# Politics in 2014



## Edward Campbell (16 Dec 2013)

As 2013 drags its sorry arse towards the finish line, I'm guessing that the dominant force in 2014 will be Justin Trudeau.

This article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, suggests, and I agree, that M. Trudeau has managed, perhaps despite himself, to face the New Year with both equanimity and confidence:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/trudeau-has-cannily-cast-off-liberals-chretien-era-baggage/article15978294/#dashboard/follows/


> Trudeau has cannily cast off Liberals’ Chrétien-era baggage
> 
> SUBSCRIBERS ONLY
> 
> ...




Prime Minister Harper, is still stuck, à la the Tar Baby, in the _Senate Scandal®_. Thomas Mulcair, who should be gaining ground at the prime minister's expense, is, instead, slowly losing ground to M. Trudeau - in part based on personality. Mt. Trudeau is _nice_ while M. Mulcair is a _bully_.

I think the prime minister will have little room to outflank M. Trudeau and the Liberals: he must remain focused on balancing the budget in the late winter of 2014/15 ~ in time for the 2015 budget ~ so he cannot practice old fashioned _retail politics_ and buy our votes with social programmes. At the same time his, Harper's, room to manoeuvre on social issues is constrained by the right wing of his own party ~ so it will be hard to appeal to e.g. women and younger voters.

But, Mr Harper has one advantage: Messers Mulcair and Trudeau must, first and foremost, fight each other (and maybe a resurgent _nationalist_ party, too) for dominance in Québec, leaving Mr Harper freeer to pursue gains in _New Canada_ ~ the part West of the Ottawa River.


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Dec 2013)

Here is more about next year, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/12/16/tory-mps-speak-out-as-pmo-loses-credibility-ministers-become-potential-leadership-rivals/


> Tories speaking out as PMO loses credibility, ministers become potential leadership rivals
> 
> John Ivison
> 
> ...




I agree, wholly, with NDP House Leader Nathan Cullen: the Conservative part of Canada, especially this Conservative government, has lost its focus and it, the government, is tired.

The challenge, for 2014, is to shore up the base. That may be easier said than done. The "law and order" agenda is ill conceived, in my opinion, maybe even totally back asswards, and judges are challenging the law.  

The "laser like focus" is, as far as I can see, one two issues:

     1. How can they, the CPC, "manage" the _Senate Scandal_? and

     2. A balanced budget is 2015.

The latter is, I suspect, fairly easy ... the former is not.

I believe the only way to "manage" the _Senate Scandal_ is to campaign, now, for a simple choice: an elected Senate or no Senate at all. Since I am about 99.9% sure that the _Supremes_ will not allow abolition, not without a full blown Constitutional amendment, with all that implies, anyway, that means bullying the provinces into agreeing to an elected Senate ... or, maybe, risk not being represented in the Senate. (I'm not sure the _Supremes_[ would allow that either, but they might accept it for a while, until recalcitrant provinces (ON and QC, I expect) get onside.)


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Dec 2013)

And, because it is a _national, political_ issue, Jeffrey Simpson gets it right in this column which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/for-two-years-conservatives-are-all-about-the-10-per-cent/article16059597/#dashboard/follows/


> For two years, Conservatives will be all about the 10 per cent
> 
> JEFFREY SIMPSON
> The Globe and Mail
> ...




He's right: the simple, unassailable fact is that 60% of Canadians will not vote Conservative, no matter what. But, and equally unassailable fact is that, in a five party system, 40% equals a majority government. The Conservatives don't need the 60% so long as their vote continues: to split 25+% Liberals, 20-% NDP, 10-% Quebec nationalists and 5-% Green.

Recent results were:

2011:
          Cons: 38% ~ majority
          BQ:     6%
          Grns:   4%
          Libs:   26%
          NDP:  31%  
2008:
          Cons: 38% ~ minority
          BQ:    10%
          Grns:   7%
          Libs:   26%
          NDP:  18% 
2006:
          Cons: 36% ~ minority
          BQ:    10%
          Grns:   4%
          Libs:   30%
          NDP:  17%


----------



## Haletown (21 Dec 2013)

Can't wait to see how the Liberals will do after they have some actual policies.


----------



## PuckChaser (21 Dec 2013)

Haletown said:
			
		

> Can't wait to see how the Liberals will do after they have some actual policies.



They don't need them. The media will support Trudeau without him actually having to have a platform. I've yet to see him make a stand on anything other than legalizing pot (surprise, surprise). 

"You're doing it wrong, we'll do better!" isn't policy.


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Dec 2013)

Prostitution is going to be an issue ... and it's not just the "old whores" in the Senate of Canada.

Part of the Conservative base will be enraged by the very recent SCC ruling on prostitution and that will put the bConservatives in a bind.

By the way, I agree with FJAG:



			
				FJAG said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> While I'm generally a Conservatives supporter, I just haven't seen any good and balanced legislation coming out of the Dept of Justice for quite some time. Everything seems to be extreme and designed to increase police powers to intrude into private affairs. I have my doubts that they'll get this one right.
> 
> :subbies:




I expect more bad law from the Harper Government.


----------



## ModlrMike (21 Dec 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I expect more bad law from the Harper Government.



The real question is do you expect worse law from the Liberals and NDP?


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Dec 2013)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> The real question is do you expect worse law from the Liberals and NDP?




Worse? No, not really. But, better laws? No, again, and that's why I will vote CPC in 2015.


----------



## ModlrMike (21 Dec 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Worse? No, not really. But, better laws? No, again, and that's why I will vote CPC in 2015.



As will I. 

I wager that the CPC will lose some ground to the Liberals, the NDP will lose a great deal of ground to the Bloc, but that the Torries may yet be able to squeeze off another majority. It is much harder to gain new seats, than to prevent the loss of seats already held. From that thesis, the Conservatives may have the advantage.


----------



## Brad Sallows (22 Dec 2013)

The Blue majority is safe in 2015 if, and only if, voters continue to believe that a Red/Orange (or Orange/Red) coalition is the alternative and that the Red and Orange leaders are not sufficiently honest about their willingness to create one.


----------



## Edward Campbell (31 Dec 2013)

And, if this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Toronto Star_ is to be believed, young M. Trudeau may be on the right track:

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/12/31/justin_trudeau_promises_full_reboot_of_liberal_party.html


> Justin Trudeau promises ‘full reboot’ of Liberal party
> *Liberal leader Justin Trudeau says current and past MPs will have to fight to run, as part of the party “reboot” for the 2015 election.*
> 
> By: Susan Delacourt Parliament Hill
> ...




As some wag put it, in the _Star's_ comment section: rebooting the computer doesn't really help much if the operating system is the problem, and, the LPC being quite devoid of policy, I'm not sure that the Liberal OS has changed at all. It appears that some of the Liberal brain trust believe that charisma will work this time. As far as open, contested nominations go, this is from the guy who came as close as damn is to swearing to appointing Chrystia Freeland to be the candidate in Toronto Centre.

What he needs to do in 2014 is develop a _manifesto_, a policy base that will be the 2015 election platform. then we'll see if he has "rebooted" the Liberal Party.

But I, honestly and sincerely, wish M. Trudeau well. We need a government in waiting because the CPC is getting stale and tired and, and, and ... and I cannot imagine that the NDP will provide a viable, acceptable alternative so the choice falls to the LPC. I hope the CPC will hang on in 2015, but by 2019 I expect we will want and need a replacement.


----------



## ModlrMike (31 Dec 2013)

So let me see if I understand. The guy who was acclaimed to his position in the party wants every other MP to fight for theirs? I he going to open his nomination to contest? If so, are there any in the party who would openly oppose him?


----------



## GAP (31 Dec 2013)

Bob Rae is still interested.....


----------



## a_majoor (1 Jan 2014)

Being consistent isn't a huge priority for the Liberals or the Young Dauphin. 

Of course, we could always put this to the test. Any Army.ca members willing to join the LPC and contest their riding in a nomination battle?  >


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Jan 2014)

In the article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, the Globe's staff takes 16 "looks" at the key political issues for 2014: one for each province and territory and one for each of the NDP, Liberals and Conservatives:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/the-16-most-important-political-stories-to-watch-in-2014/article16176802/?page=all#dashboard/follows/?page=2?page=NaN


> The 16 most important political stories to watch in 2014
> 
> SUBSCRIBERS ONLY
> 
> ...




It is "small map, big hand" prognostication of the worst sort ... but it may provide some hints for the coming year.


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Jan 2014)

One bit of the puzzle I'm looking at is Christy Clark / Alison Redford LNG / Northern Gateway.

The people that Christy needs to deal with to get her LNG programme implemented are the same people that also want her to get the Gateway and Kinder Morgan pipelines implemented.

Yes Christy, you can have a booming LNG export economy and specialized shipyards but the price for that will be the implementation of the heavy oil pipelines.


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Jan 2014)

I read/heard somewhere, just recently, a quip about "all energy and finance ministers 'get it,' but the rest, president, prime ministers, premiers and the like, are 'tone deaf' to the realities of the 21st century."


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Jan 2014)

Michael Den Tandt takes aim at election financing in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/01/05/michael-den-tandt-funding-system-making-politics-meaner-and-dumber-as-cash-starved-parties-beg-for-money/


> Funding system making politics meaner and dumber as cash-starved parties beg for money
> 
> Michael Den Tandt
> 
> ...




I think Mr Den Tandt has the right disease: politics has, indeed, become dumber and meaner. But he has the wrong cure: campaign financing.

I think it is "a good thing" that political issues energize voters, even if they are often "angry, frightened or resentful." I think it is good that parties "target" voters with policies and campaigns. Maybe if we talked more and more about issues, as some (but not all, i agree) Conservatives want to do, and less about vague generalities, as M. Trudeau's campaign brain trust prefers, we would have less "dumbing down" and less anger., fear and resentment. Both the Conservatives and the Liberals have made choices about attacking persons rather than offering policies ~ that's a shame but I doubt that letting RBC, Power Corp and the CAW donate hundreds of thousands to parties and individual riding candidates will make anything any better. I, personally, would like to see the "adjusted for inflation" rule changed: make $1,200.oo per year ($100 per month) the maximum until after the next general election. Then _consider_ raising the limit. Lower contributions will lead to cheaper campaigns: less reliance upon expensive PR firms and sophisticated "marketing" and more on good old fashioned, foot slogging, door-to-door campaigning.


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Jan 2014)

I cannot "source" this - I ran into it on _Twitter_ - but I think it sums up M. Trudeau's challenge in 2014:






P.S. If anyone has a source please add it; we should, always acknowledge our sources when we use other people's work.


----------



## Remius (6 Jan 2014)

I saw Justin Trudeau's end of year interview on CTV's QP on Sunday.  He's been getting some coaching it seems.  His answers were quite good (especially the bait question Fife put to him about meeting the POTUS).

Still short on substance but gave a semi-policy answer to job creation and supported the current corporate tax rate. 

I wonder if we'll see a more polished version or if the CPC machine can keep him framed in his policy weakness image.

2014 promises to be an interesting year.


----------



## a_majoor (6 Jan 2014)

The real test is to get him off script and see what happens. My money is something like his comments on China will pop out....

OTOH most of the media will probably be more than willing to throw softballs and not do followup questions to make sure that does not happen.


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Jan 2014)

Brian Jean, Conservative MP for Fort McMurray – Athabasca has just announced his resignation citing being "needed more right here at home in Fort McMurray,” as his reason.

No pundits are guessing as to why ... yet.


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Jan 2014)

Jean Chrétien is 80 years old today. He shares his birthday with Sir John A MacDonald.
I disliked M. Chrétien's politics and most of his policies, and I still think there is a cloud of criminality hanging over him ... but all that being said I most sincerely wish him a Happy Birthday  :cheers:  and many more to come.


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Jan 2014)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Toronto Sun_ is an article that _might_ point to a good political issue for 2014, corrupt aboriginals and _outsiders_ trying to derail Canada's economic engine of growth, the energy sector:

http://www.torontosun.com/2014/01/17/first-nations-chief-received-55000-from-tides-foundation


> First Nations chief received $55,000 from Tides Foundation
> 
> BY EZRA LEVANT, QMI AGENCY
> 
> ...




Ezra Levant, being Ezra levant, is hyperbolic ... but he's also right. This is a "_foreign_ assault on Canadian jobs," a foreign assault on Canadian productivity, and a foreign assault on Canadian sovereignty, made worse by buying the political services of an elected official which ought to be a crime.

Now, the notion that the Tides Foundation is corrupting our officials for its own nefarious purposes needs to be "dressed up" a bit, less Ezra Levant and more, say, Jim Prentice, but it ought to resonate with a Canadian Conservative "base" that is still shocked and angry about the _Senate Scandal_ and with some of those "undecideds" who make up the 10% Stephen Harper needs for another majority in 2015.


----------



## George Wallace (19 Jan 2014)

Corrupt Aboriginal Chiefs is not new.  The Chiefs in the Reserves around CFB Gagetown and outside of Fredericton have been found to be corrupt over three decades ago.  We have witnessed the corruption in Northern Ontario with Chief Spence.  These types tarnish the image of all the Chiefs who have lead their Bands to prosperity without the influences of corruption from outside.


----------



## ballz (19 Jan 2014)

Having lived 7 years in Fort Mac, this article has popped up on my FB news feed a few times.

I can't verify it, but everyone is also saying that the band in question also owns a company which has a janitorial contract with one of the oil sands companies.  :not-again:


----------



## a_majoor (19 Jan 2014)

Traction. Instapundit has posted the article today and given Glenn Reynolds "viewership", the story will now go viral and international:

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/182729/#respond

Best comment so far:



> Fred Z January 19, 2014
> 
> U. S Attorney
> Federal Courthouse
> ...



And Glenn finishes the post with this comment:



> I wonder if they’re getting Saudi money, too?



Hmmmm


----------



## George Wallace (20 Jan 2014)

An opinion piece in the Calgary Sun on Neil Young in Calgary, 2014-01-19:

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.

LINK



> Canadian rocker Neil Young's anti-oilsands tour shows energy industry needs to add star power
> 
> By Michael Platt	,Calgary Sun
> First posted:  Sunday, January 19, 2014 05:58 PM MST  | Updated:  Monday, January 20, 2014 10:17 AM MST
> ...



LINK


----------



## Rifleman62 (20 Jan 2014)

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/neil-young-concludes-anti-oilsands-concert-series-1.1646062

They succeeded in reaching their goal of raising funds: *$75,000.*

Wow, impressive. A lawyer doing "work" for the Indians will blow through that in less than a week.


----------



## George Wallace (20 Jan 2014)

The Calgary Herald's take on Neil Young in Calgary, 2014-01-19:

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.

LINK



> Corbella: Neil Young chooses his own comfort over his convictions
> 
> By Licia Corbella, Calgary Herald January 20, 2014
> 
> ...



Also on LINK:

Photos of Young's visit to Calgary.

A review of Young's Sunday night benefit concert.

Read the full story on Young's press conference in Calgary.


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Jan 2014)

IF this (Canadian Press) report in the _Globe and Mail_ is true then kudos to M. Trudeau for taking a bold and helpful stand.

Sending the Liberal senators out of the Liberal parliamentary caucus will not make them less Liberal, not at first, anyway, but it will give them some leeway in voting and speaking their views (although it would be naive to expect that the LPC national office wouldn't keep in close touch with them).

It's a "good" political idea and I'm a bit surprised by it.

Well played, M. Trudeau!


----------



## Remius (29 Jan 2014)

Interesting.  I was talking to someone very well connected in Ottawa a few months ago and that someone had proposed that exact idea of having Senators excluded from caucus as a partial solution.

I mentioned this in a previous thread but I think Mr. Trudeau has been getting some good advice of late.


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Jan 2014)

In fairness:

     1. Prime Minister Harper started this by excluding senators from his cabinet; but

     2. A cynic might think that M Trudeau has been given a sneak preview of some pretty horrible results from the forthcoming Auditor General's report on senators' expenses and he's just _innoculating_ the
         LPC by booting the all Liberal senators from caucus now, before the shit bad news hits the fan. 

Even so, I rather like the idea of a less partisan Senate as part of the lead up to broader reforms, especially to Senate elections. Thus, pending the AG's report, I still give M Trudeau an 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





Edit: corrected a spelling error  :-[


----------



## George Wallace (29 Jan 2014)

Will we then just ignore the fact that they were "Liberal" Senators at the time of their indiscretions, or consider them now to be "Independent"?


----------



## Rifleman62 (29 Jan 2014)

What _*will*_ the media do!!!?


----------



## PuckChaser (29 Jan 2014)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Will we then just ignore the fact that they were "Liberal" Senators at the time of their indiscretions, or consider them now to be "Independent"?



Even though they still consider themselves Liberal Senators, which won't help Trudeau distance himself at all.


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Jan 2014)

I an article in today's _Ottawa Citizen_ Michael den Tandt calls M. Trudeau’s Senate gambit a tactical masterstroke. It may be, but, as Mr de Tandt acknowledges, _"There are downside risks for the Liberals. Short-term, the ousted senators, among them some heavy hitters, could stir the pot. Longer-term there are the questions of how future senators would be chosen (likely along lines similar to Order of Canada selection, but that’s still a broad brush) and how legislation gets passed, in a hypothetical Senate dominated by free agents."_ But he, de Tandt, is correct in saying that _Team Trudeau_ handled this "gambit" deftly. It shows a level of political courage and ruthlessness that gives me some reason to admire the young Liberal leader.


----------



## GAP (29 Jan 2014)

he's just playing catch up.....and suddenly it a miracle......nuts...


----------



## pbi (29 Jan 2014)

I think this will blow up in Trudeau's face.

He has defrocked all of his Senators, leaving them with no official connection to his caucus. Listening to Sen Jim Munson (former Liberal Senate whip) tonight on CBC, clearly at least some of them are very upset and can no longer be counted on to follow a Liberal line in every case (or, maybe, any case). Munson referred to his own separation as "liberating". (And he was the Whip!!!)

I don't know how Trudeau thinks this will help the Liberals in any meaningful way, since there now doesn't seem to be any mechanism for exerting Liberal influence in the Red Chamber. The Conservatives now control the Senate even more decisively than they did before.

I wonder what they were thinking of when they came up with this.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (29 Jan 2014)

I think young Trudeau has just opened a big can of worm for himself.

While there is no doubt a majority of Canadian, in all provinces, want the senate reformed, it is also true that the very core of the demand for reform is greater, not lesser, democratic accountability.

I just can't see how Trudeau junior is going to get his idea that a senator appointed (not elected) by an alleged independent committee (itself not elected), is going to give us senators that are more accountable for themselves. The current system of appointment by the Pm is not democratic either, but at least we can hold the P.M. accountable for his/her appointments in actual elections. How will we hold the Committee accountable? And in which forum? 

Does Junior remember that his own dad exacted a splurge of appointments to the senate and various posh jobs for the boys from John Turner as a condition for stepping down before the election? That led to the infamous rebuke by Mulroney during the leader's televised debate: "You had a choice, Sir. You could have said no." It certainly played a part in the people holding someone accountable for these appointments: Turner's Liberals were democratically defeated in part as a result. 

Does Trudeau junior think that, should the auditors report find skeletons in the liberal senators closets for things they did while still in the Liberal caucus, he wont be made to answer for it in the House just because he has now excluded them from the caucus?


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Jan 2014)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I think young Trudeau has just opened a big can of worm for himself.
> 
> While there is no doubt a majority of Canadian, in all provinces, want the senate reformed, it is also true that the very core of the demand for reform is greater, not lesser, democratic accountability.
> 
> ...




That's it! It isn't the "non-partisan" or "less partisan" bit that is the problem, it is the afterthought about _appointments_. It's the 21st century, M Trudeau, legislators in liberal democracies are elected, not appointed.

What more, David Akin (respectable journalist and Army.ca member) tells us, in this item which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from his blog, _On The Hill_, that most former Liberal senators didn't understand the leader's message:



> Those non-partisan Senators are not getting Trudeau’s message
> 
> David Akin
> 
> ...




Or, perhaps, the senators got the real message: *this is just window dressing, aimed at embarrassing the Conservatives; it's business as usual, at the trough, for you!*

Less partisan _sturm und drang_ would be welcome in both legislative chambers in Ottawa so, in fairness, expelling senators from the Liberal parliamentary caucus is, on its face, a good thing. I also understand that former Liberal senators are shut out of committees ~ where the real work is done ~ unless they have a caucus, a "party" affiliation, so their actions are understandable.


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Jan 2014)

And, to muddy the waters further, the _Globe and Mail_ reports that: *"Trudeau’s coup sows confusion in the senate over who owns the Liberal brand."* The article quotes former Liberal Senator Joseph Day, appointed by Jean Chretien in 2001, as saying _“We all are members of the Liberal Party of Canada, and we’re all senators, so we’re Liberal senators.”_

It looks like a few (just one or two?) might have heard M. Trudeau's main message and will be _independent_ senators, *but* the Senate rules will limit their abilities to do committee work.


----------



## ModlrMike (30 Jan 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> And, to muddy the waters further, the _Globe and Mail_ reports that: *"Trudeau’s coup sows confusion in the senate over who owns the Liberal brand."* The article quotes former Liberal Senator Joseph Day, appointed by Jean Chretien in 2001, as saying _“We all are members of the Liberal Party of Canada, and we’re all senators, so we’re Liberal senators.”_
> 
> It looks like a few (just one or two?) might have heard M. Trudeau's main message and will be _independent_ senators, *but* the Senate rules will limit their abilities to do committee work.



Speaking of committees, if they're all independent now they can't simultaneously be a caucus. That being said, who now stands as the opposition in the Senate, and what happens to the previously Liberal seats on committees?


----------



## Remius (30 Jan 2014)

Ok, for those that are wondering what their new status is, here is an article that explains it more or less.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/01/29/senators_both_independent_and_liberal_says_senate_leader_james_cowan.html

The speaker basically ruled that they have party status.

Now remember, he didn't kick them out of the party.  Just out of caucus.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (30 Jan 2014)

Always good to go back to first sources.

I dusted off (and I mean a lot of dust) my old constitutional law treatise section on the Senate.

Basically, the Senators are "summoned" (that is the exact term in the constitution - I guess if you are summoned to the Senate and decide not to come, the Queen can send round the Bailiff to pick you up  ) by the Governor General, acting as the Queen's representative. Therefore, it means he must act on advice of the Privy Council (not the ceremonial full one but the limited functioning one, meaning the cabinet as chaired by the PM).

Trudeau says he does not want 10 years of constitutional wrangling over how to improve the Senate. However, his proposal of using an "independent body" to select and appoint senators (even if ultimately  summoned by the GG) means that he would be amending an aspect of the constitution that is even worse: the executive power of the crown, which requires unanimity. In other words, even if Parliament was to enact legislation to create this "committee", the GG would have no choice but abide by the recommendation of the PM as representative of the Privy Council if it was different than the Committee's choice.

Trudeau would have been further ahead to say: I will create a committee to seek, select and present great Canadians with no political affiliation to the Cabinet from which the Privy Council can chose the best independent ones to suggest to the GG for summoning to the Senate. You can then judge ME on these appointments.

By the by, interesting little did-bit here: We know that one of the aspects of the audit of the Senate is the issue of location of the residence of the Senators. I wonder, however if the residency requirements for the Quebec Senators will be done according to the constitution. Quebec's 24 Senators have a residency requirement that is different than that of any of the other Senators: Where all Senators must reside in the Province they r"represent", the Quebec ones also have a requirement to come, one each, from the 24 specific ridings that existed in Lower Canada at the time of confederation.


----------



## ModlrMike (30 Jan 2014)

From the TorStar article:



> “It’s business as usual,” he added, with a laugh.



Pretty much sums it up for me.


----------



## Brad Sallows (30 Jan 2014)

Without checking age profiles, I hazard a guess many of the Liberal senators are still going to be there after Trudeau's tenure as leader is over.


----------



## DBA (31 Jan 2014)

I think throwing the Liberal senators under the bus just cost him the next election. It was done in the very heavy handed manner they keep accusing PM Harper of acting in and it will have lasting repercussions.


----------



## Remius (31 Jan 2014)

DBA said:
			
		

> I think throwing the Liberal senators under the bus just cost him the next election. It was done in the very heavy handed manner they keep accusing PM Harper of acting in and it will have lasting repercussions.



I'd hardly say that.  People feel no sympathy for senators right now.  Conservative or Liberal.  And when the AG report comes out they'll feel even less sympathy.

I think there are a lot of things to take away from this move besides the whole smoke and mirror thing.

1)  It is a concrete decisive move.  Trudeau has managed to effect change in the senate without having to go to the supreme court, or the provinces.  It may not seem apparent now but  it will have an effect if not in the day to day operations certainly in the perception of being independant of the Liberal Caucus.

2)  Trudeau took everyone by surprise.  This in itself is a signal that he is more than just a pretty face but is showing some political manoeuvering.  It accomplishes two things.  One it puts the other parties in reactionary mode.  Reacting to him.  Both the CPC and the NDP were outmanoeuvered.  Two, it keeps the senate scandal (if we want to call it that) in the spotlight which the CPC wants to get away from.  He's obviously listening to his advisors.

3)  It looks like he's trying to counter the whole lack of substance issue (illegal substances notwithstanding).  He's taken a clear positions on the Senate. A position that may resonate with some undecided types.  Basically he's beefing up his policy stances.

4)  He's heading off a storm before it starts.  There will be a storm when the AG report hits. And yes it will affect the Liberal brand maybe even more so than the Conservative one.  But Mr. Trudeau has two things going for him now.  He hasn't appointed a single senator that will likely be implicated and by taking this action now and avoids some uncomfortable questions and actions he may have had to take when this may or may not hit.  This will leave the Conservatives to either take action and react to the AG report when it hits putting them more in the spotlight than Trudeau would be in.

So yes, it will be business as usual and he might lose a few points here and there within his sphere of influence but he is likely making up for it with the electorate, the media and general perception.

The CPC will need to do some manoeuvering of their own to get around this.  How this can be done is beyond me.  But if they can take real action on the senate they might be able to play this to their advantage but I think though by handing the matter over to the Supreme Court they may have hamstrung themselves a bit.  It would be interesting to see if they could make real change while marginalising what Trudeau has done.

We'll see what comes of this.  But this is shaping up to be another interesting year in politics.


----------



## Journeyman (31 Jan 2014)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Trudeau has managed to effect change in the senate


Perhaps you meant to say he's managed to _affect_, as in to fake or simulate, change in the Senate.  

For substantive results thus far, all he managed to do is _announce_ change in the Senate; the Senators themselves have universally said they don't recognize any changes.


----------



## Edward Campbell (31 Jan 2014)

Watch/listen to M Trudeau explain what's changed in the Senate.  :


----------



## Journeyman (31 Jan 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Watch/listen to M Trudeau explain what's changed in the Senate.  :


Oh those paparazzi, stalking the starlets and glitterati


----------



## Edward Campbell (31 Jan 2014)

The _Good Grey Globe_ has two opposing views on M. Trudeau's _coup_:

     1. Jeffrey Simpson says, and this must come as no surprise that it is 'fresh, brave – and worth considering'; while

     2. John Pepall, a Toronto writer with whom I am unfamiliar, calls it ‘a breathtaking confusion of stupidities’.


----------



## Remius (31 Jan 2014)

John Pepall wrote a book a few years ago called "Against Reform".  He's very much against reforming Canadian institutions.  Things like the Senate, proportionate representation etc etc.  I have a copy of it somewhere but never got around to reading it.  Not even sure where or how I aquired a copy but given events of late, I may have to try and dig it up...


----------



## DBA (31 Jan 2014)

Crantor said:
			
		

> John Pepall wrote a book a few years ago called "Against Reform".  He's very much against reforming Canadian institutions.  Things like the Senate, proportionate representation etc etc.  I have a copy of it somewhere but never got around to reading it.  Not even sure where or how I aquired a copy but given events of late, I may have to try and dig it up...



I think the Senate serves a useful purpose: it's an echo of previous governments and constrains a new government from making drastic changes as soon as they gain power. In other words I view the frustrations it causes new governments as a feature, not a drawback. It forces them to take the longer view and govern so they can form multiple governments. 

Thanks for the book reference, looks like it will be an interesting read.


----------



## Kirkhill (31 Jan 2014)

Crantor said:
			
		

> I'd hardly say that.  People feel no sympathy for senators right now.  Conservative or Liberal.  And when the AG report comes out they'll feel even less sympathy.
> 
> I think there are a lot of things to take away from this move besides the whole smoke and mirror thing.
> 
> ...



I think what DBA is suggesting is that the Liberal Senators represent the supply lines to the old Liberal Party organizers and funding. Unless Junior has got a better supply chain up and running it probably is not advisable to upset the existing one.  Something to do with burning bridges....?


----------



## Rifleman62 (31 Jan 2014)

Via BC Blue, January 29, 2014: http://bcblue.wordpress.com/2014/01/
*
Trudeau caught lying on what he told his Liberal caucus about Senators*


I won’t get into right now what a moronic move Liberal leader Justin Trudeau did today in announcing his Senate policy except to point out that his Senate leader James Cowan tripped him up badly.

This is damning evidence Trudeau told his caucus one thing and the media something else:

*James Cowan, who had been the party’s leader in the Senate, says the formerly Liberal senators will continue to support Trudeau and call themselves the Senate Liberal caucus.

But when a reporter told Cowan the senators wouldn’t be able to fundraise or do anything connected to the party, Cowan seemed unaware.

“He [Trudeau] hasn’t said that … You’re saying ‘what he said,’ [but] that’s not what he said to us,” Cowan said.

Earlier Wednesday morning, Trudeau told reporters that the senators could remain party members, but that was about it.

“As far as political operatives, these senators will no longer be, you know, Liberal organizers, fundraisers, activists in any form,” Trudeau said. (see here)

Sure didn’t take long for this to start blowing up in Trudeau’s face.
*
Also: Watch Harper respond to Trudeau today and tell me this is a guy with a worried caucus.

*
The QP Clip: Harper pooh-poohs Trudeau's Senate gambit *

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZNqzWRY5DU


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Feb 2014)

Can this be the year in which veterans' issues come to the (political) foe?

This article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Citizen_ points to what I believe is an old, and now un-correctable, _strategic_ blunder by the CPC:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Advocate+quits+Conservative+party+veterans+groups+prepare/9460534/story.html


> Advocate quits Conservative party as veterans groups prepare to step up pressure
> 
> BY CHRIS COBB, OTTAWA CITIZEN
> 
> ...



Now, there is every indication that members here, in Army.ca, share Mr Westholm's view and will desert the CPC in 2015.

If enough Canadians decide this is a _moral_ issue, a matter of _trust_, then it could really hurt the Conservatives.

How did they get into this mess? Why do I call it a _strategic_ blunder?

We saw the _New Veterans' Charter_ almost nine years ago ~ we, at least we Army.ca members, had some suspicions. Over the years I expressed two views: 

     1. The _New Veterans' Charter_ is immoral: not because it is less generous than the former provisions, which I have suggested were overly generous, but because the government of the day introduced it while Canadian soldiers were in battle;

     2. It, the _Charter_ was and ill-considered piece of Liberal legislation that could have been and should have been repealed no later then the first CPC majority, in 2011. 

That ~ not branding the NVC as deeply flawed, _*immoral*_, Liberal and unacceptable ~ was the _strategic_ blunder. It is too late, in my opinion, to change it now. The Conservatives *own* this issue now ~ they shouldn't but they do.

I want to reiterate that I believe that the benefits that the veterans of World War II (and their families) voted for themselves (by electing and reelecting Liberal governments in the 1940s and into the 1950s) were too generous. But the bureaucrats in _Veterans Affairs_ 'sold' the NVC to politicians on two grounds: *a)* vets needed an immediate cash support, and *b)* it would save money in the long term. Both arguments resonated with Paul Martin's Liberals and Stephen Harper's Conservatives. It seemed to give veterans the financial tools necessary to what they felt was best for them (self reliance is a core _conservative_ value) and it promised to get rid of the costly life time support obligation (and that appeals to _C_onservatives).


----------



## PuckChaser (3 Feb 2014)

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but aren't we not permitted to be a member of a political party and still be a serving member of the CF? If so, makes it odd that he has a Reform party member card from when he was still serving.


----------



## dapaterson (3 Feb 2014)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Correct me if I'm wrong here, but aren't we not permitted to be a member of a political party and still be a serving member of the CF? If so, makes it odd that he has a Reform party member card from when he was still serving.



Membership would appear to be acceptable; being active in the party would not.

QR&O 19.44 (http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/qro-orf/vol-01/chapter-chapitre-019-eng.asp#cha-019-44):

(7) No member of the Regular Force shall:

take an active part in the affairs of a political organization or party;
make a political speech to electors, or announce himself or allow himself to be announced as a candidate, or prospective candidate, for election to the Parliament of Canada or a provincial legislature; or
except with the permission of the Chief of the Defence Staff, accept an office in a municipal corporation or other local government body or allow himself to be nominated for election to such office.


----------



## Rifleman62 (3 Feb 2014)

What does Retired Sgt. Major Barry Westholm mean?



> “All Canadians know,” he adds, “the foundation and ultimate success of this country is built upon our veterans and not any political party and/or policy.”


----------



## pbi (6 Feb 2014)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> What does Retired Sgt. Major Barry Westholm mean?



That is a very good question. On the face of it, his statement is false. What veterans (ie: retired military persons) do or don't do has next to no impact on the country as compared to what our politicians do or don't do, or which policies they do or do not pursue.


----------



## Cloud Cover (6 Feb 2014)

Agreed that his statement is false, but it is rhetoric that requires understanding and perspective. If he means that Canada would simply not exist, succeed or progress as a country without the service of our veterans he is quite wrong. However, if he means that the history created or to be created by our veterans is or will be a part of the lore and culture of the nation, then he has made a point, but it is a weak point>>> one that is not fully shared by many in this country.  
 He certainly has the right to emotionally characterize the situation anyway that he chooses, but he should not try to characterize the contributions of veterans into something that is larger than the truth.


----------



## pbi (6 Feb 2014)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Agreed that his statement is false, but it is rhetoric that requires understanding and perspective. If he means that Canada would simply not exist, succeed or progress as a country without the service of our veterans he is quite wrong. However, if he means that the history created or to be created by our veterans is or will be a part of the lore and culture of the nation, then he has made a point, but it is a weak point>>> one that is not fully shared by many in this country.
> He certainly has the right to emotionally characterize the situation anyway that he chooses, but he should not try to characterize the contributions of veterans into something that is larger than the truth.


Yes. That is what I was trying to say, but you have expressed much better.

The Tories might want to figure out how they can fix this bleeding ulcer of their perceived treatment of veterans, since it looks very counter-intuitive on them.  Giving Fantino some other job might be a good start: one that doesn't require him to deal diplomatically with other people. Probably not his strongest suit.


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Feb 2014)

pbi said:
			
		

> .... Giving Fantino some other job might be a good start ....


While that's _more_ likely to happen because it won't cost money, it's also _less_ likely to happen (at least right now, while under fire) because the PM doesn't seem like a guy who wants to look like he's backing down, especially in the case of a Minister the PM's defended in the House more than once in the past while.


----------



## Rifleman62 (6 Feb 2014)

You may not enjoy some of the rhetoric, but the message is on target.

http://epaper.nationalpost.com/epaper/viewer.aspx

*How the Tories lost the military*

6 Feb 2014 - National Post - Tasha Kheiriddin

The NDP and Liberals may both capitalize on the government’s failures

In the old days, they called it “shell shock.” Soldiers shivering and crying involuntarily, reliving memories of battlefield horrors even after war had ended. Today, we call it post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD, an umbrella term with 17 symptoms, encompassing the full spectrum of negative reactions that trauma survivors, including soldiers, can experience.

In the words of retired Sergeant Major Barry Westholm, quoted online in the Ottawa Citizen, “A person suffering from PTSD has to contend with a sort of horror unlike anyone who hasn’t dealt with the disorder can describe. It is frustrating, terrifying, confusing and debilitating all in one ugly package.”

In the past two months, our country has witnessed at least eight apparent military suicides. The Canadian Armed Forces is currently investigating a backlog of 75 other possible cases. And veterans advocates estimate that for every soldier that does take his or her own life, another dozen have tried.

PTSD, like too many mental illnesses, carries a stigma, one which is especially difficult for military personnel. Military culture frowns on weakness. So why would Conservative MP Cheryl Gallant make such a boneheaded remark as, “The stigma that has to be overcome is a stigma within themselves”? Gallant issued the statement on Jan. 30, when addressing soldiers’ reluctance to seek treatment from the government’s new operational stress injury clinics. That treatment is “completely confidential”, according to Gallant; in other words, since nobody knows, the fear of stigma is all in the sufferer’s head.

That same day, Veterans’ Affairs Minister Julian Fantino had his infamous showdown with a group of military men upset about the closure of eight Veterans’ Affairs Offices. Fantino’s disrespectful dispute spurred veterans’ groups and the opposition to call for his resignation. He refused, apologized, and enjoys the full backing of his government.

These are odd incidents, considering the importance this government places on Canada’s military, and how the Tories have traditionally relied on its vote. Today, the Tories present a strange paradox. They splurge on military tributes such as for the War of 1812. They are restoring 29 memorials and cenotaphs to honour our war dead. They defended and renewed Canada’s mission in Afghanistan through a period of minority government. Overall, the Conservative.ca website solemnly proclaims that “In 2006, after the Liberal Decade of Darkness (a quote from General Rick Hillier), we took action to rebuild Canada’s Armed Forces,” including such diverse initiatives as hiring more personnel, implementing programs to transition vets to the workforce, and defending Canada’s Arctic sovereignty.

At the same time, their procurement process is an unholy mess. Their F-35 purchase foundered as the price tag climbed. The government cancelled a $2-billion plan to buy new armoured vehicles. The military still awaits new warships, and helicopters to replace the near-antique Sea Kings. And the Tories managed to alienate veterans with changes to service delivery, at a time when the news is rife with stories of a military mental health crisis.

It is perfectly logical to close eight veterans’ offices, if you can guarantee that you’ll have 600 new points of service. But when veterans are told the person at the end of the phone hasn’t been trained yet to address their concerns, they will be angry, and rightly so. The government should have kept those eight offices running until it was clear that a seamless transition to the new service model could be made.

Beyond that, Ottawa should have realized that it is not just dealing with logic, but emotion. Older vets saved Canada and the Western world from the Nazis. Younger vets grapple with PTSD over the horrors they suffered in Afghanistan. and, and, Being a soldier is not your average job. It has a higher purpose. And most people don’t risk death when they go off to work.
*
It’s almost pathetic to witness the NDP seeking to capture the military constituency*, with their defeated motion to keep those Veterans’ Affairs offices open, after they have systematically opposed a host of Conservative military spending bills. *The same goes for the Liberals, who in the last election proposed to return Canada’s peacekeeping to its Pearsonian glory days, without committing the necessary resources.*

But both parties sense a weakness, and are bent on exploiting it. The Conservatives cannot take the military vote for granted. Those who serve our country expect their country to serve them — with their hearts, not just their heads.


----------



## Journeyman (7 Feb 2014)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> What does Retired Sgt. Major Barry Westholm mean?


Anyone who has seen a copy of his Release memo, with it's multi-page address group from the Governor-General and the Prime Minister on down, know that Mr Westholm has a flair for the self-promoting dramatic.


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Mar 2014)

Mercedes Stephenson, _CTV News_, is reporting (_tweeting_, actually) that: "Mini cabinet shuffle 2014: [Joe] Oliver to Finance [from Natural Resoirces], [Greg] Rickford to Natural Resources [from Science and Technology] , [Ed] Holder to Science [from the back benches]" 

Holder is an Ontario MP, Science and Technology is a "junior" ministry.


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Mar 2014)

I think it's no secret that I am not a fan of the Conservatives' "law and order" agenda. I think it is counterproductive, my _sense_ is that it probably creates as many criminals as it actually punishes, and it panders to a segment of society that I think is wrong headed. But I don't say much about it because I am confident that the _Supremes_ will set things right ... as, the _Globe and Mail_ reports they have on the issue of "a law that applied retroactively to non-violent offenders, taking away their easy access to early day parole, violates their constitutional rights."

The "law and order" people want to pick and choose which rights we have ... it doesn't work that way.


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Mar 2014)

The "big news" today will be the _Supremes'_ decision on the appointment of Justice Marc Nadon to that very bench.

In the _Globe and Mail_ Jeffrey Simpson, speaking loudly and proudly for the _Laurentian Elites_, suggests that:

     1. Justice Nadon is not qualified for the high court because he has "no record of outstanding judicial or academic work." Simpson doesn't argue that Justice Nadon no record at all, just that it's not "outstanding;" and

     2. We need a stronger process to constrain prime ministers' judicial appointments ~ or is it just this Prime Minister's appointments? 

I don't recall such concern when e.g. Rosalie Arbella was appointed (2004). Like Justice Nadon she had a _specialized_ record, but hers was as a very active, outspoken _advocate_ for "social justice," while his is as a specialist in maritime and insurance law. But Justice Arbella was a Chrétien appointment and the _Laurentian consensus_ approved, highly, of M. Chrétien. In fact, the _Laurentian consensus_ only disapproves of Prime Minister Harper because he, unlike King, St Laurent, Pearson, Trudeau, Turner, Mulroney, Chrétien and Martin, is not an acolyte, he doesn't keep the Central Canadian faith. Worse, he, PM Harper, is trying to _split_ the Central Canadian power base and unite suburban and rural Ontario (90± of 121 seats) with the prairies and suburban and rural BC.


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Mar 2014)

And the _Supremes_ reject Justice Nadon for what appear, to me, to be good and valid reasons.

This should be a lesson to all prime ministers.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Mar 2014)

Although I don't expect that he will, I hope Prime Minister Harper will learn that he cannot challenge the courts. Our, _Westminster_, system is finely tuned ... we have managed, over 800_ish_ years, to adapt an absolute monarchy to _constraints_ imposed by a parliament and adjudged by independent courts. That _fine tuning_ was, in the main, done without too much being written down ~ although the federal states (and there are a lot of them) that use the _Westminster_ system need to define many things, including divisions of powers.

I know a lot of people favour the Conservatives' "law and order," or "tough on crime" agenda. I do not. I think it is mean spirited and I suspect that its only purpose is to appease people I regard as borderline stupid. The worst part of it is trying to constrain an independent judiciary. I strongly object to attempts to interfere with sentencing: judges, not politicians, are qualified to set punishments. Sometimes I am dismayed by the sentences awarded but I console myself with knowledge that judges avail themselves of expert advice and that they have much more experience than I.

I would like to see fewer, not more, prisons and fewer people in them, especially young people. I think Quebec and Europe lead the rest of North America in successful youth justice. I believe some people need harsh, very harsh, *punishment*; I believe that many people, usually the same as are in need of harsh punishment, are incorrigible and need to be locked away for very, very long times, too. But some (many?) (most?) offenders can be rehabilitated and they need different care and custody ... and training. I belive that corporal punishment, administered in public, has a role, too ... but almost nobody agrees with me on that.


----------



## Brad Sallows (22 Mar 2014)

Ordinarily, politicians always set the punishments and judges decide within the range set.  "Tough on crime" sentencing policy is just a backlash against occasional "weak on crime" sentencing implementation.  The perceptions that exist have nothing to do with anyone being borderline stupid; they all depend on what is emphasized in media.

There do exist judges who let their personal beliefs shade their sentencing decisions too much, and from time to time an egregious sentence gets a lot of publicity.  What results is a specific instance of a general principle: if the people who are supposed to be intelligent, educated, and in charge fail to suppress their own bullsh!t instincts for a prolonged period of time, citizens will tire and will support a political party which applies a broad, blunt solution.  Any group with widespread discretion founded on public trust is always at risk of having discretion removed if they fail to adequately police themselves.  The strictest and harshest critic of any judge who steps outside the lines should be every other judge.


----------



## Remius (22 Mar 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I belive that corporal punishment, administered in public, has a role, too ... but almost nobody agrees with me on that.



Hmm.  I wonder if that we're given as an option to jail or fines if people would opt for that.  6 months in jail or 12 lashes on Elgin street.  Justice gets meted, the system is alleviated of having to feed and house someone and would be expedient. Also it isn't really forced since the person would select his punishment.  Would make for a good deterrent as well...


----------



## a_majoor (22 Mar 2014)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Hmm.  I wonder if that we're given as an option to jail or fines if people would opt for that.  6 months in jail or 12 lashes on Elgin street.  Justice gets meted, the system is alleviated of having to feed and house someone and would be expedient. Also it isn't really forced since the person would select his punishment.  Would make for a good deterrent as well...



Sounds like Starship Troopers. Of course, like the idea of earning citizenship though service, hard work and effort, I doubt you'll get much traction with the public at large....


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Mar 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Although I don't expect that he will, I hope Prime Minister Harper will learn that he cannot challenge the courts. Our, _Westminster_, system is finely tuned ... we have managed, over 800_ish_ years, to adapt an absolute monarchy to _constraints_ imposed by a parliament and adjudged by independent courts. That _fine tuning_ was, in the main, done without too much being written down ~ although the federal states (and there are a lot of them) that use the _Westminster_ system need to define many things, including divisions of powers.
> 
> I know a lot of people favour the Conservatives' "law and order," or "tough on crime" agenda. I do not. I think it is mean spirited and I suspect that its only purpose is to appease people I regard as borderline stupid. The worst part of it is trying to constrain an independent judiciary. I strongly object to attempts to interfere with sentencing ...




Despite my often stated objections to some, even most of the Conservatives' "law and order" agenda,* I do support the _Fair Elections_ initiative.

The _Globe and Mail_ editorialized its opposition to the Act. In fairnes, they do make some good points. But: the _Globe and Mail_ also gave Pierre Poilievre, the Minister of State for Democratic Reform, space to rebut and, in my opinion, he did so most effectively.

I am sure there are some provisions of the bill that will be problematical, but, on the key points: voter ID, public information (as opposed to public relations) and enforcement, the government, not the media and the _Laurentian Elites_ is on the side of the angels.

_____
* Leaving a few Army.ca members to wonder if I really am a Conservative and why I support the party


----------



## Journeyman (24 Mar 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> * Leaving a few Army.ca members to wonder if I really am a Conservative and why I support the party


Oh, we occasionally wonder _some_ things about you, but that isn't one of them.


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Mar 2014)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Oh, we occasionally wonder _some_ things about you, but that isn't one of them.


----------



## Brad Sallows (25 Mar 2014)

The best part of "Fair Elections" is that it tends to separate education/encouragement from enforcement.  If people involved in the former get caught with their thumbs on the scale, it is better if the people involved in the latter are not part of the same family.


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Mar 2014)

Michael Bliss, a historian worthy of respect, reminds Prime Minister Harper that "all politics is local," as former US House Speaker 'Tip' O'Neil quipped, in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/while-the-prime-minister-travelled-ottawa-burned/article17642490/#dashboard/follows/


> While the Prime Minister travelled Ottawa burned
> 
> MICHAEL BLISS
> Special to The Globe and Mail
> ...




I think Prof Bliss is a bit hyperbolic in saying, e.g. "Pierre Poilievre _[is]_ a political lightweight with no credibility outside of the most extreme partisan circles" or that the PM is "grandstanding in Ukraine, junketing in Israel, or hobnobbing at pointless G8 meetings" but, hyperbole aside, he makes a very valid point: The Conservatives' support is _eroding_, for a whole host of reasons, it hasn't eroded beyond recovery but it is the _*leader's*_ job to maintain, burnish and enhance the party's political position, and, while being seen as an effective international statesman will help a bit, elections must be won at home.


----------



## Brad Sallows (25 Mar 2014)

Alternative hypothesis: Canada is running fairly well at present - except for the indignity of being run by a Conservative administration and a PM without the proper credentials, resume, and breeding - so it is worth taking some time to go where the problems and opportunities are (abroad), notwithstanding the health risk it poses in some quarters where blood pressure rises to dangerously high levels and triggers excited outbursts of nonsense.


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Mar 2014)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Alternative hypothesis: Canada is running fairly well at present - except for the indignity of being run by a Conservative administration and a PM without the proper credentials, resume, and breeding - so it is worth taking some time to go where the problems and opportunities are (abroad), notwithstanding the health risk it poses in some quarters where blood pressure rises to dangerously high levels and triggers excited outbursts of nonsense.




Except, Brad, that the current government, in order to be re-elected must hold on to (or find offsetting gains for) all the 160+ seats it currently holds (plus an independent or two) and gain 9 of the thirty new seats. That's _doable_, not a 'cake walk' but doable, but elections are won on domestic, mostly pocketbook issues, not on foreign policy or international statesmanship. Prof Bliss' use of Robert Borden is germane. Borden was an excellent international statesman, he "did Canada proud," but he managed to lose his government at home.


----------



## a_majoor (26 Mar 2014)

One place where foreign affairs could make a difference (properly packaged and sold) is the raft of Free Trade deals concluded during this term of office, including the EU, the ROK and entry into the TPP talks. Good, solid numbers on the job creation front and GDP growth due to these initiatives (or even compelling narratives from companies and Entrepreneurs who benefit) would go a long way to linking foreign affairs to the Canadian pocketbook, to the benefit of the CPC.


----------



## Brad Sallows (26 Mar 2014)

>elections are won on domestic, mostly pocketbook issues,

Yep.

>linking foreign affairs to the Canadian pocketbook

And yep.

The US still isn't very healthy economically, and I'd be very surprised if Canada has a future as an autarky.

The Supreme Court appointment and "Fair Elections" may resonate with Bliss and others in the small and highly self-regarding intelligentsia but I'd be equally surprised if either is a top concern of most voters.  The Senate issue might have legs because many of the media are determined to ensure that it does.  The greatest threat to Harper is that the Liberals and media are determined to turn the next federal election into a vote for prom queen.


----------



## dapaterson (26 Mar 2014)

I think the Supreme Court could resonate, but kudos to the PM - he's acknowledging the judgement, which defuses the issue.  Were he to press the issue it would resonate and "damage the brand" so to speak - Canadians still have a great deal of respect for institutions like the Supreme Court.


----------



## Remius (28 Mar 2014)

Another omnibus bill it would seem...

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/national/Conservative+budget+bill+loaded+with+unrelated+measures/9673517/story.html

If you read at the end the title of it is actually a mouthful.


----------



## Griffon (28 Mar 2014)

> If you read at the end the title of it is actually a mouthful.



It's not that bad, just "Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1."

The rest of it makes up the title of the government web page along with the act, the journalist misinterpreted that title as the title of the Act.  Not shocked by that at all.


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Mar 2014)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Another omnibus bill it would seem...
> 
> http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/national/Conservative+budget+bill+loaded+with+unrelated+measures/9673517/story.html


With this interesting little "morsel" included:
*"Thousands of Veterans to receive voluntary one-time payment"*


> .... The compensation announced today will be made through a one-time payment to more than 5,000 eligible individuals, including Veterans, survivors or dependents. *The Department is beginning the work necessary to implement these changes, which are subject to parliamentary approval of the Budget Implementation Act 2014* ....


Which means a vote against anything in said bill becomes "a vote against vets getting their money".


----------



## PPCLI Guy (28 Mar 2014)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Another omnibus bill it would seem...



Every day it gets harder to hold my nose.....


----------



## Edward Campbell (31 Mar 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Despite my often stated objections to some, even most of the Conservatives' "law and order" agenda,* I do support the _Fair Elections_ initiative.
> 
> The _Globe and Mail_ editorialized its opposition to the Act. In fairnes, they do make some good points. But: the _Globe and Mail_ also gave Pierre Poilievre, the Minister of State for Democratic Reform, space to rebut and, in my opinion, he did so most effectively.
> 
> ...




The _Globe and Mail_, along with most other media, continues to argue, vehemently, against the _Fair Elections Act_.






David Parkins in the _Globe and Mail_ ~ reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisoj sof the Copyright Act
Source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/you-like-me/article17173783/#dashboard/follows/

The _opposition_ has two main problems: vouching and the _rights_ of the Chief Electoral Officer.

     First, vouching: with 39, count 'em 39 pieces of acceptable identification _vouching_ is not necessary. Vouching does allow nefarious people to vote when they should not. Since it is not necessary and it _might_ be misused it can,
     and should be scrapped.

     Second, the Chief Electoral Officer: his duties is to _manage_ the electoral processes, he is not in the "get out and vote" business. Chanting "get out a vote" is harmless, but it consumes resources. Not a big problem, either way, in my _opinion_.


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Apr 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Michael Bliss, a historian worthy of respect, reminds Prime Minister Harper that "all politics is local," as former US House Speaker 'Tip' O'Neil quipped, in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/while-the-prime-minister-travelled-ottawa-burned/article17642490/#dashboard/follows/
> 
> I think Prof Bliss is a bit hyperbolic in saying, e.g. "Pierre Poilievre _[is]_ a political lightweight with no credibility outside of the most extreme partisan circles" or that the PM is "grandstanding in Ukraine, junketing in Israel, or hobnobbing at pointless G8 meetings" but, hyperbole aside, he makes a very valid point: The Conservatives' support is _eroding_, for a whole host of reasons, it hasn't eroded beyond recovery but it is the _*leader's*_ job to maintain, burnish and enhance the party's political position, and, while being seen as an effective international statesman will help a bit, elections must be won at home.




And here is more, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, on the problems "at home" that are _perceived_ to be being ignored while the Prime Minister focuses on foreign affairs:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/the-harper-machines-in-disarray/article17747088/#dashboard/follows/


> The Harper machine is in disarray
> 
> LAWRENCE MARTIN
> Special to The Globe and Mail
> ...




_Perception_ or _reality_? Is the "Harper machine" really in disarray? I'm sure Lawrence Martin hopes so, I doubt it is as bad as it seems. But the Conservative Party *remains* split, as it was 10+ years ago when Stephen Harper and Peter MacKay put it together into an uncomfortable coalition.

Canada, and in my view most countries, including the USA, are not as neatly _divided_ as some groups (_Reformers_ and _Tea Party_)would like to believe. We are, I think, all both _liberals_ and _conservatives_. Most of us, almost all of us, want people to be 'free' to do as they wish, so long as their acts do not infringe on the 'rights,' including the right to privacy, of others. That's a _liberal_ impulse. In some of us it is tempered by e.g. religious beliefs ~ some people believe, in the strongest sense of that word, that some of your and my rights and freedoms, under the law, must be constrained because an almighty and all powerful, all knowing and _perfect_ god has decreed that there is a higher law which must be obeyed. That's an _illiberal_ impulse and I _think_ it is less common and less powerful than the broad, general _liberal_ impulse towards 'freedom.' But we are, also, mostly _conservative_, too. We are reluctant to change institutions and society at large, even when we suspect that the changes might be beneficial. Our institutions, our society, our _culture_ is comfortable and we are happy to leave it as it is. I think some Conservatives do not understand that; some CPC members hope that a "hard line," absolutist position will work. I _suspect_ that Stephen Harper is closer to that view than I am. 

But that doesn't mean that the big CPC "machine" is broken ~ it's damaged but still working.

But: Stephen Harper needs to take _ownership_ and impose some discipline. I have never liked the "boys in shorts pants," I don't think politics is a game, but I think that people like Dimitri Soudas treat it as such. I miss Niger Wright, a _progressive_ grown up, but a *real* _conservative_, too. There are others in the Party: Baird and Clement and Flaherty (on his way out) are _progressives_ and *real* _conservatives_, too. Others of their _friends_, people who understand Ontario, especially the suburbs, need to be brought in, by Prime Minister Harper to reorganize the party and the platform and the process and get ready to fight the next election campaign.


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Apr 2014)

There will be another Toronto area by-election. The _Star_ is reporting that long serving (Scarborough) Liberal MP, Jim Karygiannis is resigning, immediately. 

In the liberal civil wars Karygiannis was a _Chretienista_ until the early 2000s when he became a _Martini_; he was also famous notorious for some of his over th top and ill considered  comments about veterans and for being voted, by the _Hill Times_, the laziest politician in Parliament. 

What makes the seat interesting is that Scarborough ~ home of Rob Ford and _Ford Nation_ ~ is, probably, _switchable_, from Liberal to CPC.


Edit: to add:

And the _Globe and Mail_ reports that Mr Karygiannis wil run for City Hall and the report goes on to suggest that he, Karygiannis, has concludee that he is not a good fit with M. Trudeau's _modern_ Liberals.


----------



## Remius (1 Apr 2014)

Along that same line of thought it would seem that he his throwing his hat into the Toronto city council circus...

Edit for correction.


----------



## Crispy Bacon (1 Apr 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> In the liberal civil wars Karygiannis was a _Chretienista_ until the early 2000s when he became a _Martini_; he was also famous notorious for some of his over th top and ill considered  comments about veterans and for being voted, by the _Hill Times_, the laziest politician in Parliament.



Ah, yes. Jim "giving money to soldiers is like giving alcohol to drunks" Karygiannis.  Good riddance.


----------



## a_majoor (1 Apr 2014)

Crispy Bacon said:
			
		

> Ah, yes. Jim "giving money to soldiers is like giving alcohol to drunks" Karygiannis.  Good riddance.



While he may be unusual in speaking openly, this is the same crowd that believes that parents will spend money on "beer and popcorn". The only constant is while you work hard to earn your money, only *they* can be trusted to spend it for you...


----------



## Brad Sallows (1 Apr 2014)

That just shows how out-of-touch Liberals are.  It's "beer and pizza" and "soda and popcorn".


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Apr 2014)

The mainstream media, well, one member of that _estate_ anyway, decides to actually talk about Justin Trudeau's lack of _substance_in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from David Akin's _On The Hill_ blog:

http://blogs.canoe.ca/davidakin/politics/are-you-in-justin-trudeaus-middle-class/


> Are you in Justin Trudeau’s middle class?
> 
> David Akin
> 
> ...



M Trudeau and his handlers cannot duck the issues for ever, eventually he will have to tell Canadians that he actually has a brain and some _substance_.

I think he's a likable, probably honest and upright young man, but I doubt that he has the mix of policy _thought_ and _vision_ that i want in a leader.

Prime Minister Harper, on the other hand, while easy to dislike, does have _policies_ - I don't like all of them, but he's got some and he actually understand them - and he has a _vision_ for Canada, and that's why he, not M Trudeau, still has my vote.


Edit: grammar  :-[


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Apr 2014)

It s*eems* "He's way in over his head". 8)


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (3 Apr 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The mainstream media, well, one member of that _estate_ anyway, decides to actually talk about Justin Trudeau's lack of _substance_in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from David Akin's _On The Hill_ blog:
> 
> http://blogs.canoe.ca/davidakin/politics/are-you-in-justin-trudeaus-middle-class/
> M Trudeau and his handlers cannot duck the issues for ever, eventually he will have to tell Canadians that he actually has a brain and some _substance_.
> ...




Defining the middle class is difficult due to a variety of reasons, including the concept of the middle class as part of the hierarchical society between the working class and the upper class.  In the older days, one had to have the capital required to be a noble to be middle class, with the difference being that they weren't a "noble".  I would suggest that he's right in saying that you can't just put a number on it as a simple definition.  Any number of influences could force someone from the upper class to the "middle class" including caring for dependents, living in Vancouver or Toronto and paying up to 40% of your salary on mortgage payments, etc.

That said, his vague comments and policies play more like cheerleading than policy.  Blindly saying that the middle class is struggling and having NO concept of what the middle class is, even within a debatable definition is ridiculous.  His statements seem to  indicate that he wants to help the "working class" vice the professional middle class, but who knows....  :dunno:

Mr. Trudeau, and really Canadians, need to first define what we consider to be a middle class, and what the lifestyle expectations for a middle class _ought_ to be.  Once a reasonable definition is provided, than we can better define if there is a problem, why there is a problem, and make a plan to solve it.

Just food for thought


----------



## a_majoor (3 Apr 2014)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Defining the middle class is difficult due to a variety of reasons, including the concept of the middle class as part of the hierarchical society between the working class and the upper class.  In the older days, one had to have the capital required to be a noble to be middle class, with the difference being that they weren't a "noble".  I would suggest that he's right in saying that you can't just put a number on it as a simple definition.  Any number of influences could force someone from the upper class to the "middle class" including caring for dependents, living in Vancouver or Toronto and paying up to 40% of your salary on mortgage payments, etc.
> 
> That said, his vague comments and policies play more like cheerleading than policy.  Blindly saying that the middle class is struggling and having NO concept of what the middle class is, even within a debatable definition is ridiculous.  His statements seem to  indicate that he wants to help the "working class" vice the professional middle class, but who knows....  :dunno:
> 
> ...



Why are _you_ not the leader of the Liberal Party? Your answer is far more detailed and nuanced than anything that has come out of the Young Dauphin's mouth since his entry into politics...


----------



## Infanteer (3 Apr 2014)

Here is one for the discussion.  There are 5441 Captains or naval Lieutenants in the Canadian Forces.  They make, at a minimum, $74,424 gross per annum.  Do they constitute "the middle class"?  If not, are we saying that the commissioned ranks of the CAF are the upper class crust of Canada's economic make-up?

How about one of the 1214 Lieutenant Colonels or Commanders?  Their base pay is $116,628 gross per annum.  Can about 5 years of good service suddenly propel a commissioned officer from "middle class" to "upper class" and thus not worthy of Mr. Trudeau's efforts?  Considering that the top "1%" (remember those guys?) in Canada earned $191,000 a year, then the good Lieutenant Colonel wouldn't rate a campus protest....

Seeing how both the Captain and Lieutenant Colonel could retire at their current rank and not be working for their salary, neither are part of Trudeau's defined "middle class"?


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (3 Apr 2014)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Here is one for the discussion.  There are 5441 Captains or naval Lieutenants in the Canadian Forces.  They make, at a minimum, $74,424 gross per annum.  Do they constitute "the middle class"?  If not, are we saying that the commissioned ranks of the CAF are the upper class crust of Canada's economic make-up?
> 
> How about one of the 1214 Lieutenant Colonels or Commanders?  Their base pay is $116,628 gross per annum.  Can about 5 years of good service suddenly propel a commissioned officer from "middle class" to "upper class" and thus not worthy of Mr. Trudeau's efforts?  Considering that the top "1%" (remember those guys?) in Canada earned $191,000 a year, then the good Lieutenant Colonel wouldn't rate a campus protest....
> 
> Seeing how both the Captain and Lieutenant Colonel could retire at their current rank and not be working for their salary, neither are part of Trudeau's defined "middle class"?



I was thinking the same thing in terms of military pay.  Would Mr. Trudeau make a differentiation between a Captain 9 vs a Captain 2? What if the Captain 9 is in Cold Lake and the Capt 2 is in Gagetown? 

I would be interested to see what Mr. Trudeau, and for that matter Mr Harper and Mr Mulclair's "real" views on the middle class and its plight are away from the camera.


----------



## dapaterson (3 Apr 2014)

Median income in Canada: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/famil108a-eng.htm

Our "minimum" Captain, before any IPCs or allowances, and before any spousal income, is above the median family income in all provinces except Saskatchewan and Alberta.


----------



## Brad Sallows (3 Apr 2014)

>a) “…work for their income, not people who live off their assets and their saving.” (Monday)

That's not a bad stab at it, but the working class also works for their incomes and lives paycheque-to-paycheque.  

I prefer the definition (Aristotle's, I think) Jerry Pournelle occasionally re-emphasizes, which goes roughly: those who can afford the goods of fortune in moderation.

The upper class can splurge, the middle class can not.  The working class has access to some goods that have become commonplace (eg. TV, mobile phone, internet access), but not with casual indifference to budget constraints.

The notion that the middle class is suffering is still a curious one, though.

Examples (very roughly representative, but far from authoritative - open to corrections):

Middle class home in 1940: 1200-1600 sq ft, 2-3 bdrm, 1 bath (maybe - outhouses were still the rule in much of the country), unfinished basement.  Radio, no TV.

Middle class home in 1955: 1400-1800 sq ft, 2-3 bdrm, 1 bath, unfinished basement.  B/W TV (maybe).

Middle class home in 1970: 1600-2000 sq ft, 3 bdrm, 2 to 2-1/2 bath, partially finished basement (probably including one of the bathrooms).  Colour TV.

Middle class home in 1990: 2000+ sq ft, kitchen and dining room eating spaces, 3 bdrm, 2 to 2-1/2 bath, finished.  Colour TV and VHS.

Middle class home in 2010: 2500+ sq ft, 3+ bdrm, 3 to 4-1/2 bath, finished.  Big screen colour TV, DVD/HD, internet.

(I do wonder when a home up in MLS advertises more bathrooms than bedrooms.)


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Apr 2014)

Just for reference ... this graph is from Statistics Canada; it shows after tax income based on data from the 2006 census, the 2010 National Household Survey and the T1Family File.






Source: http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/ref/guides/99-014-x/c-g/c-g02-eng.cfm

As you can see it is a somewhat distorted bell curve. A couple of distortions are:

     1. It doesn't reflect, accurately, those, at the bottom, who do not report any income at all; and

     2. There is a _bump_ at the $124,999 level - all those commanders/lieutenant colonels?

But, divide it into eight standard deviations and you get something like:

                 Lowest (0.1%) = no income
          Lower (2.1%) = far less than $10K
     Low (13.6%) below about $15K (i.e. about $1,000 per month disposable income after federal and provincial income taxes)
Lower Middle (34.1%) from about $15K to $65K
Upper Middle (34.1%) from about $65K to $150K
     High (13.6%)  $150K to $200K 
          Higher (2.1%)  $200K to $500K  (Another distortion is in the higher income levels, it is, I _think_, likely a combination of too few 'rich' people and good tax planning)
                 Highest (0.1%)  above $500K


----------



## a_majoor (4 Apr 2014)

While this article is about the United States, I would suggest that there are enough similarities between our two nations that roughly similar inferences can be drawn to the situation here as well. An interesting factoid might be to look at the numbers of people who earn more than $100,000/year in government jobs at all levels. There should be a "sunshine list". Quasi government positions (Hospital administrators, University administration, etc., where the bulk of the funding comes from the taxpayer) also scores pretty high, although it is often more difficult to determine the salaries since they may or may not be in the pubic record:

http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/investment_manager.html



> *An Investment Manager's View on the Top 1% *
> 
> This article was written by an investment manager who works with very wealthy clients. I knew him from decades ago, but in 2011 he e-mailed me with some concerns he had about what was happening with the economy. What he had to say was informative enough that I asked if he might fashion what he had told me into a document for the Who Rules America Web site. He agreed to do so, but only on the condition that the document be anonymous, because he does not want to jeopardize his relationships with his clients or other investment professionals. Make no assumptions about the investment manager with respect to race, ethnicity, political perspective, or views on government economic policy; he may or may not fit readers' preconceptions concerning some of these categories.
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Apr 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Despite my often stated objections to some, even most of the Conservatives' "law and order" agenda,* I do support the _Fair Elections_ initiative.
> 
> The _Globe and Mail_ editorialized its opposition to the Act. In fairnes, they do make some good points. But: the _Globe and Mail_ also gave Pierre Poilievre, the Minister of State for Democratic Reform, space to rebut and, in my opinion, he did so most effectively.
> 
> ...




But the _Laurentian Elites_, represented in this case by Chief Electoral officer Marc Mayrand, are, according to David Akin, fighting back in a most effective and suitable _bureaucratic_ manner ~ using very respected Canadians as paid _stalking horses_, according to this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from his blog:

http://blogs.canoe.ca/davidakin/politics/the-smartest-money-marc-mayrand-ever-spent/


> The smartest money Marc Mayrand ever spent
> 
> David Akin
> 
> ...




A lot of partisan Conservatives believe that M. Mayrand is, himself, an anti-CPC partisan. My guess is the _Elections Canada_ is convinced that the CPC, more than any other party, ever, tries to bend and stretch the election rules to an unprecedented degree. But it does seem that _Elections Canada_ goes after the CPC will full vigor while it ignores or excuses e.g. Liberal leadership campaign funding missteps.

If even a bit (some? any?) of what David Akin suggests is true then my guess is that the Conservatives will ram this bill through parliament and rub M Mayrand's face in it.


Edit: spelling  :-[


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Apr 2014)

I listened to CBC Radios' _The House_ this morning (I often give it a miss because I think Evan Solomon is a lousy radio interviewer) and I listened to both Sheila Fraser and Pierre Poilievre. Ms Fraser makes some good points, especially about the Conservatives' _attitudes_ towards officers of parliament but, despite massive media attention, this remains an _"inside the greenbelt"_ sort of issue and what Mr Poilievre says will, I think, resonate more with _ordinary Canadians_®.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Apr 2014)

GAP said:
			
		

> Hmm....seems to be in the water....BC NDP,  Wild Rose in Alberta, PC's in Manitoba, PC's in Ontario....




What a lot of Canadian political folk, elected/candidates and _back room_ people alike, have to remember or relearn is that Canada, at large, is broadly and generally a pretty moderate place, filled with fairly middle of the road people. Canadians are pragmatic; they want fiscal prudence but social genreosity; they want safe streets but a second chance for young offenders; they want to ship oil to China without screwing up the environment; and the list of dichotomies goes on and one and on ... even I, a card carrying Conservative and a generous donor to that party, oppose large chunks of the CPC's policies. (I oppose even larger, much larger chunks of the NDP's policies and the Liberals' records (since they appear to have no policies, beyond selling _weed_ in the liquor store).)


----------



## Crispy Bacon (7 Apr 2014)

And the NDP have a new national director, a former Communist Party member. Seems about right  :-\


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Apr 2014)

OK, two article, both related to oil, specifically to Alberta's _heavy oil_ and the _politics_ associated with helping and, more often, hindering it:

     First, from the _Financial Post_: U.S. foundations against the oil sands ~ this is over three years ood but, I suspect that little has changed; and

     Second, from _CBC News_: Greenpeace calls for Elections Canada probe of Ethical Oil

My _sense_ of things is that the Greenpeace allegations have some basis in fact: the _ethical oil_ campaign is intensely political, and people like Alykhan Velshi do move, easily, between _advocacy_ and partisan politics and, being _communications_ specialists, their words often end up in ministers' mouths, but I guess that this proposal will do as much damage to Greenpeace as it does to ethical oil. 

Will Elections Canada take this on? I think Marc Mayrand would love to ... to 'stick it' to Pierre Poilievre and Stephen Harper, _et al_, and I think it is a somewhat "ground breaking" complaint that might make for some interesting lawyering, but I think, also, that it will end up like the legendary argumentative infantry officer and the pig: everyone will get _dirty_ but nothing of substance will be decided.


----------



## a_majoor (8 Apr 2014)

Interesting that "Ethical Oil" is targeted, but the multitude of Canadian and International organizations against the oil sands are not. 

I would especially like to see the Tides foundation under the microscope. Who are these people waging economic war against Canada? I have a suspicion that if you follow the money the trail may not even end up in the United States...


----------



## Remius (8 Apr 2014)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Interesting that "Ethical Oil" is targeted, but the multitude of Canadian and International organizations against the oil sands are not.
> 
> I would especially like to see the Tides foundation under the microscope. Who are these people waging economic war against Canada? I have a suspicion that if you follow the money the trail may not even end up in the United States...



7 of those groups are currently under CRA's microscope including TIDES Canada for exactly that and other reasons.  I expect that many if not all will lose their charitable organisation status.


----------



## a_majoor (8 Apr 2014)

Glad to see the CRA is on the case, but I should have been more clear: Elections Canada is not (AFAIK) investigating these organzations, despite their very vocal political advocacy.


----------



## Remius (8 Apr 2014)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Glad to see the CRA is on the case, but I should have been more clear: Elections Canada is not (AFAIK) investigating these organzations, despite their very vocal political advocacy.



True indeed.  But it's exactly their political advocacy that has CRA going after them.  And given TIDES reputation I hope they nail them.

Edit to add: And I believe that CRA can do much more to punish TIDES than Elections Canada could ever do.


----------



## Remius (8 Apr 2014)

Here is a CBC article on the audit of seven groups including TIDES.  The insinuation is that the complaint came from Ethical Oil.

I wonder if the complaint against Ethical Oil wasn't retaliation.  One just has to look at the list to see that they are likely related.

Interesting indeed.

Right now I think only a complaint was made to Elections Canada and hasn't been acted on yet.


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Apr 2014)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Here is a CBC article on the audit of seven groups including TIDES.  The insinuation is that the complaint came from Ethical Oil.
> 
> I wonder if the complaint against Ethical Oil wasn't retaliation.  One just has to look at the list to see that they are likely related.
> 
> ...




I think this is the link to the article to which you are referring.


----------



## ModlrMike (8 Apr 2014)

The problem for Ethical Oil lies in their donors list. As Ezra Levant pointed out, once that's made public there's nothing to stop activists from shaming people and businesses into their version of line. 

This is not about what or who Ethical Oil is. It's about access to the donors list.


----------



## Remius (8 Apr 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I think this is the link to the article to which you are referring.



Yes.  Thanks for that.


----------



## a_majoor (9 Apr 2014)

I'm going to suggest this thread is the proper place for the article since health care expenses are among the largest single line item in provincial budgets, as well as the fastest growing. Allowing health care clinics in "Big Box" retail stores isn't a huge stretch (considering they already have pharmacies, optometrists and so on), but more inportantly is the idea of transparent pricing and consumer choice, which is missing in Canada's health care system. The cost savings should be enourmous, and provide a great deal of breathing room for provincial governments to get their finances in order:

http://www.the-american-interest.com/blog/2014/04/08/consumers-win-big-from-growth-of-health-care-clinics/



> *Consumers Win Big from Growth of Health Care Clinics*
> 
> One of the most important health care innovations of our time may not be a miracle drug or a new scanning machine, but something much more prosaic: big box clinics. Since the early 2000s, chains like CVS have experimented with in-house primary care clinics, but now retailers are beginning to scale the concept up. Some predict the number of clinics will double over the 2013–15 period. This development should make cost-conscious consumers very happy, as the WaPo explains:
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Apr 2014)

_Personal opinion_: I use a large clinic which has several physicians, one of who is my "family physician" and who I see most often. There is a lab, there will be an imaging department next year or the year after, there are, also, nurse practitioners who staff a walk-in clinic and so on. There are also some specialists, including a dietitian and a traditional Chinese doctor. I like the range and speed of services ~ "one stop shopping" for my annual check up. I also understand, from my "family doctor" that she much prefers the system to her previous private practice. I'm told that it is good (at least better) use of money because they do more work than the same number of private practitioners ~ they get paid for what they do, of course, but they are more _productive_.


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Apr 2014)

According to this article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, Prof Tom Flanagan's new book should be a good read:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/pm-harpers-former-adviser-to-release-book-in-early-may/article17911256/#dashboard/follows/


> Harper’s former adviser to release book in early May
> 
> KATHRYN BLAZE CARLSON
> OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail
> ...




I tend to trust Prof Flanagan's _opinions_ on partisan political issues.

My own sense is that Prime Minister Harper has good, even excellent _policy_ judgement but that he is weak in _personal_ judgements ~ I think his own, highly partisan, _political_ opinions colour his views on people. He ends up valuing personal and political loyalty over e.g. competence. It is, I think a fairly common political disease: consider e.g. Jean Chrétien and Jean Pelletier and Alfonso Gagliano and, eventually Charles Guité. A fair, half decent, policy idea got _mangled_ by political partisans and _morphed_ into a crippling scandal.


----------



## Remius (10 Apr 2014)

I will likely give Prof. Flanagan's book a read.  

But will skip anything to do with Carson.


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Apr 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I think it's no secret that I am not a fan of the Conservatives' "law and order" agenda. I think it is counterproductive, my _sense_ is that it probably creates as many criminals as it actually punishes, and it panders to a segment of society that I think is wrong headed. But I don't say much about it because I am confident that the _Supremes_ will set things right ... as, the _Globe and Mail_ reports they have on the issue of "a law that applied retroactively to non-violent offenders, taking away their easy access to early day parole, violates their constitutional rights."
> 
> The "law and order" people want to pick and choose which rights we have ... it doesn't work that way.



And, once again, the _Supremes_ do what's right, they fight for law, not just order.


----------



## Kirkhill (11 Apr 2014)

And with every loss that the Laurentian Consensus hands Harper how do you suppose his chances look?

My sense is that his "supporters", wavering though they might be, will only be strengthened in their conviction that it is them against the world.  I can't see that doing him any harm.

Those that oppose him will be chuckling but they have been chuckling on the opposition benches for eight years now.  I don't see that this materially affects the balance.  It still just separates Harper from Mulcair/Trudeau.

Having said that - there are Liberals that wish to protect their property and see guns and hard sentences as part of that and many Socialists are social conservatives.   Prairie farmers and union labour found that in common.  I think they still have problems choking back their Waffles.


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Apr 2014)

I think you are quite right, Kirkhill. It is the same with the _Fair Elections Act_: the elites are terribly upset but my _sense_, including a chat in mt _local_ just the other evening, is that no one else cares at all.

The "law and order" crowd knows that Prime Minister Harper is on their side and it's "the others," the "elites" and the "so called experts" (take that Sheila Fraser!) who are against them.

Edit to add:

Oh, and all the whining and hand wringing from the CBC and its (not many) supporters is also great free propaganda for the CPC: the hated enemy is being cut!


----------



## Kirkhill (11 Apr 2014)

A concern of mine, with all this pushing and pulling, is what happens when 20% of the population loses faith in national institutions then finds their "champions" ejected from power.

Do they continue to play by the rules or do they seek alternative solutions?


----------



## Brad Sallows (11 Apr 2014)

Play by the rules and "opt out" where possible, unless the rules become too onerous and they are forced to "opt in".

In the 21st century, it is too easy for a few motivated, intelligent, and disgruntled people to create grief all out of proportion to their numbers.  People who want to take government too far away from the moderate middle are the danger.


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Apr 2014)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Play by the rules and "opt out" where possible, unless the rules become too onerous and they are forced to "opt in".
> 
> In the 21st century, it is too easy for a few motivated, intelligent, and disgruntled people to create grief all out of proportion to their numbers.  People who want to take government too far away from the moderate middle are the danger.




Agreed.

Even when the _mushy middle_ is wrong, it is "the people," writ large.

I support Stephen Harper's desire to make Canada a more conservative (by which I, of course, mean more _liberal_) country or, at the very least to make it less beholden to the _Laurentian Elites_, but Canadians will not be moved too far, too quickly. We are, indeed, a people of the "moderate middle" and, by and large, moderation works ~ or, as former Ontario Premier Bill Davis said, "bland works." A series of bland, grey men gave Ontario good, solid, _bland_ government for nearly 30 straight years and they, being good Canadians, responded to it.


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Apr 2014)

In the recent past both the Conservative Party of Canada (when Kim Campbell was leader) and the Liberal Party of Canada (when Michael Ignatieff was leader) have slipped below 20% of the vote share in a general election, but, in general, I think we can safely say that each has 25% of pretty nearly rock solid partisan support; in other words half of Canadians will cast votes for either a _Grit_ or a _Tory_ with little or no regard to any real policy or even personal integrity issues. The NDP has, about, 15% of the vote and 5% of Canadians (22.5% of Quebecers) will vote for a _nationalist_ party almost every time.

That really means that 30% of Canadians can be persuaded to vote _Bloc_, Conservative, Green, Liberal, NDP and so on based upon current issues. That, the real independent voting block, is the largest of all the groups but it will, almost without fail, divide: that's why either the Conservatives or Liberals can and do win majority governments with 40% (often a wee, tiny bit less) of the popular vote. (No party has won an absolute majority of the vote since Brian Mulroney, in 1984, won with 50.03%. Pierre Trudeau never got above 45% or so in popular support. The last time any Liberal got over 50% of the popular vote was in 1940. (Diefenbaker won a landslide victory - 53% which is HUGE in a four party system, as we had then and as we have now - in 1958.)) A full third to half of the _independents_ usually go to one of the major parties, giving that party its 25% core plus 15% for a majority.

Politics in 2014 (and even more in 2015) means appealing to the 15% of _independent_ Canadian who can be persuaded to vote Conservative or Liberal. They, those _independents_ are 'moderates,' they worry, a lot, about so called _pocket book_ issues (which is not the same as fiscal policy) and they don't like spending on defence or high culture.


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Apr 2014)

Here is an interesting graphic, which come from EKOS Research via _iPolitics.ca_:






This is terribly gross. I'll assume "Fiscal issues" refers to taxes and spending, while the "Economy" is an amorphous mass of 'issues' related to people's pocketbooks. But what are "Social issues?" Healthcare? Probably. Law and Order? Maybe that, too? Immigration? I guess.

In any event the big _trend_ is that Canadians care less and less and less about "Social issues" and more about the "Economy" and little at all about either "Fiscal issues" (taxes) and "Ethics & accountability."


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Apr 2014)

... reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

My *emphasis* added
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/liepert-defeats-anders-for-conservative-nomination-in-calgary-signal-hill/article17949858/#dashboard/follows/


> Liepert wins Conservative nomination in Calgary Signal Hill
> 
> CALGARY — The Canadian Press
> 
> ...


----------



## Remius (13 Apr 2014)

Glad to see him gone.  He is the type of conservative that damages the brand.


----------



## Crispy Bacon (13 Apr 2014)

Nothing to stop Anders from running in another riding. There are plenty of ridings that will be happy to get anything more than a paper candidate, let alone an incumbent MP who's been sitting for 17 years.


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Apr 2014)

Re: the _Fair Elections Act_

There is a somewhat disturbing article on the LSE (London School of Economics) website by British scholar Matthew Flinders* entitled Low voter turnout is clearly a problem, but a much greater worry is the growing inequality of that turnout. 

Let me set out my, personal, biases early:

      1. I think - no proof that I can muster - that the _poor_ (a dreadfully broad and _loaded_ term) are poor because they are poorly educated and I'm not fussed when the uneducated don't vote;

      2. I believe that low voter turnout amongst young people rectifies itself over time, as they grow up they grow more responsible.

There are two HUGE problems with my beliefs: the first one clashes with my _notions_ of _liberty_ and _responsibility_ going hand in hand and Prof Flinders' article suggests that  belief in the evolution of voters is not well founded.

I still don't think that it is, in any way, wrong to require that people identify themselves before they vote even as I understand that this will operate, mostly, against those who already have the most trouble voting.

_____
* I don't know if he is any relation to the famous 18th century British navigator and cartographer Capt Matthew Flinders RN.


----------



## a_majoor (27 Apr 2014)

The idea of giving the educated or landholders the vote is actually a very old concept; the ancient Greeks called it Timocracy and used it to ensurre that the people who had a stake in the outcome were the ones who were entitled belong to the _Ekkesia_, sit on juries and otherwise take part in the political life of the _Polis_. The  _Serenìsima Repùblica Vèneta_evolved a republican system based on income and property, and the founders of the American Republic also started off with a very restrictive pool of eligable voters.

By all means the poor should have the opportunity to partake of much better education than is provided by the Public School system (vouchers, charter schools, charities giving out scholarships etc.) since they, like everyone else also "vote" every day in the marketplace with their dollars, something which political junkies often fail to take into account (the shifting of markets and demographics is creating a "New Canada" which is much different from what the members of the _Laurentian Consensus _ see or desire).

Like Edward, I would prefer a system where the people who are involved are actually engaged and knowledgable, but like so much else in life, this is a DIY project for a generation. I strongly suspect that the current political and social elites actually are much more comfortable with an unengaged and "uneducated" electorate who don't interfer with their schemes.


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Apr 2014)

Well, our friends in the Liberal Party of Canada are at it again, according to this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Citizen_. What the Liberals are 'at' again is winning on campaigns that overspend on borrowed money, on borrowed money which need never be paid back because, although overspending and not repaying debts are offences under the Canada Elections Act, the Chief Electoral Officer, Marc Mayrand, says he cannot enforce the law ... not against Liberals, anyway.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/national/Liberal+candidates+byelection+campaigns+into/9793223/story.html


> Liberal candidates ran byelection campaigns into the red
> 
> BY GLEN MCGREGOR,
> OTTAWA CITIZEN
> ...




The new _Fair Elections Act_ aims to fix the "no need to repay debts" loophole ... maybe that's what the _Laurentian elites_ are so opposed to it.


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 May 2014)

If, and it's a great big *IF*, it is true (John Ivison is an unapologetically partisan, a pro-Conservative commentator), that "Beverley McLachlin, the Chief Justice ... lobbied against the appointment of Marc Nadon to the court" then there has been s serrious Constitutional beach and the CPC has reason to be upset.

But, only one side of the story is out; I'm sure there's another side to it.


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 May 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> If, and it's a great big *IF*, it is true (John Ivison is an unapologetically partisan, a pro-Conservative commentator), that "Beverley McLachlin, the Chief Justice ... lobbied against the appointment of Marc Nadon to the court" then there has been s serrious Constitutional beach and the CPC has reason to be upset.
> 
> But, only one side of the story is out; I'm sure there's another side to it.




OK, here is (part of?) the other side, in an article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/harper-alleges-supreme-court-chief-justice-broke-key-rule-with-phone-call/article18382971/#dashboard/follows/


> Harper alleges Supreme Court Chief Justice broke key rule with phone call
> 
> SEAN FINE
> JUSTICE WRITER — The Globe and Mail
> ...




The key element, it seems to me, is in this bit: _"she_ [Chief Justice McLachlin]_ had been consulted by the parliamentary screening committee on the government’s short list of candidates before the appointment was made, and commented on the needs of the court. She had also raised the question of a Federal Court judge’s eligibility with Mr. MacKay and the Prime Minister’s chief of staff, Ray Novak."_ I think it can be argued, as I believe many will, that she was just offering friendly, professional advice on a technical matter because her call came weeks (months?) before Justice Nadon was nominated and it related to a purely technical issue (eligibility). But it seems to be to have been wrong for the parliamentary screening committee to have consulted her and equally wrong for her to have responded. *Can a lawyer help us with the ethics of this, please.*

Dueling with a _Supremes_ is a double edged sword. It will make one part of the CPC base very happy but it will trouble many, many more _uncommitted_ Canadians unless the Chief Justice was, very clearly, in the wrong.


----------



## Remius (2 May 2014)

To be honest it does look a lot like a smear.  As far as the ethics question involved, I'm not sure.  When naming a CDS, is the current serving CDS brought in for his input?  Or any Governor in Council appointment like say the Auditor General?  Would Sheila Fraser be consulted on her replacement and would she have had input?  I realise the Supreme Court would be diffrent than a GoC appointment but it does not seem out of line that the Chief Justice be consulted or would have some input on technical, eligibility and procedural matters pertaining to an appointment. 

We have seen this before.  When the CPC does not get what it wants or faces resistance it goes on the offensive and try to discredit dissenting voices.  Look at some of the accusations against the Chief Electoral Officer recently for example.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (2 May 2014)

Actually, while all federally appointed judges (to Provincial superior or supreme courts, appeal courts, and federal court, fed court of appeals and Supreme court of Canada) are appointed by the governor general in council (so the PM, basically) but all of them are presented to the PMO on a short list after they have been selected to be there by "screening" committees. These committees always include representatives of the appropriate Bar, the public and of the court to which the appointment will be made. So it is perfectly appropriate for the screening committee to consult the Supreme court while vetting candidates.

On the other hand, the Chief Justice has regular contacts with the Minister of Justice, or the PMO or the various Bar, Canadian and provincial, and the other courts of Canada, on various administrative or technical issues relating to the Court but never to discuss cases before the court or with the potential to end up before the court. 

A conversation, before the short list is sent too the PMO, that would merely point out, without any comments whatever on the character of justice Nadon, that his provenance could constitute a problem with regards to the technical requirements for qualification in this case (not any personal qualifications), would not be inappropriate.

Dragging something like this in public to make it look improper by  a serving PM who (should) knows better just to cast a pall over the Chief Justice would be very inappropriate. I certainly hope that G.G. Johnson would mention this in his usual dispatches to her Majesty.


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 May 2014)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Actually, while all federally appointed judges (to Provincial superior or supreme courts, appeal courts, and federal court, fed court of appeals and Supreme court of Canada) are appointed by the governor general in council (so the PM, basically) but all of them are presented to the PMO on a short list after they have been selected to be there by "screening" committees. These committees always include representatives of the appropriate Bar, the public and of the court to which the appointment will be made. So it is perfectly appropriate for the screening committee to consult the Supreme court while vetting candidates.
> 
> On the other hand, the Chief Justice has regular contacts with the Minister of Justice, or the PMO or the various Bar, Canadian and provincial, and the other courts of Canada, on various administrative or technical issues relating to the Court but never to discuss cases before the court or with the potential to end up before the court.
> 
> ...




Thanks, OGBD, that's exactly the sort of information I was seeking. 

I am very, very leery - as a Conservative Party member/donor - of attacking the courts, any courts but the SCC above all, without absolutely ironclad proof of judicial misconduct. My guess is that this is PMO spite, and bad politics at that.


----------



## Brad Sallows (2 May 2014)

>“The question concerning the eligibility of a federal court judge for appointment to the Supreme Court under the Supreme Court Act was well-known within judicial and legal circles,” the statement from Mr. Rees said. “Because of the institutional impact on the Court, the Chief Justice advised the Minister of Justice, Mr. MacKay, of the potential issue before the government named its candidate for appointment to the Court.

By "question", I assume "unresolved point" is meant.  If the existence of the question was "well-known", why would it be necessary to advise the government so?  Having asked that, I understand the value of SC appointments going forward cleanly, and hence the value of avoiding messy disputes.  It may have been prudent, ethical, and fair advice to give; but it also has the potential to appear improper.

"Lobby" is a foolish word to substitute for "advise" and the CPC is in grave danger of losing ground for being ill-mannered.  But I-have-concerns or there-may-be-an-issue talk can be, and therefore can be perceived as, an indirect attempt to influence a decision by removing or deprecating options.


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 May 2014)

And, according to a report in the _Globe and Mail_, "Supreme Court Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin has categorically denied Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s extraordinary public assertion that she attempted to contact him about a court case ... Her office said that she discussed the possible appointment of Justice Marc Nadon with [the] Justice Minister to “flag a potential issue” about his eligibility – two full months before Mr. Harper chose Justice Nadon. The court eventually ruled Justice Nadon ineligible."

I sincerely hope the PMO backs off and apologizes, but I somehow doubt they will. I can see no good coming from this ... not for the Conservative Party and not for Canada.


----------



## Privateer (2 May 2014)

I find this deeply disturbing, as the facts as presented in the articles show nothing other than a smear by the PMO on the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.  And there is no way that the PMO would be making statements about the Chief Justice of Canada without the direction of the PM himself.  This is more than a disregard for the Canadian constitution; it is an attack on it.

Here is the "principle" stated by the PMO:



> Neither the Prime Minister nor the Minister of Justice would ever call a sitting judge on a matter that is or may be before their court,” the Prime Minister's Office said in a statement released early Thursday evening.



The communication from the Chief Justice came before Mr. Nadon was nominated.  There was no case before the Supreme Court at that time, or in any other court that could have resulted in an appeal to the Supreme Court.  Without the nomination having taken place, can it even be said that there was a case which "may be" before the Supreme Court?  I cannot see how that could be said to be the situation.

The Prime Minister is seeking political gain by disparaging the Chief Justice of Canada.  This is a situation that should concern all Canadians.  It is not a political issue.  It is a constitutional issue.


----------



## Remius (2 May 2014)

Looks like the PMO is going to stay on message and frame the context.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/stephen-harper-weighs-in-on-spat-with-chief-justice-beverly-mclachlin-1.2629853

Interesting messaging and damage control here.  :facepalm:

The Chief Justice has apparently already responded.


----------



## Privateer (2 May 2014)

News Release from the Chief Justice of Canada, through the Executive Legal Officer to the Supreme Court of Canada:



> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
> 
> In response to recent media reports, the office of the Chief Justice of Canada, the Right Honourable Beverley McLachlin, P.C. is releasing the following statement.
> 
> ...



Note that the nomination of Mr. Nadon by the PM did not occur until September 30, 2013.  The appointment was made October 3, 2013, following an appearance before a Parliamentary committee on October 2, 2013.

On the facts as presented, the PMO is engaging in smear.  It is attempting to bring the court into disrepute for political gain.


----------



## Nemo888 (2 May 2014)

Harper is killing Conservative credibility. If this keeps up he'll run the party into the ground and then bail like Mulroney. He has outlived his usefulness and become a liability.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 May 2014)

I think people need to calm down a little bit, put away the torches and pitchforks, while this whole thing shakes out a bit more.


----------



## Brad Sallows (3 May 2014)

From one side:

1. >The Prime Minister’s Office publicly asserted that the Chief Justice attempted to contact Mr. Harper about a court case, and said that he refused to take her phone call when Justice Minister Peter MacKay told him it would be “inappropriate.”

2. >“The Chief Justice initiated the call to the Minister of Justice. After the Minister received her call he advised the Prime Minister that given the subject she wished to raise, taking a phone call from the Chief Justice would be inadvisable and inappropriate. The Prime Minister agreed and did not take her call.”

From the other side:

3. >At no time was there any communication between Chief Justice McLachlin and the government regarding any case before the courts. The facts are as follows:

4. >On July 31, 2013, the Chief Justice’s office called the Minister of Justice’s office and the Prime Minister’s Chief of Staff, Mr. Novak, to flag a potential issue regarding the eligibility of a judge of the federal courts to fill a Quebec seat on the Supreme Court. Later that day, the Chief Justice spoke with the Minister of Justice, Mr. MacKay, to flag the potential issue. The Chief Justice’s office also made preliminary inquiries to set up a call or meeting with the Prime Minister, but ultimately the Chief Justice decided not to pursue a call or meeting. 

It looks like both sides are tap-dancing around fine points and different (mis-)understandings.

The PMO was wrong to use the phrase "about a court case".  As a layman, I might casually describe anything to do with a pending court hearing and decision a "court case" with no harm done, but as there was truly not yet a "case before the courts", the statement from the CJ's office is the correct and legally sound assertion.

Both sides agree the CJ reached out to the Minister.  Whether the CJ or the CJ's staff sought the talk with the PM, both sides agree the CJ reached out to the PM.  Both sides claim to have stepped away from it.

The PMO's office apparently has some dim people in it if they decided to pick a pointless fight (if you don't have a bulletproof casus belli and legal case to remove the CJ, who do you morons think you are and WTF do you think you are doing?) with an institution and people that are probably as much above reproach and suspicion and as well-regarded as anyone in Canada can claim to be.  Nevertheless, I'm too long in the tooth to listen to anyone who refuses to see the "advice" as a gentle extra hand on the tiller.  I can not imagine why the point could not have been left with the selection committee to raise or not raise with the PM.

Regardless, the government (PMO's office) should have done the dignified thing after losing the nomination and borne its disappointment and loss of face gracefully.  Grow up, you sniveling self-regarding arrogant power-tripping children.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 May 2014)

There's the monster! Get him! :


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 May 2014)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> The PMO's office apparently has some dim people in it if they decided to pick a pointless fight (if you don't have a bulletproof casus belli and legal case to remove the CJ, who do you morons think you are and WTF do you think you are doing?) with an institution and people that are probably as much above reproach and suspicion and as well-regarded as anyone in Canada can claim to be.  Nevertheless, I'm too long in the tooth to listen to anyone who refuses to see the "advice" as a gentle extra hand on the tiller.  I can not imagine why the point could not have been left with the selection committee to raise or not raise with the PM.
> 
> Regardless, the government (PMO's office) should have done the dignified thing after losing the nomination and borne its disappointment and loss of face gracefully.  Grow up, you sniveling self-regarding arrogant power-tripping children.




Quite right, Brad.

But despite this, which is something I regard as dumb, bad policy and bad politics, I still cannot see an acceptable alternative to the CPC in the near future.


----------



## Infanteer (3 May 2014)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> From one side:
> 
> 1. >The Prime Minister’s Office publicly asserted that the Chief Justice attempted to contact Mr. Harper about a court case, and said that he refused to take her phone call when Justice Minister Peter MacKay told him it would be “inappropriate.”
> 
> ...



Pretty sound analysis Brad.


----------



## Kirkhill (3 May 2014)

While I agree with the assessment of tone I am not sure that I find the PMO's actions to be bad politics.

From 2006 - following Harper's election and the vapouring of the Laurentians - Harper's "attack" on the institutions. 



> Courts Stacked With Liberal Judges says Conservative Leader Harper
> BY LIFESITENEWS.COM
> Thu Jan 19, 2006 12:15 EST
> 
> ...



Now, he has less credibility in his attacks because he has been seen to actively engage and modify those same institutions - with less success than he hoped - but on the other hand he can always claim, paraphrasing Tennyson* - that it is better to have tried and failed than never to have tried at all.
And the more the press and the "institutions" squawk the more the believers will draw their own conclusions.  I believe the current expression is "confirmatory bias".

*Actual quote is:" better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all".


----------



## DBA (3 May 2014)

I think the SC botched the ruling. It promotes what is dangerously close to being an intolerant and racist view of what it means to be a member of the Quebec judiciary community. Spend too many years on a Federal Court bench outside the province and your no longer 'pure' enough to be considered a member.  

I agree with "at least three Supreme Court judges must come from Quebec, to ensure that the Court has sufficient expertise in the province’s civil law code. " (From: SUPREME COURT OF CANADA Judges) but have a hard time seeing how he isn't from Quebec and doesn't have that expertise. 

I agree with * Per Moldaver J. (dissenting):* in the ruling
(http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/13544/index.do?r=AAAAAQAKTWFyYyBOYWRvbgAAAAAB)


----------



## GAP (3 May 2014)

That is quite a damning dissenting statement by Moldaver. 

It sure sounds like the SC cherry picked their reasons....


----------



## Crispy Bacon (4 May 2014)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> The PMO's office apparently has some dim people in it if they decided to pick a pointless fight (if you don't have a bulletproof casus belli and legal case to remove the CJ, who do you morons think you are and WTF do you think you are doing?) with an institution and people that are probably as much above reproach and suspicion and as well-regarded as anyone in Canada can claim to be.  Nevertheless, I'm too long in the tooth to listen to anyone who refuses to see the "advice" as a gentle extra hand on the tiller.  I can not imagine why the point could not have been left with the selection committee to raise or not raise with the PM.



1. It plays great into the conservative base, who has long known that the courts are often packed with social justice zealots.

2. It plays great into any Canadian who's concerned about *who runs Canada. * Canadians elected the Conservative government to lead Canada. They have tried to lead Canada and implement their agenda and been rejected 5 times in the last 6 weeks.  Who is the Supreme Court to overrule the will of the Canadian public?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 May 2014)

Crispy Bacon said:
			
		

> 1. It plays great into the conservative base, who has long known that the courts are often packed with social justice zealots.
> 
> 2. It plays great into any Canadian who's concerned about *who runs Canada. * Canadians elected the Conservative government to lead Canada. They have tried to lead Canada and implement their agenda and been rejected 5 times in the last 6 weeks.  Who is the Supreme Court to overrule the will of the Canadian public?



Exactly. The Government makes laws, the SC enforces them. However, that distinction is getting much grayer and harder to distinguish when it comes to the SC.


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 May 2014)

Six out of 8 of the current Supremes were appointed by Conservative governments, so one gets what one appoints.

Maybe lawyers, like reporters, come from a history of rooting for the underdog, making them more "activist" than some would like.


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 May 2014)

More, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, on the PM vs CJ thing:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/harper-wades-into-uncharted-territory-in-spat-with-chief-justice/article18413672/#dashboard/follows/


> Harper wades into uncharted territory in spat with Chief Justice
> 
> SUBSCRIBERS ONLY
> 
> ...




This, fighting, publicly, with the Chief Justice, is a dangerous thing, in my opinion. Like Prof Macfarlane, I cannot see the _upside_ of it all.


----------



## Kirkhill (4 May 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> More, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, on the PM vs CJ thing:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/harper-wades-into-uncharted-territory-in-spat-with-chief-justice/article18413672/#dashboard/follows/
> 
> This, fighting, publicly, with the Chief Justice, is a dangerous thing, in my opinion. Like Prof Macfarlane, I cannot see the _upside_ of it all.



Unusual in Canada perhaps but not so unusual in Britain (King / PM vs Lord Chamberlain or Lord Chief Justice - not to mention judges in general), or the US, or Australia.  

Another complicating factor, in my opinion, is that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is also the defacto deputy to the Governor-General and thus the Prime-Minister's boss when the G-G is unavailable.  Another remnant of the British North America Act, and earlier colonial governance models.

I agree that it is dangerous to challenge institutions - and I also agree that it is not good practice to challenge them on political or other trivial grounds.

That doesn't mean that they shouldn't be held to account - and after a string of 6 consecutive decisions one might be encouraged to discern a pattern.

As to the source of the people on the court - The Prime Minister gets a list of applicants from the very institutions to which they are to be appointed.  The Bar is self-governing.  He is effectively offered Hobson's Choice.  The one time he challenged that limitation (Nadon) he was denied that option as well.

Which raises an interesting point about what type of Senate one might get if the same rules were applied to the selection of Senators as has been suggested by some.  The risk of entrenching the Laurentian Consensus would appear to be high.

The Amending Formula virtually entrenches power east of the Lakehead until the population shifts West or Ontario starts acting like a Western Province. Nunavut, Yukon and the NW Territories are all denied the same representation as Prince Edward Island.


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 May 2014)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Unusual in Canada perhaps but not so unusual in Britain (King / PM vs Lord Chamberlain or Lord Chief Justice - not to mention judges in general), or the US, or Australia.  Agreed!
> 
> ... and after a string of 6 consecutive decisions one might be encouraged to discern a pattern.
> ...




I think the _pattern_ is a message. Prime Minister Harper hired respected, retired SC Justice Ian Binnie to give him a _liberal_, modern, 21st century interpretation: an interpretation consistent with Prime Minister Harper's general view on the Constitution. The _Supremes_ gave him a very _conservative_, traditional, deferential interpretation, deferential to the very idea of federalism. I think the message is that a _liberal_, modern PM, like Harper, will face a _conservative_, traditional court ... just as Jean Chrétien consistently faced a _liberal_ court that was willing to stretch the law beyond his (and his party's) very _conservative_ interpretations.


(Of course I'm using _liberal_ and _conservative_ correctly, not the way those terms are commonly (incorrectly) used.)


----------



## ballz (4 May 2014)

Crispy Bacon said:
			
		

> 1. It plays great into the conservative base, who has long known that the courts are often packed with social justice zealots.
> 
> 2. It plays great into any Canadian who's concerned about *who runs Canada. * Canadians elected the Conservative government to lead Canada. They have tried to lead Canada and implement their agenda and been rejected 5 times in the last 6 weeks.  Who is the Supreme Court to overrule the will of the Canadian public?



Canadians elected the Conservatives to govern _according to our constitution_. The fact that the Supreme Court has denied the Gov't 5 times in 6 weeks does not suggest, to me, that the Supreme Court is trying to govern Canada. It suggests to me that the Conservative gov't is trying to govern _outside of it's authority_ which has been granted by the constitution.

The remedy for the Conservatives is available. If they don't like the constitution, they can try and have it amended. A hard thing to achieve, but it's supposed to be hard to achieve for a damn good reason.

I have no problems with the Conservatives pushing the envelope on what they are allowed to do, that's part of their job. I also have no problems with the Supreme Court holding that line, that's part of their job.

One thing I do know, I do not want our Supreme Court to become like the American Supreme Court, where the judges are affiliated with "x" party and their opinions are as biased as their political affiliations.


----------



## Kirkhill (4 May 2014)

But ballz, their opinions are biased.  

That isn't a slight or a slam.  It is a statement of fact.  There is nobody out there that doesn't have biases.  While I don't want party-affiliated judges (because, as ERC and Humpty Dumpty keep pointing out, ""When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less." and therefore labels are not particularly useful in helping me discern bias) I would prefer that judges own up to their bias prior to me letting them act as arbiters and arbitrarily arbitrate at arbitrations over arbeiters. (Arbeiters might be a stretch too far.)

The problem for me is that Judges ultimately are supposed to be deciders.  They do the Solomon thing and make decisions when nobody else can and when a toss of the coin is perhaps a bit trivial - although cheaper, quicker, probably more effective and generally less damaging to the fabric of society.

Maybe we need a new position in the Canadian hierarchy.  Someone who is paid to toss an approved coin.  We could even call him Tosser-in-Chief.


----------



## ballz (4 May 2014)

Of course everyone has biases, but a Judge is paid to read the black and white and decipher it as best they can, not to apply their opinion. I don't understand constitutional law as well as I'd like, and I realize that the black and white may become grey sometimes and so one's biases may affect the way they decipher it, but I trust them to remain as impartial and as dispassionate as they can. We have 9 judges on the Supreme Court of Canada for those times when black and white become blurred.

I do *not* trust a legislator to be impartial or dispassionate, nor would I want them to be.

There seems to be a few people calling into question whether the Supreme Court of Canada is biased. While individuals may be, I do not believe the Judiciary branch is biased. I do not believe there is an active attempt to thwart the CPC's efforts. To be shot down 5 times in 6 weeks is much more indicative (to me) that the CPC is actively trying to act outside their arcs.


----------



## Kirkhill (4 May 2014)

ballz said:
			
		

> Of course everyone has biases, but a Judge is paid to read the black and white and decipher it as best they can, not to apply their opinion. I don't understand constitutional law as well as I'd like, and I realize that the black and white may become grey sometimes and so one's biases may affect the way they decipher it, but I trust them to remain as impartial and as dispassionate as they can. We have 9 judges on the Supreme Court of Canada for those times when black and white become blurred.
> 
> I do *not* trust a legislator to be impartial or dispassionate, nor would I want them to be.
> 
> There seems to be a few people calling into question whether the Supreme Court of Canada is biased. While individuals may be, I do not believe the Judiciary branch is biased. I do not believe there is an active attempt to thwart the CPC's efforts. To be shot down 5 times in 6 weeks is much more indicative (to me) that the CPC is actively trying to act outside their arcs.



I don't think it is necessary to assume that either party is INTENTIONALLY trying to thwart the other for the sake of the thwarting.  I think that the pattern of call and response can be equally indicative of honestly held differences.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 May 2014)

ballz said:
			
		

> Of course everyone has biases, but a Judge is paid to read the black and white and decipher it as best they can, not to apply their opinion. I don't understand constitutional law as well as I'd like, and I realize that the black and white may become grey sometimes and so one's biases may affect the way they decipher it, but I trust them to remain as impartial and as dispassionate as they can. We have 9 judges on the Supreme Court of Canada for those times when black and white become blurred.
> 
> I do *not* trust a legislator to be impartial or dispassionate, nor would I want them to be.
> 
> There seems to be a few people calling into question whether the Supreme Court of Canada is biased. While individuals may be, I do not believe the Judiciary branch is biased. I do not believe there is an active attempt to thwart the CPC's efforts. To be shot down 5 times in 6 weeks is much more indicative (to me) that the CPC is actively trying to act outside their arcs.



Can you let us know where you bought those rose coloured glasses?


----------



## ballz (4 May 2014)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I don't think it is necessary to assume that either party is INTENTIONALLY trying to thwart the other for the sake of the thwarting.  I think that the pattern of call and response can be equally indicative of honestly held differences.



100%. I'm not advocating the CPC is trying to dismantle the SCC and create their own dictatorship, just responding to the idea that the SCC judges have collectively decided to govern the country and write their own laws.



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> Can you let us know where you bought those rose coloured glasses?



Not every time a less than spectacular view of the Conservatives comes to light is because there is some sort of agenda against them. It is inconvenient, but I try to keep it real.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 May 2014)

I am guessing (maybe just hoping?) that the PMO is trying to dampen down this dispute rather than, as the _Globe and Mail_ suggests, "snubbing" the Canadian Bar Association.

The article, citing an expert, suggests that "the Chief Justice made a minor error by trying to contact the Prime Minister after she was consulted by the committee responsible for selecting the next Supreme Court justice," and, of course, the PMO tried to exploit that - most likely for narrow, temporary, partisan, political advantage: a lot of _conservative_ Conservatives don't much like judges, especially not top court judges who thwart some of their attacks on our social system. Maybe (I hope) the PMO understands that it has done all the damage it can, and it is time to move on.


----------



## Nemo888 (5 May 2014)

The majority of the Supremes were appointed by Harper himself. 5 of 9. Chief Justice was appointed by Mulroney. One was appointed by Chretien and one by Martin. One spot is empty.

If Harper's hand picked judges didn't support him clearly he screwed up.


----------



## ModlrMike (5 May 2014)

They're not *supposed* to support him, so perhaps he didn't screw up.


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 May 2014)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> They're not *supposed* to support him, so perhaps he didn't screw up.


 :nod:


----------



## Remius (5 May 2014)

The problem is always deferring to the Supreme Court.  The Senate question was sent to the Supreme Court by the PM.  There is nothing wrong with that.  They believed that they could change certain aspects of the Seante without having to go to the provinces.  Their experts (including former SCJs), likely paid a hefty sum, agreed that they had a case.  There is nothing wrong with any of this.

But we have a system that already exists, as was stated, with good reason.  The PM does not want to use that system.  I get it.  It will cause issues to use that system, so that decision is not a bad one.  

The PMO started this bunfight which is totally innapropriate (that is where the screw up began).  Maybe they thought the CJSC would just stay quiet and not respond.  I just find it unfortunate that the PMO chooses to go after respected and qualified people like the Chief Justice, the PBO, the Chief Electoral Officer and a former Auditor General (likely the most respected of all of them) over what amounts to sour grapes and not actual issues.  

Maybe, if they actually listend to some of them, they wouldn't have bills overturned and found unconstitutional or appointments revoked (or worse turned into scandal).

The CPC does have some things to offer but should try and use the system sometimes to get those done instead of going around it or straight up ram through it.

As a side note: it looks like, by picking this fight with the CJSC, the PMO has managed to create another story where there should not have been one. 

@Nemo888: Maybe the fact Harper chose 5 of the 9 Supremes, and that most voted against the government's position shows that he actually made good appointments.  Hardly a screw up in my view.  And asking the Supreme Court for a ruling on what they wanted to do with Senate BEFORE actually doing it isn't screwing up either.  That is good governing in my view.  Attacking the Chief Justice because you didn't get the answer you wanted is childish and is indeed a screw up though.


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 May 2014)

Here, reproduced, without comment, under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_ is the _Laurentian elites'_ opinion on the _Harper vs Supremes_ fiasco provided by one of the _Laurentian elites'_ main champions, Jeffrey Simpson:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/tories-sink-to-a-new-supreme/article18498810/#dashboard/follows/


> Attacking the Supreme Court, the Conservatives sink to a new low
> 
> JEFFREY SIMPSON
> The Globe and Mail
> ...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (7 May 2014)

Little ghetto dogs with a bone. They won't let it go, and when it appears it's not getting the attention they think it deserves, they ramp up the inflammatory rhetoric.

Good old Mop & Pail, self righteous indignation at its finest. :


----------



## Remius (7 May 2014)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Little ghetto dogs with a bone. They won't let it go, and when it appears it's not getting the attention they think it deserves, they ramp up the inflammatory rhetoric.
> 
> Good old Mop & Pail, self righteous indignation at its finest. :



Unfortunately, for some inexplicable reason, the PMO and the government seem to be the ones keeping this story going.  When you throw the ghetto dogs more bones they tend to stick around.


----------



## jpjohnsn (7 May 2014)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, for some inexplicable reason, the PMO and the government seem to be the ones keeping this story going.  When you throw the ghetto dogs more bones they tend to stick around.


It's not inexplicable in the least.  Regardless of political stripe, it seems that just about everyone in public life seems to react to anything that challenges their actions or views by "doubling down" to avoid actually admitting a mistake.  Sometimes even the double down gets doubled down and things start to veer off into some bizarre territory that ends up being even more damaging than simply admitting the fault.


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 May 2014)

And Justin Trudeau explains to Albertans that Stepheh Harper is to blame for the delays to the _Keystone XL_ pipeline because, in his own words, "this [Harper's] government has not done a credible job on demonstrating it is serious about climate change, and it is serious about protecting our environment.”

Of course that's it, US domestic politics and President Obama's search for a _legacy_ have nothing to do with it ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (11 May 2014)

This from the PM's Info-machine:


> Prime Minister Stephen Harper today announced that by-elections will be held on June 30, 2014, in the ridings of Scarborough-Agincourt (Ontario), Trinity-Spadina (Ontario), FortMcMurray-Athabasca (Alberta), and Macleod (Alberta).


Wonder if this'll stretch the various party machines in the two Ontario ridings with the other election on the go?


----------



## GAP (11 May 2014)

Harper may regret it if Hudac coughs up this election like he did the last one....


----------



## SeaKingTacco (12 May 2014)

Maybe...maybe not.  There is a school of thought that says it makes it easier for the federal party if your provincial opponent is in power in Ontario.


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 May 2014)

I think the CPC made a mistake in attacking the Chief Justice of the SCC, even if it appeals to part of the base, I think it was an even bigger mistake to bad mouth former Auditor General Sheila Fraser, that _appeals_ to no one with the brains the gods gave to green peppers, but I think the real target, _institutional_ Ottawa as exemplified by Mark Mayrand and Elections Canada, is about right. Thus, kudos to former CPC MP Dean Del Mastro for doing what the PMO should have done: calling for a formal probe of Mayrand and Elections Canada by the RCMP.

My opinion is that we have too many "arms length" agencies and boards ~ some, including the Auditor General are absolutely necessary, but others, including Elections Canada, can and should be part of a normal bureaucratic system ~ and I have long felt (cannot prove) that some of them, and Elections Canada is near the top of the list, are dumping grounds for less than adequate bureaucrats and political favourites.

My problem with "arms length" agencies is that they must be self governing, quite free from political interference or even from the appearance of political interference. Good examples are: the Bank of Canada (Prime Minister Deifenbaker and Governor Coyne set an example (a firm rule, now) for Canada and, indeed, the whole world back _circa_ 1960), the courts, the Auditor General and the Librarian of Parliament. _Most_ of government is, broadly, free from political interference - that's why Deputy Ministers and ADMs exist: to _filter_ the political direction so that the working bureaucracy (directors generals and below, generally speaking) can get on with their jobs without too much concern about what the cabinet wants. I don't think Elections Canada needs or deserves the kind of independence that the Bank of Canada, for example, needs (and deserves). I think Elections Canada can be more like, say, the RCMP or the Justice Department: implementing the law of the land on a fair and unbiased basis.

An arms length agency (the bank of Canada and the Office of the Auditor General, for example) can have, often should have, _biases_. The Bank, for example, has a formal, stated _bias_ towards controlling inflation. The Governor can, has and will again, position himself, publicly, against a government that is fueling inflation; that's as it should be. The AG checks for "value for money," which is a matter of judgment .. a _bias_ in other words. Elections Canada, on the other hand, just needs to fully and fairly implement and enforce existing laws and regulations, just like Revenue Canada does.

I think Elections Canada is _biased_ in an unnecessary way; I think that its _Act_ needs revisions but Marc Mayrand, like Jean Pierre Kingsly before him, doesn't have the _power_ of a Deputy Minister to work, even to work against his minister, through the PCO to get the laws changed. If the head of EC  was a DM, if EC was "just" a government department, like Justice or Revenue or Tranport, I'm sure the DM would have revised the laws years ago.


----------



## jpjohnsn (12 May 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I think the CPC made a mistake in attacking the Chief Justice of the SCC, even if it appeals to part of the base, I think it was an even bigger mistake to bad mouth former Auditor General Sheila Fraser, that _appeals_ to no one with the brains the gods gave to green peppers, but I think the real target, _institutional_ Ottawa as exemplified by Mark Mayrand and Elections Canada, is about right. Thus, kudos to former CPC MP Dean Del Mastro for doing what the PMO should have done: calling for a formal probe of Mayrand and Elections Canada by the RCMP.


While Mr Del Mastro has a legitimate concern, the cynic in me can't help but think that some of the rhetoric like "Chief Electoral Officer is ultimately responsible for the conduct of his staff" is a backdoor way to start an undercutting of the CEO in a way that's becoming SOP the CPC uses against anyone who they can't bring to heel.  Especially when this sort of statement pointed at a minister in the wake of a scandal is often met with an assertion that the they can't be held responsible - and shouldn't fall on their sword - for the actions of the underlings (I'm looking at *you* Nigel Wright).


> ~ and I have long felt (cannot prove)....


Unfortunately, most modern political discourse is based on this premise.


> My problem with "arms length" agencies is that they must be self governing, quite free from political interference or even from the appearance of political interference. Good examples are: the Bank of Canada (Prime Minister Deifenbaker and Governor Coyne set an example (a firm rule, now) for Canada and, indeed, the whole world back _circa_ 1960), the courts, the Auditor General and the Librarian of Parliament. _Most_ of government is, broadly, free from political interference - that's why Deputy Ministers and ADMs exist: to _filter_ the political direction so that the working bureaucracy (directors generals and below, generally speaking) can get on with their jobs without too much concern about what the cabinet wants. I don't think Elections Canada needs or deserves the kind of independence that the Bank of Canada, for example, needs (and deserves). I think Elections Canada can be more like, say, the RCMP or the Justice Department: implementing the law of the land on a fair and unbiased basis.
> 
> An arms length agency (the bank of Canada and the Office of the Auditor General, for example) can have, often should have, _biases_. The Bank, for example, has a formal, stated _bias_ towards controlling inflation. The Governor can, has and will again, position himself, publicly, against a government that is fueling inflation; that's as it should be. The AG checks for "value for money," which is a matter of judgment .. a _bias_ in other words. Elections Canada, on the other hand, just needs to fully and fairly implement and enforce existing laws and regulations, just like Revenue Canada does.
> 
> I think Elections Canada is _biased_ in an unnecessary way; I think that its _Act_ needs revisions but Marc Mayrand, like Jean Pierre Kingsly before him, doesn't have the _power_ of a Deputy Minister to work, even to work against his minister, through the PCO to get the laws changed. If the head of EC  was a DM, if EC was "just" a government department, like Justice or Revenue or Tranport, I'm sure the DM would have revised the laws years ago.


To be honest, I want it to be as difficult as possible to get election laws and regulations changed.  A majority government has a free hand to pretty much do anything they want within the bounds of the constitution and I am concerned that the temptation is far too strong to put a thumb on the scale to tip things in favour of a sitting government.  Personally, I'd like to see a rule that says that changes to the elections act don't take effect until after the next election.  It might force the government to resist the temptation if the possibility exists that a law meant to put them at an advantage might turn around and bite them in the butt if they end up losing the election.


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 May 2014)

I think we already have _constitutional_ checks and balances in place that makes it hard for governments to change laws, including election laws. We have 450+ years of _constitutional convention_, which is every bit as powerful as written law, to _separate_ the _policy_ functions of elected politicians in cabinet (the 'council') from the _implementation_ and/or _regulatory_ actions of the civil servants. Our system is much, much less formal than is the American one but it is every bit as effective, maybe more so.

Just consider, if you will, what the Chief Electoral Officers, Jean Pierre Kingsley and, now, Marc Mayrand, have been seeking for the past decade: electoral law reform. Now look at what they got: Pierre Poilievre's _Fair Elections Act_. I am prepared to *guarantee* that if the DM of, say, Revenue Canada wanted similarly significant changes to the tax laws they would not have waited for ten years or more and the outcome would have been far closer to what they wanted. Deputies, but not heads of _independent_ agencies, *are* the government, just as much as ministers. They, as a _collective_ have one power ministers lack: they control, through the Clerk of the Privy Council, the _machinery of government_ with which even the prime minister is reluctant to interfere. The Clerk brings all laws and policies together into a _cohesive_ programme, even the _Fair Elections Act_. My very strong suspicion is that PCO had more input into the recent amendments to that Act than did the Senate, the Conservative Party, the media, academe or, especially, Marc Mayrand. The _Fair Elections Act_ now, roughly, _balances_ laws and customs with Conservative _desires_. Further changes may be made by the (independent) courts.

But the big changes Messers Kingsley and Mayrand say they need to be effective are not part of the _Fair Elections Act_. *Why not?* Because, as an _outsider_, the head of an independent agency, M. Mayrand, very properly, has no seat at the _machinery of government_ table.

I have seen, very close up, examples of how the _system_ is 'managed' to give both politicians, the cabinet, and officials a _balanced_ programme. (The issues was a "market based approach to spectrum management," spectrum auctions. Several government departments, including DND, had major interests in this but the lead was Industry Canada. I was in the room, sitting behind the DM of DND, while presentations were made and questions, including ones I had written for the DND DM, were asked, answered, debated, etc. The Clerk and another of the Secretaries kept shaving the rough edges off the Industry Canada proposal while, still, preserving its essence. Eventually it was lunch time and the Clerk invited two ministers (of the three or four in attendance) and two or three DMs (not ours) to lunch with him. Our DM told me to come back after lunch, she would not (we had a female DM at the time who later went back to Foreign Affairs) she explained because she was confident that out points had been taken on board. We reassembled (I was smart enough to retain my seat behind the DND DM's chair, not directly at the table, and the Clerk then summarized what had been _decided_. Almost everyone went away pretty happy. It was a good idea but the initial plan had needed change before it could ever go near cabinet. The _balance_ was achieved in the PCO.) My conclusion is: Our system works ... for those who work within it. It doesn't work for outsiders, including Elections Canada.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 May 2014)

The _Globe and Mail's_ Jeffrey Simpson is right, I _think_, in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from that journal, in his analysis of *why* Prime Minister Harper continues to brand himself as an "outsider" attacking "enemies" in/around _official Ottawa_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/harpers-party-is-defined-by-its-enemies-by-choice/article18636097/#dashboard/follows/


> Harper’s party is defined by its enemies. He likes it that way
> 
> JEFFREY SIMPSON
> The Globe and Mail
> ...




I would remind readers that the last time a Canadian party won a general election with more than 50% of the popular vote was in 1984, when Brian Mulroney led his Progressive Conservatives to power with the most seats in Canadian history based on winning 50.03% of the popular vote (the 2nd place Liberals got 44% of the popular vote and the NDP earned 19%). *Real* majorities, the kind _proportional representation_ advocates want, were always rare in Canada. Pierre Trudeau, for example, never won an absolute majority - at best he and his Liberals got 43.15% of the popular vote in 1974. Before that the last *real* majority was earned by John Deifenbaker (another Conservative) with 53% of the vote in 1958. So, in over a half century we have elected government with *real* majority support only twice.

Prime Minister Harper's last (only) majority was won (in 2011) with only 39.62% of the popular vote, and the last Liberal majority was won in 2000, by Jean Chrétien, with 40.85% of the popular vote.

And there is, also, this, also from Greg Perry in the _Ottawa Citizen_:





Source: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/editorial-cartoons/index.html


----------



## Brad Sallows (14 May 2014)

>This kind of political differentiation is new to Canada.

Truly?

"These “capitalists” are invariably depicted as having their own interests to defend – separate from the interests of the “people” or the “proletariat,” as they may be called. The “capitalists” have power – economic, legal, constitutional, political – that only the Communist/Marxist/Socialist Party can thwart in the interests of the voiceless. And if the “capitalists” have power, they must be “elites,” who, by definition, are divorced from and antagonistic to “ordinary” people."


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 May 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I am guessing (maybe just hoping?) that the PMO is trying to dampen down this dispute rather than, as the _Globe and Mail_ suggests, "snubbing" the Canadian Bar Association.
> 
> The article, citing an expert, suggests that "the Chief Justice made a minor error by trying to contact the Prime Minister after she was consulted by the committee responsible for selecting the next Supreme Court justice," and, of course, the PMO tried to exploit that - most likely for narrow, temporary, partisan, political advantage: a lot of _conservative_ Conservatives don't much like judges, especially not top court judges who thwart some of their attacks on our social system. Maybe (I hope) the PMO understands that it has done all the damage it can, and it is time to move on.




Has Prime Minister Harper found a _creative_ way out of this mess? Is it one that provides a _win-win_ situation for him and for Qubec's new premier, too? Campbell Clark, writing in the _Globe and Mail_, thinks so in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from that newspaper:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/quebecs-input-on-supreme-court-appointments-a-win-win-for-harper-and-couillard/article18880408/#dashboard/follows/


> Quebec’s input on Supreme Court appointments a win-win for Harper and Couillard
> 
> SUBSCRIBERS ONLY
> 
> ...




For a whole host of reasons, not all of them _partisan, political_ ones (although I am a Conservative partisan), I hope this works for both the government of the day and for the Court, too.


----------



## George Wallace (5 Jun 2014)

She has done it again.  Conservative MP Cheryl Gallant has once again proven to be an embarrassment to the Canadian Government and the electorate who have elected her. 

Reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://renfrewtoday.ca/default.asp?pid=1133610&wireid=01035_ARP_GallantPapers1web_080904



> MP GALLANT LEAVES NATO DOCUMENTS BEHIND IN AIRPORT
> 
> RENFREW TODAY
> 6/4/2014 8:12:57 AM
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (13 Jun 2014)

Bad news for Joe Fontana and the Liberal brand:

CBC via MSN news



> Updated: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 15:15:00 GMT | By CBC News, cbc.ca
> *Joe Fontana, mayor of London, Ont., found guilty of fraud*
> 
> ondon, Ont., Mayor Joe Fontana has been found guilty on three charges of forgery, fraud and breach of trust r*elated to $1,700 of spending in government money from the time he was a Liberal member of Parliament nearly a decade ago.*
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (13 Jun 2014)

Speaking of municipal politicians, do we have another one in the making?


> *New poll fans rumours of Veterans Affairs Minister leaving federal politics*
> 
> Polling in the Toronto suburb of Vaughan continues to fuel suspicions that Veterans Affairs Minister Julian Fantino may soon be leaving federal politics -- and seeking a potential mayoral run ....





> *Strange robocalls fuel rumours of Fantino's forthcoming resignation*
> 
> Amid calls for his resignation, curious robocalls in Vaughan fuel rumours that Veterans Affairs Minister Julian Fantino may soon be leaving the Harper government ....


----------



## Crispy Bacon (14 Jun 2014)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Speaking of municipal politicians, do we have another one in the making?



These have been rumours since at least 2009. I'd also prefer to read local news sources rather than a Vancouver paper about a (supposed) Toronto-area mayoral candidate.


----------



## dapaterson (15 Jun 2014)

In the "Future Supreme Court Nominee" department, it seems that the federal government has appointed a judge from the Federal Court of Appeal to the Quebec Court of Appeal.  The Globe and Mail claims that Judge Robert Mainville was on the short list that saw Judge Nadon named to the Supreme Court (and then rejected by the Court).  By naming him to the Quebec bench now, he'll be eligible for appointment once Justice Lebel of the Supreme Court retires in December.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/pm-moves-judge-from-federal-court-to-quebec-court/article19171876/


----------



## The Bread Guy (15 Jun 2014)

Crispy Bacon said:
			
		

> These have been rumours since at least 2009. I'd also prefer to read local news sources rather than a Vancouver paper about a (supposed) Toronto-area mayoral candidate.


To be fair, the guy who wrote the story _is_ based in Ottawa, so it is a local story to him.  

It _IS_ interesting that polling appears to have been carried out after Fantino's latest denial he's interested in the mayor's job.  Isn't that the first stage of wanting a political job:  denial of interest?


----------



## jollyjacktar (15 Jun 2014)

God, I hope it's got legs.  Sorry, Toronto, but I'd rather see him become your problem than remain where he is everyone's problem.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (15 Jun 2014)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> God, I hope it's got legs.  Sorry, Toronto, but I'd rather see him become your problem than remain where he is everyone's problem.



As of last Thursday, I have no pity for Toronto at all. In fact I hope the Ford nation mobilizes and gets old Rob elected again.


----------



## dapaterson (15 Jun 2014)

recceguy said:
			
		

> As of last Thursday, I have no pity for Toronto at all. In fact I hope the Ford nation mobilizes and gets old Rob elected again.



I'd rather see them elect John Tory.  Similar politics, less weed and crack.


----------



## dimsum (15 Jun 2014)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> I'd rather see them elect John Tory.  Similar politics, less weed and crack entertainment for everyone else.


----------



## a_majoor (16 Jun 2014)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> I'd rather see them elect John Tory.  Similar politics, less weed and crack entertainment for everyone else.



But we are living in an age of bread and circuses, so you should not discount the power of entertainment for the masses.....


----------



## a_majoor (18 Jun 2014)

Joe Fontana has resigned now that he has been convicted. For interested readers in the London, ON area, the first challenger pout the gate is a gentlemen named Paul Cheng: http://paulchengformayor.com

It will be interesting to see the rest of the slate of challengers


----------



## Remius (19 Jun 2014)

When is he being sentenced?


----------



## Retired AF Guy (19 Jun 2014)

Crantor said:
			
		

> When is he being sentenced?



Mid-July I think. And I heard something on CBC radio the other day that he may lose his federal pension from his time as a Liberal MP.


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Jun 2014)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_ is a look at a key wedge issue:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/from-alberta-to-toronto-oil-is-liberals-litmus-test-in-by-elections/article19388260/#dashboard/follows/


> From Alberta to Toronto, oil is Liberals’ litmus test in by-elections
> 
> SUBSCRIBERS ONLY
> 
> ...




Results: later this evening.


----------



## GAP (30 Jun 2014)

Trudeau......trying to suck and blow at the same time..... :


----------



## jollyjacktar (30 Jun 2014)

GAP said:
			
		

> Trudeau......trying to suck and blow at the same time..... :


Oh, I don't know.  I think he sucks and he blows...


----------



## Rifleman62 (30 Jun 2014)

He just sucks, just like his father.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (30 Jun 2014)

Just a friendly reminder folks that we are not some "throw shit" website and lets keep the insults to a reasonable level.

Thanks,
Bruce


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Jul 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_ is a look at a key wedge issue:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/from-alberta-to-toronto-oil-is-liberals-litmus-test-in-by-elections/article19388260/#dashboard/follows/
> 
> Results: later this evening.




And, the _Globe and Mail_ reports that: "Liberals take two Toronto ridings, Tories hang on to Alberta strongholds."

The report says, "Liberal candidate Adam Vaughan, a former city councillor and broadcaster, nabbed the Toronto riding of Trinity-Spadina from the NDP, while Liberal Arnold Chan boosted the party’s vote in holding the long-time stronghold of Scarborough-Agincourt, another Toronto riding ... [and] ... The Conservatives held both their seats but did so while fending off a Liberal surge in Fort McMurray-Athabasca and seeing their vote share decline in all four races."

Voter turnout was very low.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (1 Jul 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Voter turnout was very low.



Could they have picked a worse day for an election?  At least it wasn't a complete Federal, otherwise the only good turnouts would be in cottage country.


----------



## GAP (1 Jul 2014)

.


----------



## ModlrMike (1 Jul 2014)

It's certainly too early to call accurately, but this may point to the next election having the NDP on the ropes as it battles the Bloc in Quebec and the Liberals elsewhere.

The Liberals, Bloc, and NDP all have to fight a multi-front war, the Torries not so much.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (1 Jul 2014)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Could they have picked a worse day for an election?  At least it wasn't a complete Federal, otherwise the only good turnouts would be in cottage country.



Makes you think whether it was planned like that??  

Any way, the turnout was abysmal even for byelections.  The largest turnout was in Trinity-Spadina with just 30%. In Ft. McMurry it was even lower, just 15%. And I understand that for the next election, Trinity-Spadina will be split into three separate ridings. 

The Pundit Guide to Canadian Federal Elections has a analysis of the byelections. Because it includes graphs and charts I'm only providing the link.

http://www.punditsguide.ca/2014/07/june-by-election-turnout-how-low-could-we-go-you-dont-want-to-know/


----------



## Rocky Mountains (1 Jul 2014)

Before anyone starts forming conclusions about 35 % of voters voting Liberal in Fort MacMurray, remember that almost everyone in The place comes from outside Alberta and might actually be comfortable with voting Liberal despite  the promise to essentially kill their jobs.  35 % of 15 % turnout means 5% of residents thought the Liberals were important enough to vote for them.  And some media people are painting this as a near Liberal landslide??


----------



## The_Falcon (1 Jul 2014)

Adam Vaughn is no longer a Toronto City Councillor.  A liberal win or not, this makes me happy.  It will be interesting to see the two egos (vaughn and trudeau) clash though.


----------



## ModlrMike (1 Jul 2014)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> Before anyone starts forming conclusions about 35 % of voters voting Liberal in Fort MacMurray, remember that almost everyone in The place comes from outside Alberta and might actually be comfortable with voting Liberal despite  the promise to essentially kill their jobs.  35 % of 15 % turnout means 5% of residents thought the Liberals were important enough to vote for them.  And some media people are painting this as a near Liberal landslide??



The other difference being in the general election they're probably enumerated in their home ridings which means if they vote in AB, it might change the outcome at home. Lots of single guys in Ft Mac from outside the province.


----------



## a_majoor (1 Jul 2014)

Despite the hyperventilation in some quarters, by-elections typically do not represent the wave of the future (and even if they did, the Liberals actually only gained _one_ seat...).

Given the Toronto riding is being split, the "win" really will only give the LPC one year to try capitalize on the name power of a former city councillor, and all parties will need to create two new riding associations, raise money, round up volunteers etc. Whoever is best organized will be the real story in 2015 (and who knows, it could even be the Greens..., although that needs the stars and planets to align pretty tightly).

Ad Edward reminds us, a week is a long time in politics, and there is a lot of "long times" between now and 2015. I suspect the Liberal brand will actually sink even lower in Ontario as the CPC reminds people which party has been in power for the last decade and why Ontario is a "have not" province. Imagine the Young Dauphin trying to explain why his party is not _that_ Liberal Party (he can't even define what is the "middle class"), and I suspect that when questioned he will actually be in favour of most of the job killing initiatives (like "Green" energy) that his provincial counterparts have imposed. 2015 will be so much fun...


----------



## Remius (17 Jul 2014)

So the old "Duff" is having a very bad week.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mike-duffy-faces-31-charges-including-bribery-fraud-breach-of-trust-1.2709500

I've posted this here (but could have in the election 2015 thread) and here is why.

This story has not gone away as some may have hoped or predicted.  But...it has shifted in my opinion.

Either through design or through natural progression, this has become a Mike Duffy story and has become less of a CPC/Harper story as it was or attempted to be.

However it should all be taken in with caution because Duffy will appear in court on Sept 19th meaning his trial will likely not start until spring 2015 lasting several months i will assume.  This coincides with the probable election that will be held.  Duffy will undoubtedly mount a vigorous defence and I wouldn't put it past him to at least try and call the PM as a witness.

This could easily revert to becoming a Harper story at a most inopportune time.


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Jul 2014)

Crantor said:
			
		

> No worries.  Some people have a hard time understanding how the tax system works in Canada and might feel that way when confronted with it.  As for me I've nothing more to add to this thread that I already haven't.
> 
> Cheers.




This, tax law, may become a political issue. Consider the implications of this issue - _"I don’t see why we should give tax breaks to a bunch of left-wing activists. For that matter, I don’t think we should give tax breaks to left-wing think tanks or pro-choice groups. But I don’t see why right-wing activists and think tanks and pro-life groups deserve them either. Perhaps we’ve stretched the definition of “charity” much too far."_ - which is raised in a column which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/pen-and-the-politics-of-charity/article19736542/#dashboard/follows/


> Pen and the politics of charity
> 
> MARGARET WENTE
> The Globe and Mail
> ...




Personally, I think Peggy Wente has a point. I agree with her that we've overstretched the definition of "charity." I'm not sure how to reign things back in ... but I _suspect_ a substantial majority of Canadians would support not object to tightening the rules.


----------



## The Bread Guy (17 Sep 2014)

Really?


> Answering a single written question from a Liberal MP cost the federal government $117,188 in staff time, according to information tabled this week in the House of Commons.
> 
> The right to ask departments for written answers is a key tool for MPs – primarily on the opposition benches – to dig up information that can later be used against their political rivals.
> 
> ...


1)  I suppose the Conservatives kept this in mind when THEY sought written answers to questions pre-2006?
2)  Is my math screwed up, or do these figures, as reported, mean it takes an average of more than one staff-year to answer one question submitted by an MP?


----------



## Rifleman62 (19 Sep 2014)

http://epaper.nationalpost.com/epaper/viewer.aspx

National Post - 19 Sep 14

*MPs prohibited from visiting bases*

Members of Parliament are barred from visiting Canadian military bases except under restricted circumstances. Defence Minister Rob Nicholson’s office says the policy was created by the military, applies to MPs from all parties and is designed to “ensure the resources of the Canadian Armed Forces are used effectively.” Two weeks ago, MP Yvonne Jones, the Liberals’ search and rescue critic, was denied permission from the minister to tour Canadian Forces Base Esquimalt and CFB Comox, both major hubs for the military’s search-and-rescue operations in B.C.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (19 Sep 2014)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Members of Parliament are barred from visiting Canadian military bases except under restricted circumstances. Defence Minister Rob Nicholson’s office says the policy was created by the military, applies to MPs from all parties and is designed to “ensure the resources of the Canadian Armed Forces are used effectively.” Two weeks ago, MP Yvonne Jones, the Liberals’ search and rescue critic, was denied permission from the minister to tour Canadian Forces Base Esquimalt and CFB Comox, both major hubs for the military’s search-and-rescue operations in B.C.



Exactly how much resources are involved in VIP tours?  It's not like they are dragging someone off the front lines in a thermonuclear war.  In business, it's called PR and everyone loves it.  Getting the ear of a politician isn't normally considered a bad thing.


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Sep 2014)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> It's been recognized for a while that Mr Anders needs to be replaced in his riding. I understand from other sources that Mr Anders' riding committee has tried to replace him, but apparently he has a sufficient number of members in his pocket, so no joy there.




And it looks like he is done, according to this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/rob-anders-takes-second-stab-at-federal-conservative-nomination/article20713279/#dashboard/follows/


> MP Rob Anders loses second Conservative nomination bid
> 
> BILL GRAVELAND
> BROOKS, Alta — The Canadian Press
> ...




Mr Anders is not the last of the _social conservatives_, but he was amongst the most useless and divisive.


----------



## Cloud Cover (21 Sep 2014)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> http://epaper.nationalpost.com/epaper/viewer.aspx
> 
> National Post - 19 Sep 14
> 
> ...



That is an outrageous policy, if the reporting is accurate. If anything, these people need a lot more time on bases and stations, attending exercises, visiting deployments and generally seeing how things work (and break down). I think it is especially essential that they have regular and routine opportunity to witness and experience first hand that the CAF is a professional organization with a serious task assigned  by Parliament, but that it is not taken seriously as it should be by every Parliamentarian of any political stripe. How does the CAF expect that their ultimate political masters are in a truly informed position to understand issues and gain support for necessary improvements? Are we to expect that our MP's consult with Army.ca as an alternate? 

Continuously educating and informing democratically elected representatives about the CAF should be a strategic objective, not a restricted pony show. I hope the article is inaccurate.


----------



## ModlrMike (21 Sep 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Mr Anders is not the last of the _social conservatives_, but he was amongst the most useless and divisive.



I wonder if his ouster will serve as a lesson to others that the party has moved more towards the center. Move with it or get left behind.


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Sep 2014)

So, _leSoleil_ reports that the federal NDP is leading the federal Liberals in Quebec. The report says (my translation) that:

     "The New Democratic Party's (NDP) Mr. Mulcair and the Liberal Party of Canada's (LPC) Justin Trudeau have exchanged the lead in the polls over the last month. The NDP climbed from 32% to 36% and
       the PLC were down from 38% to 34%. For their part, the Conservatives and the Bloc Quebecois remain "marginalized" with 13% each. The Green Party is at 5% ... Stephen Harper, fared poorly in the
       category of "best prime minister of Canada." He only gets 10% support, while Justin Trudeau wins 25% and Thomas Mulcair leads at 31%. The best news for the Conservatives in Quebec is that even
       if the total vote is small, it is particularly concentrated in the Quebec City region, where they attract 24% and are likely to win a (very) few seats."

I will reiterate, Justin Trudeau's route to _24 Sussex Drive_, even, indeed, to _Stornoway_, runs, in my _opinion_, through Quebec. If he cannot displace Thomas Mulcair in Quebec then I doubt he can do well enough in Ontario, much less sweep it as Jean Chrétien did in the 1990s, to gain power. The real  battle in 2014 and in 2015 is between Messers Mulcair and Trudeau, not between either or both of them and Prime Minister Harper.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (26 Sep 2014)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> That is an outrageous policy, if the reporting is accurate. If anything, these people need a lot more time on bases and stations, attending exercises, visiting deployments and generally seeing how things work (and break down). I think it is especially essential that they have regular and routine opportunity to witness and experience first hand that the CAF is a professional organization with a serious task assigned  by Parliament, but that it is not taken seriously as it should be by every Parliamentarian of any political stripe. How does the CAF expect that their ultimate political masters are in a truly informed position to understand issues and gain support for necessary improvements? Are we to expect that our MP's consult with Army.ca as an alternate?
> 
> Continuously educating and informing democratically elected representatives about the CAF should be a strategic objective, not a restricted pony show. I hope the article is inaccurate.
> 
> Likely it is. I used to be able to talk directly to an MP's office, that is long gone. Everything has to get cleared by HQ and many high approvals.


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Sep 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> So, _leSoleil_ reports that the federal NDP is leading the federal Liberals in Quebec. The report says (my translation) that:
> 
> "The New Democratic Party's (NDP) Mr. Mulcair and the Liberal Party of Canada's (LPC) Justin Trudeau have exchanged the lead in the polls over the last month. The NDP climbed from 32% to 36% and
> the PLC were down from 38% to 34%. For their part, the Conservatives and the Bloc Quebecois remain "marginalized" with 13% each. The Green Party is at 5% ... Stephen Harper, fared poorly in the
> ...




CBC News (Éric Grenier of ThreeHundredEight.com) suggests that M. Trudeau still leads both M. Mulcair and Prime Minister Harper in a couple of key measures on a _national_ basis, in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _CBC_:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tom-mulcair-s-polls-dilemma-canadians-like-him-but-will-they-vote-for-him-1.2780301?cmp=rss


> ANALYSIS
> Tom Mulcair's polls dilemma: Canadians like him, but will they vote for him?
> *Justin Trudeau sees disapproval ratings rise, but poll suggests most don't think he's 'in over his head'*
> 
> ...


----------



## Rifleman62 (28 Sep 2014)

Cdns appear to want an Obama North. Don't understand it.


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Sep 2014)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Cdns appear to want an Obama North. Don't understand it.




I do. I well recall that _circa_ 1967 Canadians wanted our own JFK ... we got PET.






(I received a vitally important political science lesson back around then from a somewhat _ditzy_ (but gorgeous and 'friendly') blond girl. I explained to her that both John G Diefenbaker and Lester B Pearson were men of some _substance_, gravitas, _bottom_ ... "Ugh!" she said, "they wear boots! I couldn't vote for them." "Boots?" I asked, puzzled. "Yes," she said, "have you never looked at them? They wear boots!" Sure enough, they did, now and again, just like both my grandfathers, wear dress boots, sometimes even with spats. But, to her, boots equated to "out of date," not relative to her concerns. Other people voted for Pierre Trudeau for other reasons - but there was no really good reason to favour Trudeau over, say, Paul Martin Sr or, especially, Robert Winters, for Liberal leader, or, in general elections, the old 'Chief' or Robert Stanfield. But Canadians did, and "boots" was probably as well reasoned as any other factor.)


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (28 Sep 2014)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Cdns appear to want an Obama North. Don't understand it.



Unfortunately if we get Obama of the north we dont have the comfort of knowing that he's limited to 8 years. If the dauphin is elected he could be in a loooonnnnngggg time so long as he maintains his popularity.


----------



## Journeyman (28 Sep 2014)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> If the dauphin is elected he could be in a loooonnnnngggg time so long as he maintains his popularity voters and media maintain hatred of Conservativism and the Harper boogyman



....regardless of whether either group's dislike is based on rational thinking or simply a matter of "boots"       :dunno:


----------



## Rifleman62 (28 Sep 2014)

Speaking of boots, I have been told numerous times over the years, by numerous people/Harper haters that it is because of his "eyes". In fact last week, didn't a female repeater for the G & M say Harper's sardonic eyes or some such?


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (28 Sep 2014)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> ....regardless of whether either group's dislike is based on rational thinking or simply a matter of "boots"       :dunno:



Agreed. I think a large part of the problem for the conservatives is that they are equated with the republicans. Ipso facto US media influences Canadian politics through their portrayal of right vs left, which is, I would say, much more biased than Canadian media. 

To me, John Stewart and John Oliver have a greater influence on Canadian politics than the CBC, Globe and Mail, and National Post. They reach more viewers in key demographics than do the traditional media (18-30) and they present their side with humour and sarcasm, which is more relatable than traditional news sources. So, the "boogeyman" to me is from the southern US and Canadians equation that Harper=Bush.

Just my  :2c:


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Sep 2014)

> The Abacus Data poll asked the following questions: “Do you think Justin Trudeau ‘is in over his head', as Conservatives have been saying?” and “Do you have a positive or negative impression of the following people? Prime Minister Stephen Harper / NDP Leader Tom Mulcair / Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau”. As the poll was conducted online, a margin of error does not apply.



I wonder how the results would have appeared if the questions had been asked these ways:



> “Do you think Justin Trudeau ‘is in over his head', as Conservatives have been saying?”





> Do you have a positive or negative impression of the following people? Prime Minister Stephen Harper / NDP Leader Tom Mulcair / Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau”





> Do you have a positive or negative impression of the following people? Prime Minister Stephen Harper / NDP Leader Tom Mulcair / Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau”



Party affiliation and recognition vs name recognition vs anti-conservativism (progressivism).

Especially on the first question, the fact that the Conservatives said anything is enough to convince much of the population to take the opposite stance.

With respect to Trudeau - I am currently reading Bernard Cornwell's "Excalibur" where Arthur's armies are led to battle by the salted corpse of a virgin prince - I think many of the old-time trudeaumaniacs would be just as happy to follow a similar banner.  The fact that their totem walks and occasionally talks is a bonus.  Although maybe he should confine himself to walking.


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Oct 2014)

Now, the AG's office doesn't quite "get" Senators' work well enough to audit them?


> Senators, who are undergoing the most stringent probe of their expenses in the history of Parliament, are questioning whether Auditor General Michael Ferguson’s auditors have an adequate understanding of the roles of Senators to review their expenses. But a leading academic says Senators are trying to pre-empt any potential embarrassing news that could come out in the final audit report, expected early next year.
> 
> “I am concerned that a number of these auditors don’t really understand the role of a Senator,” said New Brunswick Liberal Senator Joseph Day (Saint John-Kennebecasis, N.B.), chair of the powerful Senate Standing Committee on National Finance and a member of the National Security and Defence Committee, in an interview with The Hill Times.
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Oct 2014)

Senior Liberal insider (I think he's even older than I) Gordon Gibson does some political   :stirpot:  in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/for-harper-a-textbook-moment-to-call-a-snap-election/article21046030/#dashboard/follows/


> For Harper, a textbook moment for a snap election
> 
> GORDON GIBSON
> Special to The Globe and Mail
> ...




There is one potential fly in the ointment: His Excellency the Right Honourable David Johnston. Although not a constitutional lawyer, _per se_, he is a distinguished legal scholar and he has the *right* and, arguably, the duty, to deny the prime minister an election when his hold on the _confidence_ of parliament is so strong. On the other hand,I'm sure HE is all too well aware that the Canadian Constitution is a highly political thing and the weight of _constitutional convention_ (more powerful than any written word) lies with the PM.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (10 Oct 2014)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Now, the AG's office doesn't quite "get" Senators' work well enough to audit them?



With the senators, it was a self inflicted wound.  Marjory LeBreton lacked the slightest ability to lead through the Senate scandal.  She simply didn't have a clue about all the crap which was going to come down on the government.  The Conservative senators seemed jealous of the attention paid to Senators Duffy and Wallin.  Everyone was so willing to sacrifice Wallin and Duffy that they forgot that everyone was doing the same thing to different degrees.  The Senate should have worked together to come up with new rules and should have made no attempt to apply them retroactively.  That was the problem.  The rules changed.


----------



## a_majoor (10 Oct 2014)

While His Excellency has the weight of legal scholarship on his side, the Prime Minister could argue (with some justification) that since Canada is becoming involved in a war (and potentially a very long term war- a 30 years war-) there is a need to advance a new agenda and gain the confidence of the Canadian people and the House for the new agenda.

Of course this is a very dangerous course, since many (most?) Canadians would vote for butter over guns until their ISIS was in the city and the neighbour's house was on fire.

Personally, I believe the PM's strategy of going into an election with a balanced budget is probably the sounder course of action, and the idea of a snap election may be more _dezinformatsiya_ spread by the _Laurentian elites_ to muddy the waters and derail the narrative the Conservatives have been creating.


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Oct 2014)

Meanwhile, Michael deAdder gets it about right:


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Oct 2014)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> While His Excellency has the weight of legal scholarship on his side, the Prime Minister could argue (with some justification) that since Canada is becoming involved in a war (and potentially a very long term war- a 30 years war-) there is a need to advance a new agenda and gain the confidence of the Canadian people and the House for the new agenda.
> 
> Of course this is a very dangerous course, since many (most?) Canadians would vote for butter over guns until their ISIS was in the city and the neighbour's house was on fire.
> 
> Personally, I believe the PM's strategy of going into an election with a balanced budget is probably the sounder course of action, and the idea of a snap election may be more _dezinformatsiya_ spread by the _Laurentian elites_ to muddy the waters and derail the narrative the Conservatives have been creating.



At least some Conservative insiders agree with you, according to this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Hill Times_:

http://www.hilltimes.com/news/news/2014/10/13/pm-harper-could-justify-calling-an-early-election-say-former-pmo-advisers/39895?mcl=896&muid=28448


> PM Harper could justify calling an early election, say former PMO advisers
> 
> By ABBAS RANA |
> Published: Monday, 10/13/2014 12:00 am EDT
> ...




I can see several reasons for going now:

     1. The Liberals, despite M. Trudeau's missteps, keep getting stronger and stronger because, after 8+ years, Canadians are, simply, tired of Prime Minister Stephen Harper. He, personally, is the Tories biggest 'negative' and it can only get worse;

     2. The Duffy Trial isn't until next year;

     3. The Iraq air mission has not, yet, gone bad;

     4. There is a global financial crisis (but Canada is reasonably 'sound'); and

     5. Just Trudeau has not, yet, found his campaigning _feet_. He's unsure of himself and prone to go "off message" and make verbal gaffes. But he can get better with time.

Two of those factors: Iraq and the global economic stagnation might be enough to ask (tell) the GG that the government needs an election.


----------



## Ostrozac (13 Oct 2014)

_“Parties make their own decisions. I have complete confidence in Prime Minister’s leadership. I also suggest Conrad Black doesn’t sit in Parliament,” said Mr. Kramp. _ 

But with respect to the Honourable Member from Prince Edward-Hastings, I would suggest that Conrad Black does sit in Parliament. He just sits in a foreign country's Parliament, although he is currently listed as being on leave of absence from the UK's Upper House, and I'm not sure the last time he's actually participated in any parliamentary business in the UK.


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Oct 2014)

Like it or not, yesterday's tragic events WILL be fodder for highly partisan politics ... see, e.g. this article in the _Globe and Mail_.

Yesterday, while monitoring _Twitter_, within minutes, not hours of the event, I saw two _tweets_ than turned my stomach:

     1. The first was from a well known retired journalist, an occasional "talking head" on TV, and a fierce Conservative partisan. He used the occasion to attack Justin Trudeau and hoped the event 
         would come back to bite him in the a**; and

     2. The second was from someone who used a screen name and avatar that suggests a First Nation heritage: (s)he said it was just too bad that Stephen Harper wasn't killed, too.  :facepalm:

I _suspect_ that both the Conservatives and the NDP will try to exploit this to _wedge_ M. Trudeau ~ "he's not _'supporting the troops'_," the Tories will say; "he's not 'peaceful' enough," the NDP will say, trying, once again, to drag the left wing of the Liberal Party of Canada away from its leader.


----------



## cryco (23 Oct 2014)

that's the nature of the beast. We're a long way off from anything resembling 'clean' politics.
Parties tote other party's shortcomings, flaws and errors and it's no different for high visibility people (reporters).
It is sad that someone would say too bad Harper wasn't killed, but rational thought cannot be expected from everyone. I hated Pauline Marois with every cell in my body, and many other politicians of that particular tumor, but i never wished them to die.


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Oct 2014)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_, is an intersting bit of speculation about the likely legislative fallout from this week's events:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/10/24/conservatives-new-anti-terror-laws-likely-to-mirror-immensely-controversial-u-k-legislation/


> Conservatives’ new anti-terror laws likely to mirror ‘immensely controversial’ U.K. legislation
> 
> John Ivison | October 24, 2014
> 
> ...




My conflicting _conservative_ and _liberal_ instincts tell me that:

     1. This is, probably, the very worst time to debate new anti-terrorism laws, but I understand the _*political imperative*_ to do it; and

     2. Our _national security_ apparatus is constrained by laws that, in some cases, owe more to Henry Stimson's ethical reservations about SIGINT,* than by the requirements of 21st century counter-terrorism.

_____
* "Gentlemen do not read each other's mail," Stimson famously said when, in 1929, he closed the US "Black Chamber," it's embryonic cryptanalysis facility.


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Oct 2014)

Lawrence Martin, no fan of Prime Minister Harper (to put mildly), looks at the _potential_ political impact of last week's sad events in this column which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/patriotic-fervour-fate-boost-harpers-hand/article21329044/#dashboard/alerts


> Patriotic fervour, terror trauma boost Harper’s hand
> 
> LAWRENCE MARTIN
> Special to The Globe and Mail
> ...



_Deua ex machina_ which one dictionary defines as "a character or thing that suddenly enters the story in a novel, play, movie, etc., and solves a problem that had previously seemed impossible to solve" could well be in play, and earlier than we think. The "play" is the next general election, currently scheduled for October 2015 but about which there has been some speculation re: moving it 'fast forward' to late autumn 2014.

Why?

The Prime Minister could argue, _I think_, that two things have happened:

     1. The legislative agenda on which he campaigned in 2011 is, by and large, accomplished; and

     2. The world is changing.

He can, I believe, go to the GG and to the country on one big 'plank' of a platform ~ *The global strategic situation has changed and Canadians need to decide between two competing visions*:

     1. On the foreign and defence policy front we have two views -

         a. Messers Mulcair and Trudeau agree that we should send foreign aid and welcome Muslim refugees to our shores, but

         b. Prime Minister Harper proposes that we take the fight to the enemy, in his lair, in the Middle East; and

     2. On the global economic front we also have two views, given that Canada's budgetary deficit will soon be history -

         a. Messers Mulcair and Trudeau want to raise taxes, both corporate and personal taxes in M. Trudeau's case, but

         b. Prime Minister Harper wants to give you, and Canadian businesses, tax breaks to promote growth in our economy and more, better jobs for Canadians.

It's plausible ... the writs could be dropped next week, a five week campaign would end with an election in early December.


----------



## cryco (28 Oct 2014)

Well, if we start seeing attack adds next week by the conservatives, I'll bet on your hypothesis.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (29 Oct 2014)

cryco said:
			
		

> Well, if we start seeing attack adds next week by the conservatives, I'll bet on your hypothesis.



 :facepalm:


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Oct 2014)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Two interesting data points:
> 
> 1. Although leftists were practicqally salivating over the idea Olivia Chow would become Queen of Toronto, she came in third in the election; and,
> 
> ...




My point is that Toronto is not a monolith.

Here (Wikipedia) is a very useful guide to the next election. Scroll down to 6.5, 6.6 and 6.7 ~ that's all _Greater Toronto_. While it's true that most, but not all, of Central Toronto (8 of 11 sears) is pretty safe for the Liberals and NDP the more numerous suburban seats are heavily Conservative (15 of 27 seats); and that's where the growth is: there is one new seat in Central Toronto and vice six the Toronto suburbs.


----------



## Kirkhill (30 Oct 2014)

I think this substantiates your position ERC.

The map generated by the National Post from the mayoral elections.

Green is Olivia
Red is "The Fords Inc"
Blue is John Tory.

Mulcair will secure Olivia's ridings.
The Fords Inc will not be voting Liberal any time soon - default to Harper.
The John Tory support will lean Liberal close to the water (even if they have to support "The Young Dauphin") and towards Harper in the Hinterlands of Richmond.


----------



## cryco (30 Oct 2014)

Hey ERC, Harper's announcement, http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/stephen-harper-to-announce-new-tax-cuts-for-families-1.2818591 sounds like he's taking off the gloves  soon - election campaigning.
Do you smell it!?


----------



## a_majoor (30 Oct 2014)

Trust the CBC to put the worst possible spin on this. Tax cuts or income splitting *do not* "cost" the Government anything; its our money and the Government is reducing the pull on our wallets by $2.7 billion dollars.

The sidebar has another amusing look into the worldview of the "Laurentian elites" (of which the CBC is a large part):



> ■Federal government still mum on how to spend surplus



Note the automatic assumption that this money is _theirs_ to spend. Now we know the CPC has promised to use some of the monies for tax and debt reduction, and some on other initiatives (probably a grab bag of small, targeted "vote getters" in various ridings. I would be very surprised to see the CBC or the people who post on the CBC website approve of debt reduction and small initiatives, but are dreaming of "big ticket" projects that government can pour money all over.


----------



## pbi (1 Nov 2014)

Thucydides: since tax "cuts" imply that the Govt has decided to take less of our money in a particular case, I suggest it does in fact mean that it "costs" the Govt something. Granted that the reduction in taxes might (in theory) be offset by improved consumer spending that will return money via, say, HST/GST (that the CPC didn't abolish, I see...), but there is no immediate guarantee of this. One could easily point to countries such as Norway, Sweden or Germany that have very high tax regimes compared to Canada, yet seem to operate productive economies and maintain high standards of living.

Concerning your comments about the CBC, I'm not aware that it's the duty of the CBC, or of any media outlet, to praise any Government. Rather, I would hope that the CBC, like the Sun or the National Post or the Belleville Intelligencer for that matter, see their role to be to badger, question, embarrass and expose the sitting Govt at every turn. The Sun chain will be happy to carry out this task if the Liberals ever get elected. 

It seems to me that a free media and an independent judiciary (seemingly another target of some CPC folk) are two of the most important guardians of a true democracy, as opposed to, let's say,  a one-party state. Partisanship is the heritage of English-language journalism: there is nothing new about it. Suggestions that the carpings of the media are somehow "unpatriotic" reminds me immediately of that ancient but very true saying: "Patriotism-the last refuge of the scoundrel". You know, sort of like: "if you oppose this Bill you are against Canada" Sound familiar?

(Ironically, here in Kingston the "Whig Standard" is actually owned by the Sun chain, who are ideologically rather far from what today's "Whigs" are all about.)

Your characterization of the people who post comments on the CBC news site is not accurate at all, in my experience. Take a close look, and I'm pretty sure you will find as many right-wing mouth-breathers raving away as you will find left-wing tree huggers, tin foil hatters, Harper haters, etc.  I read the CBC news site at least twice a day, so I'm quite sure of what I'm talking about.


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Nov 2014)

A couple of openings for discussion there.

Pamphleteering, gossip-mongering and scandal are indeed the origins of the free press in the English language tradition.  Government sponsored commentary is only as new as the BBC and radio - a creature of the corporatist-socialist-fascist-communist era.

An independent judiciary is also a hallmark of English jurisprudence and society.  But traditionally it has been a bastion of conservatism.  This was due in large part to the longevity of the tenure of the judges appointed for life as opposed to the vagaries of the mob selected politicians.  Judges have inevitably tended to oppose any change.

These days the conservative forces are those wishing to conserve the creatures of the corporatist-socialist-fascist-communist era in which they grew up. Anybody attempting to change that status quo, say someone trying to reform government along lines more traditionally described as liberal before that brand was co-opted, is inevitably going to be in for a rough-ride.

Whigs achieved longevity by appointing reforming judges who outlasted their forays into government.  

The pendulum continues to swing and will continue to swing.

As to taxing - 

I wonder if the issue is less a matter of how much tax is collected as opposed to how much money is in circulation. And that, along with some thoughts I have had about Bretton Woods and America's 70 year Quantitative Easing plan as well as noting that Putin's ventures into Donbas are costing him more than it was worth (stay with me) all kind of came together in one question:

Was one of the intentions of the Bretton Woods formulary to take the emphasis away from that which is possessed to that which might be produced?

Gold, and the natural resources of a country reflect that which is past. They are a result of actions previously taken by previous holders of the property.  If the holder of the property is killed then that property and its assets are immediately transferred to the new "owner" and that person or nation benefits.  That property can then be used as collateral to support the borrowing of new money and the  wealth of the new owner rises still further.

If however the raising of funds, borrowing, is based not so much on what is possessed (assets), but instead on what might be produced (income and GNP) then the incentive to grow wealth by seizing the property of others is diminished.  

When Vlad went into the Donbas he wrecked that economy.  Really his best course of action now is to leave it as a millstone for Ukraine rather  than claiming for himself.  The roads are cratered, the factories bombed, the mines in poor condition, the youngsters and the miners have fled.  He is left with a solid cadre of pensioners looking for hand outs along with a surly bunch of non-co-operative individuals that are just to bloody-minded to accommodate any government plan.  I kind of think that is what any country can expect if it tries to seize another country.  The exercise will not add to the invaders wealth.  It will inevitably cost the invader to invade with no hope of recouping the investment.  

Or putting it more bluntly.  If all another person can offer you is his labour, and labour is the only recognized form of wealth, it doesn't serve you to kill him.

It might serve you to enslave him however.  But there you are best advised to keep the slave happy as a surly slave will perform poorly, require lots of unproductive supervision and spit in your soup.

The solution seems to be to offer the slave lots of company certificates that allow him to buy a large selection of goods from company approved stores and ensure there is lots of leisure time to keep them well rested if not indolent.

Edit: Follow On

The next question is who owns the company that issues the certificate and approves the store.  The answer, of course is the Government. And in a democratic society that is us.

But what if society no longer believes that the Government is them?

Which seems to bring us to the modern malaise afflicting western societies.  And with that dimming of the bright future offered by the west does that result in the loss of focus by the rest of the world?  Neither western philosophy, communism nor capitalism, has proved to be a sinecure for wealth so perhaps it is time to revert to the old standbys of clan and brigandry.


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Nov 2014)

The goal of Bretton Woods was very simple, Harry Dexter White, acting in accordance with Franklin Roosevelt's _grand strategic_ plan, intended to make the whole world independent of Sterling and the London banks.

FDR was convinced that _imperialism_ was the direct cause of two monstrously destructive wars in as many generations. He set men like Stimson, Marshall and King to the task of defeating Germany and Japan,but he also set other men, including Henry Morgenthau, Jr. and Harry Dexter White, to the equally vital task of dismantling the _imperial era_ and replacing it with a new, American dominated, socio-economic superstructure which he, Roosevelt, felt would be more likely to "keep the peace" for generations.


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Nov 2014)

So am I observing unintended consequences?  

Or am I just on a ramble too far? It obviously wouldn't be the first time.  :nod:


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Nov 2014)

With respect to the dismantling of the Imperial Era I think he was well behind the times because that era had begun to fade from the 1880s with the rise of the corporatist-socialist-fascist-communist era.  The era of the communards, Haymarket, the Internationals and Keir Hardie, of Rerum Novarum and Quadragessimo Anno.


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Nov 2014)

My  :2c: ...

Roosevelt really, sincerely and for sound _strategic_ reasons wanted no empires, not even his own quite substantial one (based on Philippines and the banana republics of Central America). Instead he ended up with two: a renewed American empire, in everything but name, and a Russian one, too. The Russian one fell apart ... as everything Russian tends to do. The Americans more or less pissed their empire away, a bit like soldiers on pay nights 50 years ago. They didn't want to do what was, is, necessary to maintain global social, economic and military dominance.


----------



## pbi (2 Nov 2014)

ERC and Kirkhill: excellent posts and discussion! 

I  don't have your depth of knowledge on Bretton Woods and monetary issues, but I have read a fair bit on Roosevelt. I share the view that he was trying to bring about the final end of the "old" empires, but I'm not sure that he consciously meant to establish a US Empire, although that would certainly look like a likely end state of many of his actions.

I have even read (skeptically) that had Britain fallen, FDR intended to enact Manifest Destiny and roll the US border up to the North Pole. This seems a bit over the top to me.

I do also share a concern over the decline of active democratic processes, especially involvement by those Canadians under 30. What so much of the world struggles for, we not only take for granted but almost dismiss. I don't refer only to electoral participation, but to the ongoing trend in this country, by all parties, to centralize more and more power in Ottawa, thus weakening democracy. Disregard for, or subversion of, watchdog organizations is a part of this.  

Once  could argue that this particular Govt exemplifies that spirit, but it didn't start with them.


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Nov 2014)

pbi said:
			
		

> ERC and Kirkhill: excellent posts and discussion!
> 
> I  don't have your depth of knowledge on Bretton Woods and monetary issues, but I have read a fair bit on Roosevelt. I share the view that he was trying to bring about the final end of the "old" empires, but I'm not sure that he consciously meant to establish a US Empire, although that would certainly look like a likely end state of many of his actions.
> 
> ...



A good, general purpose look at Breton Woods is:





http://www.amazon.ca/The-Battle-Bretton-Woods-Maynard/dp/0691149097/ref=reader_auth_dp

You local library should have a copy.


----------



## Kirkhill (2 Nov 2014)

Thanks ERC.

I figured you would have a ready reference. 

Cheers.


----------



## a_majoor (2 Nov 2014)

Although the end result of WWII and Bretton Woods was an "American Empire", this was/is a commercial empire rather than a territorial and political empire. I see this more as the flowering of the Maritime System first created by the Dutch and Elizabethan English in the 1500's.

The fact that the Americans as a whole are not willing to do the hard work needed to keep things going isn't exactly a great thing, but the Maritime System is inherently flexible, and the "Anglosphere" nations which underpin the system are capable of doing a lot of the heavy lifting as well, with or without the Americans (although obviously keeping the system going with the Americans is immensely easier to do). After all, the English and Dutch used the flexibility of the Maritime System to stand off the immensely richer and more populous Spanish Empire during the 1500's (and earlier versions of the Maritime System allowed Athens to fight the Spartans and their Persian paymasters for decades, or the _Serenìsima Repùblica Vèneta_ to remain competitive against the vastly larger Ottoman Empire for 200 years).

I believe that Stephen Harper understands this, and some of the foreign policy efforts such as entry into the TPP, the free trade pact with the EU and his historic hard line stance towards Israel as a bastion of liberal, free market democracy in the Middle East are all reflections of this. Each element in its own way and collectively are either natural outgrowths of the Maritime System or designed to support the sustainment and growth of the system. 

If *we* were to expand the Maritime System to integrate "honorary" Anglosphere nations like the Netherlands and Japan, as well as India (which should probably be considered a "real" Anglosphere nation), then in the longer term *we* would have a much stronger and more flexible system, greater access to markets and resources and possibly a much brighter future as well.


----------



## pbi (3 Nov 2014)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> ...If *we* were to expand the Maritime System to integrate "honorary" Anglosphere nations like the Netherlands and Japan, as well as India (which should probably be considered a "real" Anglosphere nation), then in the longer term *we* would have a much stronger and more flexible system, greater access to markets and resources and possibly a much brighter future as well.



Hmmmm. Interesting line of thinking here. I agree with Thucydides on this: a "coalition of the like-minded". One might balk at India at first, but you only need to compare that nation to the countries around it (especially TrainWreckistan) to see how much different it is, and how well suited it might be to enter into such a union.


----------



## dapaterson (3 Nov 2014)

I note that none of our usual cadre of CPC apologists have had anything to say about their boy Dean del Mastro, convicted under the Elections Act, and who the judge stated "frequently obfuscated" in his testimony.  I particularly like his response to being found guilty: "I know what the truth is. That's [the judge's] opinion. My opinion is quite different." 

A very awkward situation for the tough-on-crime Conservative party: do they expel one of their own from the House, or is that only for Senators?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mp-dean-del-mastro-motion-could-delay-sentencing-loss-of-seat-1.2822089


----------



## pbi (3 Nov 2014)

As far as I know they expelled him from CPC a while ago. I think the judge observed that it is now up to Parliament to decide his political fate.

The CPC have, in my opinion, fallen prey to the Canadian political disease I call "second-term-itis".  It affects all Canadian ruling parties alike and is generally characterized by the rapid onset of arrogance, incipient corruption, disregard for inconvenient laws, frequently presenting a strain of anti-democratic behaviour as well. The victims will frequently find themselves engaged in increasingly bizzare dialogue as they try to explain their degenerating behaviour and why it is somebody else's fault, or invented by the media (the latter are frequently depicted as being controlled by the Devil) 

In its more advanced state, it is often fatal. In some cases it has resulted in the spontaneous combustion of the infected party.

However, it has an odd sequel , called "the Zombie Effect". After self-immolation and apparent death, parties have been known to rise from the dead and resume power, usually by means of a massive infusion of new blood.

Scary stuff!


----------



## The Bread Guy (3 Nov 2014)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> I note that none of our usual cadre of CPC apologists have had anything to say about their boy Dean del Mastro, convicted under the Elections Act, and who the judge stated "frequently obfuscated" in his testimony.  I particularly like his response to being found guilty: "I know what the truth is. That's [the judge's] opinion. My opinion is quite different."


Which is why he appears to be trying again - from his web page (text also attached if link doesn't work):


> (MONDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2014 – PETERBOROUGH, ON) MP Dean Del Mastro is making an Application to re-open the defence in his case against Elections Canada prior to sentencing which is scheduled for November 21st, 2014. There is fresh evidence that was not put before the trial judge because it was not disclosed in a timely fashion by Elections Canada.
> The test for determining whether to permit the fresh evidence to be admitted into the trial is as follows:
> 1. the evidence should generally not be admitted if, by due diligence, it could have been adduced at trial provided that this general principle will not be applied as strictly in a criminal case as in civil cases…;
> 2. the evidence must be relevant in the sense that it bears upon a decisive or potentially decisive issue in the trial;
> ...


I guess this means that as long as the case is still in play, "the bosses" can say, "the case is still before the courts" and not have to act.


----------



## Brad Sallows (4 Nov 2014)

I shall replay my same old boring tune: the more regulations and programs accumulate, the more powerful government is.  The more powerful government is, the more important it is to retain control for one's faction and deny the legitimacy of any other faction, and to centralize the exercise of that control.  There is no such thing as a cadre of enlightened, benevolent, and wise technocrats to make a vastly powerful and meddlesome government bearable.  Dirigisme is always doomed by the stubbornly contrary wishes of tens of millions of citizens.

I read a recent Macleans article lamenting that the CPC government has become uncommunicative to media agencies on [the] level to which the agencies had become accustomed.  I wonder who was responsible for the pressures which convinced the Harper government that tight message discipline was necessary to acquire and retain political power in an era [when] the most trivially misspoken phrase echoes around the Internet for as long as unsympathetic partisans can sustain the chorus?

When the government is routinely described with adjectives like "illegitimate" and "criminal" and nouns like "regime", the knob is already at 11 and there is nowhere else to go, and no point to co-operating with the beating.


----------



## pbi (4 Nov 2014)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> When the government is routinely described with adjectives like "illegitimate" and "criminal" and nouns like "regime", the knob is already at 11 and there is nowhere else to go, and no point to co-operating with the beating.



Then, IMHO, 'twas ever so, if you look back over the last 200 or so years of English language journalism. Rabble rousing and trashing the Govt of the day is a fine tradition. (And one most Govts have richly deserved at one time or another in their tenure) Until probably WWI and the onset of heavy Govt control of media, there really wasn't even a pretense of "objectivity".

Govts have always feared free media and sought to tame it or neutralize it (or, in the final resort of some extreme govts, shut it down and lock up the editors). As Napoleon once said : "Four newspapers are more to be feared than a thousand bayonets".


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Nov 2014)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> I shall replay my same old boring tune: the more regulations and programs accumulate, the more powerful government is.  The more powerful government is, the more important it is to retain control for one's faction and deny the legitimacy of any other faction, and to centralize the exercise of that control.  There is no such thing as a cadre of enlightened, benevolent, and wise technocrats to make a vastly powerful and meddlesome government bearable.  Dirigisme is always doomed by the stubbornly contrary wishes of tens of millions of citizens.
> 
> I read a recent Macleans article lamenting that the CPC government has become uncommunicative to media agencies on [the] level to which the agencies had become accustomed.  I wonder who was responsible for the pressures which convinced the Harper government that tight message discipline was necessary to acquire and retain political power in an era [when] the most trivially misspoken phrase echoes around the Internet for as long as unsympathetic partisans can sustain the chorus?
> 
> When the government is routinely described with adjectives like "illegitimate" and "criminal" and nouns like "regime", the knob is already at 11 and there is nowhere else to go, and no point to co-operating with the beating.




I think, in fact I'm 99.9% certain, that it was during the the 1984 election night TV coverage when I watched/listened to a _senior_, prime-time TV Canadian journalist who was on a TV panel that was watching the Conservatives win a *MASSIVE* majority (211 : 40 : 30 seats in a 282 seat house) saying something like, "Well, this is Big, the Liberals will not be much of an opposition; it will be up to us, the media, to be the _*real*_ opposition to this government." The other journalists all nodded in accord.

Now I accept, indeed I'm happy that some (many? most?) journalists believe that they must dig into every government act, programme or statement and _*expose*_ all the facts; that is a very useful artifact of a free society - and it's something that opposition parties don't do well enough, maybe because they don't have big enough, good enough research staffs. But it should be done as 'news,' if there is any, not as _*"Gotcha!"*_ journalism, as is most often the case today.

(Perhaps it's interesting to note that a well known Canadian political journalist, George Bain, thought "Gotcha!" journalism was a problem 20 years ago.)


----------



## pbi (4 Nov 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ...(Perhaps it's interesting to note that a well known Canadian political journalist, George Bain, thought "Gotcha!" journalism was a problem 20 years ago.) ..



If I'm not mistaken, the term "muckrackers" as an epithet for "gotcha" journalism, is about a century old. Teddy Roosevelt (no left-wing liberal he), is quoted as saying: "..."the men with the muck rakes are often indispensable to the well being of society; but only if they know when to stop raking the muck...".

I guess that every politician, and every Govt PA spokesperson, has their own definition of  "...when to stop racking the muck...". Sooner when it's about them, much , much later when it's about the Other Guys.


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Nov 2014)

pbi said:
			
		

> I guess that every politician, and every Govt PA spokesperson, has their own definition of  "...when to stop racking the muck...". Sooner when it's about them, much , much later when it's about the Other Guys.


 :nod:


			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Now I accept, indeed I'm happy that some (many? most?) journalists believe that they must dig into every government act, programme or statement and _*expose*_ all the facts; that is a very useful artifact of a free society - and it's something that opposition parties don't do well enough, maybe because they don't have big enough, good enough research staffs. But it should be done as 'news,' if there is any, not as _*"Gotcha!"*_ journalism, as is most often the case today.


Which also leads back to your idea that media's there to sell sets of ears/sets of eyes to advertisers - and what does this say about Canada's "collective eyes/ears" when this is what draws?


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Nov 2014)

But that brings us back to Thucydides' CBC drum.

The issue is not that the press is biased.  The issue is that the Government is paying, with my taxpayer dollars, to be beaten like said drum.

Faction is indeed part of politics -  Heck, it is the whole of politics.

Rabble rousing, muckraking, pamphleteering, scandal-mongering, gotcha journalism are all part of the package.

As are those arch muckrakers John Wilkes, William Lyon MacKenzie and George Brown.

The ability of any faction to publish their views, have them bellowed in the town square, debate them at Hyde Park corner, attract new allies to their faction is not the question.  That is the chaos of democracy that Churchill championed.  The tradition is alive and well in the UK.  Matt Drudge and MSNBC continue the tradition in the US.

Canadians seem to be mired in a quaint notion of there being some sort of order out there that can be defined and maintained and should be promulgated.

There ain't.

Personally, as a good Presbyterian lad, I blame the Catholics and the pseudo-Catholics, the Anglicans and the Lutherans.  Millenia of being directed from above, with crumbs being dispensed in place of bread and circuses rationed have taken their toll.

Give me the freedom of some good old fashioned witch-burning Covenanters.  And pass the (tax-free) whisk(e)y.


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Nov 2014)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> I note that none of our usual cadre of CPC apologists have had anything to say about their boy Dean del Mastro, convicted under the Elections Act, and who the judge stated "frequently obfuscated" in his testimony.  I particularly like his response to being found guilty: "I know what the truth is. That's [the judge's] opinion. My opinion is quite different."
> 
> A very awkward situation for the tough-on-crime Conservative party: do they expel one of their own from the House, or is that only for Senators?
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mp-dean-del-mastro-motion-could-delay-sentencing-loss-of-seat-1.2822089




_Twitter_ is suggesting that the PMO, through the Government House Leader, Peter Van Loan, and the Speaker, has _fast tracked_ things and Mt Del Mastro will be expelled from the HoC today. If that's the case it will go some way to defusing the situation ... "We expelled him from our caucus months ago, the CPC will say, and now _*we*_ have expelled him from the House, too ... move along now, nothing to see here, nothing that concerns the CPC anyway." The opposition parties will try to make something stick but my _guess_ is that pocketbook issues will prevail.

I can still see the possibility of a late fall (8 Dec) general election ~ but the window is closing fast.


----------



## pbi (4 Nov 2014)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> But that brings us back to Thucydides' CBC drum.
> 
> ...The issue is not that the press is biased.  The issue is that the Government is paying, with my taxpayer dollars, to be beaten like said drum...



And in my view, there can be nothing more fine and honourable than that our tax dollars go towards such a noble enterprise: a media watchdog on the government, that isn't subject to the vagaries of corporate sponsorship. In the fine tradition of the BBC and the ABC, long may they carry on.


			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> ...
> Personally, as a good Presbyterian lad, I blame the Catholics and the pseudo-Catholics, the Anglicans and the Lutherans.  Millenia of being directed from above, with crumbs being dispensed in place of bread and circuses rationed have taken their toll.



Ahhhh... you and the rest of that grubby, self-righteous tee-totalling Dissenter/Nonconformist lot. At least we of the of the "Big Pointy Hat Churches" enjoy our booze and aren't afraid to admit it, unlike those closet-tippling Baptists, Presbyterians, Calvinists and the rest. Boring lot of God-botherers, if you ask me.



			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Give me the freedom of some good old fashioned witch-burning Covenanters.  And pass the (tax-free) whisk(e)y.



 Well...if it's a good single malt, alright then. :cheers:


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Nov 2014)

Reports are surfacing on _Twitter_ (from generally reliable sources (John Ivision and David Akin)) that one or even two _Liberal_ MPs will be suspended from caucus over sexual harassment allegations ... that may _neuter_ the stench of Dean De Mastro's conviction.

Edit to add:

The _Huffington Post_ reports that the two _Liberal_ MPs are: "Montreal MP Massimo Pacetti and Newfoundland MP Scott Andrews."

Further edit to add:

It's official ...












Yet another edit to add:

_CTV News_ provided this picture of the two MPs who were expelled from the _Liberal_ caucus:





                                                   Scott Andrews and Massimo Pacetti


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Nov 2014)

The _Liberal's_ misfortunes are not the sort of thing that will send the PM over to Rideau Hall to ask for a snap election ... not until he is sure that another shoe, the _Conservative_ shoe, is not going to drop, too.

He's got to be worried that the "other shoe," charges against _CPC_ MPs, will not become public until after he goes to the polls.


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Nov 2014)

But - 

Colin Kenny & Mac Harb vs Ken Duffy, Patrick Brazeau and Pamela Wallin
Dean del Maestro vs Scott Andrews and Massimo Pacetti

And the odds are starting to even.

Also, on the F35

The technology is maturing
Buys are becoming more frequent and bigger
ISIS is making the case for it 
And Canadian Defence Industries Association members are already in the wings complaining about the work they have lost to Norway, Turkey, Japan, Korea, Israel...... while we have been fiddle-farting around.

As a Liberal or Dipper wanna take on the case that the Conservatives haven't acted fast enough on the F-35 file?

PS .... I wouldn't recommend spending too much time attacking Pamela .... unless you are a tone-deaf Easterner.


----------



## mariomike (5 Nov 2014)

There is a "Draft Doug Ford for PC leader" website, for anyone interested:

http://draftdougford.ca/

“We are a group of Ontarians in the GTA who feel that Doug Ford would be the only person who can renew the party. To win a leadership contest you need to sell memberships. As a natural born salesman, Doug Ford has the ability to add life to a room and sell people on his ideas for a better future for the PC Party.

Doug Ford would be able to win many areas in Toronto in a general election, something our party hasn’t been able to do in over a decade.”

Maybe there will be out of town Ford Fests?


----------



## pbi (5 Nov 2014)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> But -
> 
> Colin Kenny & Mac Harb vs Ken Duffy, Patrick Brazeau and Pamela Wallin
> Dean del Maestro vs Scott Andrews and Massimo Pacetti
> ...



Hmmm. Interesting stuff. I guess the good thing about this smelly, steaming pile is that we're actually hearing about it.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Nov 2014)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> But -
> 
> Colin Kenny & Mac Harb vs Ken Duffy, Patrick Brazeau and Pamela Wallin
> _Dean del Maestro_ vs _Scott Andrews_ and _Massimo Pacetti_
> ...




I'm just hearing on the radio (CBC) that Dean Del Mastro has preempted his opponents and has resigned, sparing the CPC the unpleasant task of throwing out one of their friends and denying the opposition the chance to say that he was "expelled."


----------



## PPCLI Guy (5 Nov 2014)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Also, on the F35
> 
> 
> ISIS is making the case for it



Say what???????  ISIL makes the case for buying a 5th generation fighter?


----------



## dapaterson (5 Nov 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I'm just hearing on the radio (CBC) that Dean Del Mastro has preempted his opponents and has resigned, sparing the CPC the unpleasant task of throwing out one of their friends and denying the opposition the chance to say that he was "expelled."


Cue the patronage appointment for a quiet Friday in a few months.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Nov 2014)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Cue the patronage appointment for a quiet Friday in a few months.



Agreed; Mr Del Masto has done his party a great service. The Liberals and NDP could have, would have made much of a (former, but no one would mention that) CPC MP being thrown out of the House, but as Mercedes Stephenson is explaining right about now, on _Twitter_ (she's @CTVMercedes) "the harassment stuff is definitely of broader interest, or should be," and I _suspect_ the media, even those elements of the media that would love to discomfit Prime Minister Harper and the Conservatives, will give great emphasis to the troubles of the errant Liberal MPs, especially given that the Speaker has referred the matter to the secretive Board of Internal Economy.

(I'm not sure where else the Speaker might have sent the matter, there is neither a parliamentary police force to investigate nor a "court" to try any alleged offences on Parliament Hill. Maybe there should be. But "The Board of Internal Economy is the governing body of the House of Commons ... [and it] ... makes decisions and provides direction on financial and administrative matters of the House of Commons, specifically concerning its premises, its services, its staff and Members of the House of Commons." If there is some need for investigation and action _it appears to me _ that the Board must initiate and oversee it. If there is an need for something more then _it also seems to me_ that only the Board can tell the Speaker to take some action.)

But, for the time being, and absent any more allegations, I think that *l'affair Ghomeshi* and this little imbroglio will shove Mr Del Mastro and his 'crime' - covering up the fact that he donated too much of his own money (not taxpayers' money) to his own election campaign - well back the front pages. Dean Del Mastro will be handsomely rewarded after the next election.


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Nov 2014)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Say what???????  ISIL makes the case for buying a 5th generation fighter?



Maybe not on buying the F35 .... but buying something.  They are eating up the hours on the existing fleet of Aerial Effects Providers.

One thing about delaying the purchase:  the longer the delay the fewer the production lines open.  F35 by default?


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (5 Nov 2014)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Say what???????  ISIL makes the case for buying a 5th generation fighter?



ISIL almost makes the case against a 5th generation fighter. After all when our victorious CF-18s return, non stealth capable and all, from a successful bombing campaign it'll be hard to sell the need for a stealth fighter.


----------



## dapaterson (5 Nov 2014)

You're missing the point. What if the enemy has fifth generation backhoes and dumptrucks?


----------



## jpjohnsn (5 Nov 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Agreed; Mr Del Masto has done his party a great service. The Liberals and NDP could have, would have made much of a (former, but no one would mention that) CPC MP being thrown out of the House, but as Mercedes Stephenson is explaining right about now, on _Twitter_ (she's @CTVMercedes) "the harassment stuff is definitely of broader interest, or should be," and I _suspect_ the media, even those elements of the media that would love to discomfit Prime Minister Harper and the Conservatives, will give great emphasis to the troubles of the errant Liberal MPs, especially given that the Speaker has referred the matter to the secretive Board of Internal Economy.


I think the bigger point of interest will be how the public reacts to the leader of the 3rd party's handling of this.  From a purely HR standpoint, he appears to be playing this by the numbers and being proactive rather than reactive.  His suspension of the MPs and reaching out to both the speaker and the NDP has gotten him ahead of the media curve and could blunt most of the public's criticism of the party as a whole and his leadership, specifically.  

It's entirely possible he could lose two MPs and yet still gain popularity (especially with female voters) if he sticks to the script.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Nov 2014)

jpjohnsn said:
			
		

> I think the bigger point of interest will be how the public reacts to the leader of the 3rd party's handling of this.  From a purely HR standpoint, he appears to be playing this by the numbers and being proactive rather than reactive.  His suspension of the MPs and reaching out to both the speaker and the NDP has gotten him ahead of the media curve and could blunt most of the public's criticism of the party as a whole and his leadership, specifically.
> 
> It's entirely possible he could lose two MPs and yet still gain popularity (especially with female voters) if he sticks to the script.




I agree with you, too. I think M. Trudeau has handled this very well.


----------



## Brad Sallows (5 Nov 2014)

Muck-raking has been around a long time, but the Internet has not.  I think it makes a difference when a pot-stirrer has to publish and distribute broadsheets, versus dumping content onto a web page.


----------



## a_majoor (5 Nov 2014)

WRT the CF-35, I suspect this is one of those issues where an election is a bad time to talk about it.

The aircraft is suffering due to the rather inept management of the overall program by the prime contractor, and the unfortunate fact that there are no real alternatives (either by accident or design) given the projected service life out to the 2040's. I am also concerned with the effects of "Moore's Law" (the number of transistors on a chip double every 18 months), which makes the CF-35 pretty much obsolete even now. Given the long lead times for producing new kit, there is a strong incentive to start work on the successor now and being ready to get it into service a lot sooner than 2040.

The other issue has been mentioned upthread: what sort of armed force do we really need? Fighting insurgents like ISIS, the Taliban and assorted other trouble makers around the globe requires one sort of force, while watching the Russians run rings around NATO with their Hybrid Conflict doctrine, or mulling over the possible range of responses China can generate using "Unrestricted Warfare" doctrine (or other variations which generally fall under the "4GW" rubric) requires ranges of capabilities that are well outside of what most people would consider conventional militaries at all (can you imagine a militarized trading floor where soldier-traders monitor the stock market for suspicious trade patterns and have the tools to intervene if needed?)

Of course most politicians, reporters and bureaucrats have a great deal of difficulty talking about military matters due to their lack of experience and understanding, and general lack of interest as well (until someone points out the price tags), so expect a very disjointed and uninformed "debate" on military and security matters falling out from the recent terrorist attacks, mission in the Middle East and other assorted military events.


----------



## dapaterson (5 Nov 2014)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> WRT the CF-35, I suspect this is one of those issues where an election is a bad time to talk about it.
> 
> The aircraft is suffering due to the rather inept management of the overall program by the prime contractor, and the unfortunate fact that there are no real alternatives (either by accident or design) given the projected service life out to the 2040's. I am also concerned with the effects of "Moore's Law" (the number of transistors on a chip double every 18 months), which makes the CF-35 pretty much obsolete even now. Given the long lead times for producing new kit, there is a strong incentive to start work on the successor now and being ready to get it into service a lot sooner than 2040.



Moore's Law speaks to processing power; the ability to effectively exploit that processing power is entirely different.  Indeed, the F-35's software is a major part of the ongoing development work, or, to be more direct, the F-35 does not yet do many of the things that make it special, because the software has not been written yet.


----------



## The Bread Guy (22 Nov 2014)

Note to The Canadian Press & Scott Brison on this one ....


> Federal public servants were asked by the Finance department to promote Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s recently announced tax measures on Twitter using the slogan “Strong Families.”
> 
> A senior bureaucrat with the Finance department sent out a mass email across government asking organizations to retweet messages about the announcement using the hashtag #StrongFamilies.
> 
> ...


Government Info-machine bureaucrats (_departmental_ comms folk, not Ministerial _political_ staff) sending out a news release, then asking other departments to share such news releases, isn't "partisan", it's "sharing the message"**** -- same same with Twitter posts and hashtags.

**** - If said statements clearly attacked political parties, _that_ would be partisan.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Nov 2014)

In fairness ~ maybe that's not the right word ~ to Brison _et al_, I'm not sure that "messaging," especially not "messaging" in the _social media_ era is well understood by bureaucrats and many politicians; I'm absolutely certain that_* I *_don't understand it.

I find the whole business of _communications_ a bit murky ... I know it's a legitimate skill that organizations, including governments, need to use to explain what they are doing, and why they are doing it, to their clients/customers/voters/etc. I'm just not sure where the line is between "informing" and proselytizing.


----------



## ballz (22 Nov 2014)

I consider it partisan. I'd like public servants to be neutral and execute what they're told to execute, not launch Twitter campaigns to support or not support what Parliament has decided or is planning to decide on.

The CAF forbids it's members to act in this manner when it relates to the CAF or DND... this is no different, except that we expect a higher level of professionalism from our members than we do from your every day government employee. Maybe they should take a leaf from our book, just because it's not forbidden doesn't mean they should be unprofessional...


----------



## dapaterson (22 Nov 2014)

https://twitter.com/canadianforces

Glass houses and all that...


----------



## ballz (22 Nov 2014)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> https://twitter.com/canadianforces
> 
> Glass houses and all that...



I can understand the need for the CAF to have a Twitter account for PR purposes. However, are they posting things along the lines of
"The CAF supports the decision to send fighter jets to fight ISIS #fightterrorism"
"The CAF supports the DND decision to purchase F-35 stealth fighter jets #strongandfree"
etc???

Probably not... so simply having a Twitter account is not necessarily launching / participating in a Twitter campaign. I find your post to be more along the lines of trolling as I suspect you recognize the difference.


----------



## ModlrMike (22 Nov 2014)

ballz said:
			
		

> I consider it partisan. I'd like public servants to be neutral and execute what they're told to execute, not launch Twitter campaigns to support or not support what Parliament has decided or is planning to decide on.



I would agree with the above if the direction was aimed at individual employees, but it clearly says organizations. I see nothing wrong with government departments participating in information campaigns provided the individual employees are not compelled to use their own resources.


----------



## Remius (22 Nov 2014)

Agreed.  No one was asked to retweet anything personally.  This is a departmental comms thing.


----------



## ballz (22 Nov 2014)

Ack. Understand what happened here better now. For some reason I read it as the department asking employees to re-tweet it on their personal accounts or something along those lines.


----------



## Cloud Cover (23 Nov 2014)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Moore's Law speaks to processing power; the ability to effectively exploit that processing power is entirely different.  Indeed, the F-35's software is a major part of the ongoing development work, or, to be more direct, the F-35 does not yet do many of the things that make it special, because the software has not been written yet.



Actually lot of the software is in now in object code and moving along quite in the RF/LF hardware and ESM simulators that I have seen. Certainly the underlying source code is trusted and reliable.   What makes this platform give the flyboys that are geeks a blood rush to the penis is the scalability, reliability, resilience  and adaptability of the source software. A new, incompatible sub system need not be hacked and patched for future uses.  This the first fighter aircraft that uses secure apps that access firmware api's, literally downloaded just like you would a utility app from iTunes or Google play.


----------



## larry Strong (9 Dec 2014)

A fly in the ointment?


From CBC
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/b-c-sikhs-quit-liberals-to-protest-justin-trudeau-s-star-candidate-1.2866343



> B.C. Sikhs quit Liberals to protest Justin Trudeau's 'star' candidate





Larry


----------



## The Bread Guy (23 Dec 2014)

Why can't the government share more data in electronic format?  Because someone could use it to make something up.


> The Conservative cabinet minister responsible for freedom of information says some federal data cannot be released to the public in electronic format because people might alter it and spread falsehoods.
> 
> There's a fear people could "create havoc" by changing the statistical information, says Treasury Board President Tony Clement.
> 
> ...


Like someone couldn't make up a different version of hard copies, right?  Or misrepresent what's on paper?   :facepalm:


----------



## cupper (23 Dec 2014)

But at least with paper documents, if someone were to alter the data, you could fall back to the electronic data and show the public that the person altered the paper data.

Couldn't do that if you gave them electronic data.

Oh. Wait …..

Nevermind.

 ;D


----------

