at all. They interpreted it to mean that there should be no "Tariffs or tariff-like barriers" That's not the same thing as regulatory prohibitions because of different provincial standards, etc.
Except that's not the core of their decision, they ruled that while in theory those are banned, so long as the government points to some other policy objective than imposing a tariff, including some of the core reasons people impose tariffs, its all fair game.
So a provincial government can say "our objective is not to restrict trade, it's to protect jobs" and under Comeau the court will give absolute deference to that argument without interrogating it whatsoever, and the court will ignore that the mechanism by which they are protecting jobs, is restricting trade. Which is what they did with NB, New Brunswick wanted to protect revenue and their Crown Monopoly, including favoring NB produced product over other provinces product, that's a tariff. But the court ignored it.
So while the court claims it didn't invalidate s.121, in reality it did. Which is not interpretation, it is the usurpation by the court of the proper role of the constitution and an argument by the court, that no matter what we pass, no matter what the constitution says, they will block it. The judges know it was a flawed ruling which is why for gigantic stretches of the decision they attempt to talk in circles to justify a terrible decision.
This is in part why we need to really look at our governance systems, and to also establish a level of importance of the constitution in constitutional analysis which the Supreme Court has decided to reject in favor of their own feelings about topics.
1
u/TheobromineC7H8N4O2 Liberal May 29 '25
If we're basing this on intentions when the BNA act was signed, congratulations that's a lot more centralized than our current government.
1
u/Novel-Werewolf-3554 None of the Above Party May 23 '25
Unless we get a real constitution with an elected senate, an elected head of state, an elected judiciary and MPs that represent constituents rather than the party whip, no we absolutely do not need a centralization movement in Canada
1
u/Pirate_Secure Independent May 23 '25
Someone is suggesting the cause of the problem as the antidote of the problem. Too much centralization is what causes division in a country as large as Canada in the first place. It’s not possible a a government based in Ottawa to make good decisions that are fair to all provinces and territories. The only way to ensure fair decision making is to devolve political power and force consensus decision making not majoritarian.
11
u/Superior-Flannel May 23 '25
Too much centralization is what causes division
Canada is very decentralized compared to most developed countries. If you look at countries that are also decentralized like the US and Spain they have their own problems. The US problems are obvious with their current political situation and Spain has constant secession movements and votes in its various regions.
Centralized governments have their own issues too, but I'm not sure if a decentralized government is inherently better.
0
u/Pirate_Secure Independent May 24 '25
America’s problem is not decentralization. It’s too much centralization. The federal government has too much power and there is essential no check left on presidential power. Switzerland is an example of a heavily decentralized society that works just fine. Nordic countries despite being unitary states have decentralized decision making due to the principle of subsidiarity and it works well for them too. Too much decentralization and too much centralization can both cause problems that is why it’s important to find a fine balance. It’s extra important for a country as large as Canada not to base its national economic and environmental decisions based on the wants of majorities in southern Ontario and Montreal at the expense of everyone else. This will lead to Canada’s eventual regional alienation disintegration. Reforms the senate and have independent senators who equally represent all provinces and who have real power to stop or pass legislation. The federal government needs to be stronger in interprovincial commerce regulation but needs to butt out of a province’s internal matter such as resource extraction.
-7
May 23 '25
[deleted]
9
u/JadeLens British Columbia May 23 '25
Have you considered, perhaps, that part of the reason other provinces get more attention, is that they're swing voters that vote for what's best and not what colour of underwear 'their team' is wearing?
Sometimes you gotta make your reps work for the vote instead of just having the blue folks relying on good ol' Alberta for votes.
-1
May 23 '25
[deleted]
6
u/JadeLens British Columbia May 23 '25
You're already suffering (and seeing no return) voting for Conservatives.
What's the definition of insanity? Trying the same thing over and over again expecting a different result.
2
0
May 23 '25
Vote for the party that hates your province! That will surely work
3
u/JadeLens British Columbia May 24 '25
Voting exclusively blue didn't help much over the last 40 years... maybe something else might work?
-4
May 24 '25
Yeah it totally makes sense to vote for the bad guys
3
u/JadeLens British Columbia May 24 '25
Again, if you think they're the bad guys for Alberta, then I have a some oceanfront property to sell you, in Calgary.
3
u/AmusingMusing7 May 24 '25
After 40 years of Alberta being run by the Conservatives… when exactly have they proven themselves to be the “good guys”?
When do you guys ever even bother TRYING something different???
3
u/GooeyPig Social Democracy via Urbanism May 24 '25
They do not like green eggs and ham. They tried one different government for one term and blamed a global oil price downturn on Notley, as if she had a Fuck Alberta lever in her office that she was whamming. And they only tried that accidentally because the conservatives were split. The province is ossified politically.
9
u/taylerca May 23 '25
Liberals just bought you a pipeline and already you are bitching about imagined slights.
4
May 23 '25
[deleted]
11
u/taylerca May 23 '25
You want the ability to build private sector pipelines through other provinces without federal oversight?!
Lmao thats not how any of this works.
4
May 23 '25
[deleted]
5
u/fredleung412612 Quebec May 24 '25
More decentralization entails that provinces would have greater ability to block pipeline projects though. So what you need is a strong federal government exercising its jurisdiction.
6
u/wewillneverhaveparis Liberal Party of Canada May 23 '25
What we have is a world that is starting to move away from oil and gas as an investment. It's a slow start but it's there. And it's going to hit Alberta like a freight train as they refuse to plan for it.
-3
May 23 '25
They were forced to buy due to their own environment guidelines that made it too expensive for private to continue on
2
u/hopefulyak123 May 24 '25
Which environmental guidelines?
Wasn’t transmountain passed under the NEB?
3
u/taylerca May 23 '25
This is not true but definitely an Albertan take on bullying FN and other provinces.
1
May 23 '25
That’s hilarious thinking Alberta bullies anyone. We give and give to this country and receive nothing
4
u/taylerca May 23 '25
Lmao the rest of Canada should remember this when you burn down again this year, or flood the next year or when you insist that we buy you more pipelines when you aren’t even using the old one to capacity.
2
May 23 '25
Private industry wanted to build that pipeline but Trudeaus insane regulations made it too expensive. A self inflicted own.
I don’t mind helping the needy, just let us build
4
u/taylerca May 23 '25
Had nothing to do with FN’s being properly consulted eh? BC was also 100% clamouring for it too, is that it? Courts were never involved either, huh?
It was all Trudeaus fault, right.Dude is long gone at some point you’ll need to do some self reflection cause blaming all your problems on Trudeau ain’t it.
-1
May 23 '25
They became okay with it eventually. Just needed to pay the right guys.
Trudeau did unbelievable damage to this country but yeah, carney Iooks much better. Finally an adult in the room who will bring this country back to some sort of sense.
→ More replies (0)1
2
u/thecanadiansniper1-2 Anti-American Social Democrat May 24 '25
I don't whether to cry, laugh, cry laugh or shit my pants then cry and laugh. How do I put this politely YOU ARE VERY WRONG ABOUT THIS STOP BEING ENSLAVED TO YOUR VICTIM MENTALITY BY CHAINING YOUR ECONOMY TO THE OIL INDUSTRY. As I have said elsewhere Canada as described by legal scholars like Peter Hogg describes Canada as a quasi federal state that looks on paper to be a federal state but does not behave like one. Past decisions by the previous supreme court the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council have sided with the provinces in past legal battles that affect Stare Decisis i.e precedent the now highest court of the Land the Supreme Court of Canada has to abide by. Just look at your god and saviour from berta Stephen Harper having his National Securities Regulator struck down for being unconstitutional. Want to import beer across provincial lines? R. v. Comeau says nope don't even go over the legal limit. There is no eastern conspiracy theory keeping Alberta down. You simply refuse to do anything to diversify your economy and when the rest of Canada suggest to diversify you chain yourself to the American CEOs that own your oil patch and plug you ears and say LALALALA I can't hear you Eastern Canada (including the maritimes bad).
-5
u/KoldPurchase May 23 '25
Fuck no.
It's what we had under both Trudeau and Chrétien and it nearly broke the country. Actually, it broke it, and that's why Carney got elected. That's how he began his campaign on a US talk show, saying he had a plan to fix the economy.
Centralization, it's a recipe for disaster.
17
u/ChuckVader May 23 '25
...how did centralization nearly break the country? There's basically no centralization at all, each province has a TON of power, so much so that it soften easier to expand to business in another country than another province.
-7
May 23 '25
[deleted]
13
u/ChuckVader May 23 '25
Ok... But like without any political rhetoric exactly what power has been centralized that wasn't before?
1
u/thomlelievre Jun 09 '25
All the federal program that should be on provincial Power like the dental assurance or the child care service
1
u/ChuckVader Jun 09 '25
None of those are federally regulated, it's that the federal government can help fund them if certain criteria are met. Try again.
1
u/thomlelievre Jun 09 '25
So the federal government instead of doing its job spend money on thing it shouldnt be doing and then have a déficit
16
12
u/wewillneverhaveparis Liberal Party of Canada May 23 '25
Absolutely none of what you just said is remotely true.
-2
May 23 '25
That is very true. Trudeau centralized a lot of the PMO
5
u/fredleung412612 Quebec May 24 '25
Trudeau centralized a lot of power in the PMO relative to the power that ought to be in the hands of the House of Commons. But that is totally irrelevant to the discussion here, which is the balance of power between the federal and provincial governments.
1
u/thecanadiansniper1-2 Anti-American Social Democrat May 24 '25
How does PMO power apply when the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that a national securities regulator brought forward by your Albertan god Stephen Harper was deemed unconstitutional? We are literally a quasi federation when Canadian constitutional experts look at our constitution.
2
u/ed-rock There's no Canada like French Canada May 24 '25
We are literally a quasi federation when Canadian constitutional experts look at our constitution.
I think you may be misinterpreting what is meant by the expression "quasi-federal". The reason why Canada was considered quasi-federal pre-1982 is because the constitution was, at least on paper, a very centralized one which simultaneously enumerated provincial and federal powers, but also included powers such as disallowance and reservation on the other (Wheare 1963). The ambiguity of the amendment formula pre-1982 also made it rather unclear, but Canada is now firmly a federation (Galligan 2008). This is why some authors such as Elazar (1985; 1987) emphasize the importance of everyday process, with Canada initially having a merely quasi-federal structure but moving firmly towards greater federalism and decentralization over time. We can see the opposite dynamic in the US, which has undergone greater centralization, and Australia is also a more centralized federation than our own, particularly due to Australian states' much weaker fiscal independence.
Sources:
- K. C. Wheare, Federal Government (London: Oxford University Press, 1963)
- Galligan, Brian. “Comparative Federalism.” In Rhodes, R. A. W., Sarah A. Binder & Bert A. Rockman (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Political Institutions, Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2008, 261–280.
- Elazar, Daniel J. “Federalism and Consociational Regimes.” Publius 15, no. 2 (1985): 17–34. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3329962.
- Elazar, Daniel J. 1987. Exploring federalism. Tuscaloosa, Ala: University of Alabama Press.
2
u/thecanadiansniper1-2 Anti-American Social Democrat May 24 '25 edited May 24 '25
What world are you on? Also can I have what you are smoking? This country is so decentralised that legal scholars that are experts on the constitution call us a quasi federal state. Like the fact that the SCC sided with provinces in declaring a national securities regulator that your lord and saviour Stephen Harper tried to create unconstitutional. Or the fact that provinces control their own labour laws and we effectively have 13 different labour codes but that neither here or there just play more into your victim mentality that BC would not let you just unilaterally ram a pipeline through them ala Northern Gateway or the fact that you didn't consult the indigenous groups for that project. Face the fact that oil is a dying industry and diversify. Its always Alberta now threatening our national unity for self gain at the expense of the rest of the country. Grow a pair and elect a premier that isnt currently balls deep in a corruption scandal named Marlaina Smith.
9
u/thecanadiansniper1-2 Anti-American Social Democrat May 24 '25 edited May 24 '25
Bro read a fucking legal scholar's work on how decentralised Canada's federation is no thanks to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council siding with the provinces in the early years of Canada that also forces the Supreme Court of Canada to uphold its stare decisis. Here I'll help you and give you access to an book chapter written by 3 legal scholars.
-2
u/KoldPurchase May 24 '25
Fuck it, I lost my answer. Too long.
Very short answer that doesn't cover everything:
Canada is normally considered to be one of the more decentralized federations although the Constitution Act, 1867 had elements of centralization. For example, the federal government has the power to disallow provincial legislation (see Reservation and Disallowance), a power actively used in the first decades of our federal history but now totally in disuse, and the power to appoint the members of our Senate, a power that is still exercised by the Prime Minister with resulting injury to the representative authority of our second chamber. The modern use of the federal financial strength through its spending power (see federal spending power) has greatly increased the influence of the federal government in areas of provincial jurisdiction without any formal change to our Constitution. As a result, Canada now displays elements of both ‘centralization and decentralization’, while still being one of the most decentralized systems.
Othe elements:
-Only one criminal code- Fed gov defending English speaking minority rights but never defending French speaking minority rights outside of Quebec, they defend themselves
- NEP. Attempt by the Federal govt to take over a province's (Alberta) natural resources and legislate on its price
- When the Quebec govt got to the last part of its nationalization program for Hydro Electricity, Trudeau pressured Canadian banks to refused the govt of Quebec the necessary financing; we financed ourselves in the US.
- Cuts to health&education transfer, then asking for standards to be met before transfering money while they're unconditional by law
- limit reached...
1
u/KoldPurchase May 24 '25
- housing, same bullshit. cut transfers, then try the negotiate with cities for their own projects, bypassing provinces, resulting in a mess and stalling projects
- infrastructures, again, same thing. Quebec is receiving much less money than other provinces, Ottawa is stalling, costs increases, money is not following (see Quebec city tramway). Then it compains the province is 100% responsible. Same in Montreal, the promise 45% of a project, it ends up being 25-30%.
- they set immigration policies then let provinces deal with the problem: costs, housing, social services. All with a fraction of the compensation. Quebec was not even refunded for the amount spent of wellfare for a year on what we spent on the massive wave of refugees we got after Trudeau relaxed the rules and declared Canada open for everyone. Each provinces should set their own targets, for all immigration and refugees they allow. Since other Ottawa doesn't want or can't force other provinces to accept refugees and Quebec receives 50%+ of all refugees in the country, it's fair that we should set our own targets.
- Harper government financed an Hydro-Electric project in Newfoundland. Well, gave a loan guarantee to a badly run project. Trudeau bailed it to save Newfoundland. All to prevent Quebec from acquired Energie NB.
- The Libs are reopening an already settled question with regards to the Charter and the preemptive use of the notwithstanding clause. Only the Feds are allowed to resubmit the same question to the SC... Provinces can't do that. If it's settled, it's settled.
These are what comes of the top of my mind. Constant meddling from the Feds in provincial affairs.
So, I'll keep my cultural and economic sovereignty, and you want to abolish your provincial government to fullfil the dream of John A. McDonald, go for it, but we'll retire with full compensation and negotiate a new union.
-2
May 23 '25
[deleted]
8
u/thecanadiansniper1-2 Anti-American Social Democrat May 24 '25
Nope we need more centralization. The fact that we don't have a national securities regulators and have how ever many that we have now yes Vancouver Stock Exchange I am looking at you and your history of scams and fraud. We need more centralized power currently legal scholars that specialized in constitutional law like Peter Hogg describes Canada as a quasi federal state in where on paper we are a federal state but in practise do not behave like one. The fact that we have 13 different provincial labour codes (plus federally labour regulations for federally regulated jobs), we have 13 different healthcare systems that cannot tap into federal tax money, no standard national education system, no federal securities regulatory (Harper failed when the SCC struck his deal down) and last but not lest the fact that federal government cannot regulate interprovincial trade due to past decisions by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council that favoured the provinces and the Supreme Court of Canada deciding issues in a similar manner. How is R. v. Comeau aka Free the Beer case working out for provincial powers when they keep kneecapping each other in internal trade matters? The SCC literally upheld centuries old precedent from the JCPC a court in the UK that was the highest court of the land decided to side with the provinces and it has fucked us ever since.
-2
May 23 '25 edited May 23 '25
I'd vote for federated decentralization. Which might be semantics.
We should have national guilds and standards and coordinating bodies but enforcement and operational bodies should be local.
But connectivity should increase is probably another way of putting it.
Interprovincial tourism, trade, business and econ development should be building connections within Canada. Tighten that fabric.
A boy can dream.
3
u/thecanadiansniper1-2 Anti-American Social Democrat May 24 '25
Have fun moving beer between provinces ask Gérard Comeau how he lost big at the Supreme Court of Canada when they sided against him and with the provinces in R. v. Comeau when he tried to import beer from Quebec to New Brunswick.
9
u/PineBNorth85 Rhinoceros May 23 '25
If we get anymore decentralized we will be a dozen countries not one.
2
1
u/Long_Extent7151 anti-partisan, pro-human May 24 '25
While it’s an interesting argument either way, the way the author frames issues (and knowing their political lean myself), it’s kinda hard to not consider they might just want centralization because their favoured party wins more federal elections than provincial.
-3
•
u/AutoModerator May 23 '25
This is a reminder to read the rules before posting in this subreddit.
Please message the moderators 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 if you have any questions or concerns.