# Politics in 2017



## Edward Campbell (3 Jan 2017)

So, here we are in 2017 ... what are the big issues? Globally? Nationally?

  Will Putin continue what I have dubbed his "opportunistic adventurism?" Will it, eventually, lead him into a deep cold war or, heaven forbid, even a hot one?

    Will Xi Jinping start a campaign to extend his term beyond the next five years? 

      What will happen in the French and, later, German elections? More right wing, _nativist_, populist, _tribalist_ leaders or a reprieve for liberal social democrats?

  Will Justin Trudeau's honeymoon end in 2017?

    Will there be a revolt against higher and higher federal and provincial taxes?

      Who will lead the Conservative Party of Canada? the NDP?


----------



## jollyjacktar (3 Jan 2017)

As much as I find these new taxes revolting,  what can one do about it?

I do believe the PM is going to have to deliver this year and he won't be able to ride the coat tails of Trudeau mania 2.0 for much longer.  I expect this year will be entertaining for me to see him running for cover more and more as it progresses.


----------



## PuckChaser (3 Jan 2017)

The honeymoon is over, the PM has had a 10% drop in approval ratings across the board. He's now in striking distance of the Tories who don't have a leader in vote intention, although most of these polls are the standard +/-5% margin of error, so you'd be better served throwing a dart at the board.

The hallmark of this government will be when the Carbon Tax hits the ground running in 2018. It will be $20 per tonne in 2019 ($10 behind Alberta). That's more than enough time to see the impact in your pocketbook, especially in the middle class who are going to be hit hard every time they consume goods. Alberta and Ontario's price will have been in effect for longer, and if there's no net decrease in emissions its an easy target for Opposition parties to hammer the government for it.


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Jan 2017)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ...More right wing, _nativist_, populist, _tribalist_ leaders or a reprieve for liberal social democrats?
> ...



You looking to pick a fight?  Remember a line from the old Saturday morning westerns....."Smile when you say that, pardner!"  ;D

Right Wing - What scale? - Religious, Economic, Political, Oenological?

Nativist, populist, tribalist? - How about plain, old, unexpurgated, unmitigated, unmanaged, unmodified democracy?  The rule of the people with their whim being decided pragmatically by simple majority.  Accepting that every man is as good as his master and has as much ability, and as many rights, to sit in judgment of the people and rules that influence his life.

Not Social Democrats, of Christian Democrats or Liberal Democrats but plain democrats.  Anything other than simple democracy is a route for Managers to borrow authority (from God, the King or the Soviet) and appropriate it as their own - nominally in service of The Truth and Justice.  That is merely to swap the decision-maker - one fallible human for another.

The British System, grown from Scottish Presbyterianism, is not about Truth and Justice.  It is about pragmatic accommodation and the knowledge that if you don't like the answer today then you can come back tomorrow and continue trying to change it.  The world doesn't end just because you lost a game, a vote or an election - or even a war.  Its true that we may end up burning a few more witches, and a few less churches will get paint jobs - but better that than being burnt by the guy that hired the painter.

You look back to the transition from Adam Smith to William Gladstone and see what the most conservative force in the world, the Roman church, was railing against at the time - 

Free association of people of different beliefs.
People believing whatever they chose to believe.
People making up their own beliefs.
People expressing their own beliefs.
People printing their own beliefs.

Rationalism, 
Indifferentism (indifference to what god and how you prayed), 
Latitudinarianism (the latitude to believe as you wish),
Socialism,
Communism,
Secret Societies,
Biblical Societies,
Clerico-Liberal Societies,
Separation of Church and State,
Liberalism (Freedom of worship).

1864 Syllabus of Errors   This was the same chap that was declared infallible in 1871.

The Church was not alone in these beliefs.  These were the dominant beliefs of Europe, aristocracy and commoner.

Britain, her colonies and America were unique in being States where these rules applied - where toleration was given a chance.  Where most people, most of the time believed in the fairness of their system and their neighbours.

Where they trust their fate to juries of their peers, including Justices of the Peace, and not to learned judges.

And since I am on a roll just now....

Freedom of the press.  

There is no Press.  Capitalized.  Institutionalized.  Centralized.

There is only the press, the instrument, the tool, the extension of the individual's voice - the ability to write down and broadcast one's beliefs - and let the devil take the hindmost.  

And if you have a problem with my statements then proffer your own and, if need be, we'll let a jury decide.

Happy New Year and thanks for the opportunity  :subbies:


----------



## Good2Golf (3 Jan 2017)

A bit of math shows that Ontario's new 4.3 cent/litre (de facto) tax is the equivalent of $18.38/tonne of CO2 (1 L creates 2.34kg [EPA ref] of COs, 1 tonne/1000 kg results from 427L burned, and 427L/tonne CO2 x $0.043/L = $18.38/tonne CO2).

I had heard that Ontario's price for each tonne of CO2 was $10? No?  Seems ON motorists are going to pay close to two times the industrial CO2 rate.

G2G


----------



## cavalryman (3 Jan 2017)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> A bit of math shows that Ontario's new 4.3 cent/litre (de facto) tax is the equivalent of $18.38/tonne of CO2 (1 L creates 2.34kg [EPA ref] of COs, 1 tonne/1000 kg results from 427L burned, and 427L/tonne CO2 x $0.043/L = $18.38/tonne CO2).
> 
> I had heard that Ontario's price for each tonne of CO2 was $10? No?  Seems ON motorists are going to pay close to two times the industrial CO2 rate.
> 
> G2G


Sure, but it actually has nothing whatsoever to do with saving the environment and everything to do with lining the ON govt's pockets so that Wynne can save her regime by distributing largesse on the back of taxpayers... >

She's counting on the fact that people will have forgotten this latest bit of gouging by next year, especially when the pre-election money starts to flow (of course, it also assumes that the Ontario PCs will remain the Feckless Party, which seems to be a given right now)


----------



## Good2Golf (3 Jan 2017)

cavalryman said:
			
		

> Sure, but it actually has nothing whatsoever to do with saving the environment and everything to do with lining the ON govt's pockets so that Wynne can save her regime by distributing largesse on the back of taxpayers... >



I would most certainly not disagree with you CM...


----------



## Jarnhamar (3 Jan 2017)

[quote author=E.R. Campbell] 
 Who will lead the Conservative Party of Canada? 
[/quote] 
               
Bit off topic. I took a crack at becoming a member of the Conservative Party and donating a couple bucks. 

I'm  being indunated with emails and requests for donations.  Pretty much begging for $5.  It's pretty brutal actually.


----------



## Rifleman62 (3 Jan 2017)

Now you are a member, you will 





> being inundated with emails and requests for donations


 from every leadership candidate. :rofl:


----------



## 63 Delta (4 Jan 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Bit off topic. I took a crack at becoming a member of the Conservative Party and donating a couple bucks.
> 
> I'm  being indunated with emails and requests for donations.  Pretty much begging for $5.  It's pretty brutal actually.



That is why I only gave them my spam inbox  ;D


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Jan 2017)

Is this: "*Ottawa projects decades of deficits as federal finances worsen*" going to be the key story for at least the first few weeks of 2017?

The Finance Department report was released, without any press release, on the Friday afternoon before Christmas ...  :

The Globe and Mail article says, and I agree, that "*The government’s latest long-term fiscal forecast adds new context to the federal government’s reluctance to boost provincial health transfers* [and]  *The decades of surpluses projected by Ottawa just two years ago have now shifted to decades of annual deficits that will run until 2050*."

This was, of course, entirely avoidable. All Prime Minister Trudeau had to do was stick to his campaign promise:

     
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




It is, also, quite reversible by the Trudeau regime or by an honest, competent government ... Liberal or Conservative.

But, absent a (much needed) cabinet led caucus revolt that replaces Justin Trudeau with an adult we are going to go into "interesting times" with the self inflicted wound of a weakened ecdonomy:

          
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



          Source: David Perkins in The _*Globe and Mail*_


----------



## Remius (5 Jan 2017)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Is this: "*Ottawa projects decades of deficits as federal finances worsen*" going to be the key story for at least the first few weeks of 2017?
> [/b]."
> 
> It should be but it won't.  Trump's inauguration, the CPC leadership gong show will see that this gets buried and forgotten.


----------



## suffolkowner (5 Jan 2017)

How much of the budget shortfall actually made it to infrastructure investment? To be honest I'd be hard pressed to list anything right or wrong done by this government in it's first year


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Jan 2017)

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> How much of the budget shortfall actually made it to infrastructure investment? To be honest I'd be hard pressed to list anything right or wrong done by this government in it's first year



I don't think any did. Unless it was overseas infrastructure, or just tossing more money at despots and dictators. He's put millions into that, but none in Canada.


----------



## Remius (5 Jan 2017)

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> How much of the budget shortfall actually made it to infrastructure investment? To be honest I'd be hard pressed to list anything right or wrong done by this government in it's first year



That you know of.  Personally I think they bungled the whole democratic reform thing.  Also this whole pay to play thing stinks and that's just what's known.  I suspect that more will come to light...


----------



## Brad Sallows (5 Jan 2017)

I doubt much "infrastructure" spending has commenced yet.

When the 2016 Fiscal Reference Tables (PDF) were published last fall, covering the fiscal year ending 2016, I noticed that the government managed to produce the deficit they predicted - just barely (a little less than $1 billion).  That was after the spending spree they went on just at the end of the year.

You can see that the year-over-year revenue increase was healthy compared to previous years, but program spending was way up.  So it is definitely a problem that can be solved, but not if the government insists on turning back on all of the lights the prior government turned off.


----------



## Jarnhamar (7 Jan 2017)

Don't worry.


> The Liberal fiscal plan would see "a modest short-term deficit" of less than $10 billion for each of the first three years  and then a balanced budget by the 2019-2020 fiscal year.



Budget will be balanced in 2 years.


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 Jan 2017)

Stand by for a bit of a change -- shared under the Fair Dealing provisions of the _Copyright Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-42)_ ...


> Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is expected to give his year-old cabinet a facelift on Tuesday.
> 
> Sources tell The Canadian Press that the shuffle will involve at least six people.
> 
> ...


----------



## Remius (9 Jan 2017)

Not surprising given the change of regime to our south the last guy you want to send there to shore up relations is Stephane Dion.

Monsief has been a disaster and I'm sure she'll be gone.


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 Jan 2017)

Remius said:
			
		

> Monsief has been a disaster and I'm sure she'll be gone.


I'd bet a loonie that way, too.


----------



## cavalryman (9 Jan 2017)

Remius said:
			
		

> Not surprising given the change of regime to our south the last guy you want to send there to shore up relations is Stephane Dion.
> 
> Monsief has been a disaster and I'm sure she'll be gone.


I guess it's no longer 2016 >


----------



## George Wallace (9 Jan 2017)

cavalryman said:
			
		

> I guess it's no longer 2016 >



That was ten (10) vacations ago. 

k:


----------



## Cloud Cover (10 Jan 2017)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Is this: "*Ottawa projects decades of deficits as federal finances worsen*" going to be the key story for at least the first few weeks of 2017?
> 
> The Finance Department report was released, without any press release, on the Friday afternoon before Christmas ...  :
> 
> ...



I feel like I want to say that we should not be too worried about this. Big deficits are ok to pay for hard infrastructure as long as the money is spent responsibly and new social programs, grants and entitlements are not deficit funded. Most people borrow money to renovate their home and fix up the yard, the government has a big house and a giant back yard that needs fixing.  Problem is, I do not trust this government, or any other government, to act responsibly with borrowed money or revenue.


----------



## McG (10 Jan 2017)

> *Justin Trudeau is out of touch with the 99 per cent *
> Margaret Wente
> The Globe and Mail
> 09 Jan 2017
> ...


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/justin-trudeau-and-the-99-per-cent/article33554976/


----------



## George Wallace (10 Jan 2017)

Opps!


----------



## Lightguns (10 Jan 2017)

McCallum and Dion are out as ambassadors, Mousef is being hidden in the Nowhereland as Status of Women, the new Minister of Forever Liberal Government graduated high school in 2005 and spent most of her adult life outside of Canada. And Crying Christy is going take on the Trump train.


----------



## CountDC (10 Jan 2017)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> This was, of course, entirely avoidable. All Prime Minister Trudeau had to do was stick to his campaign promise:



What? You mean he didn't?  I am so shocked.


----------



## dapaterson (10 Jan 2017)

Interesting that Dion will (apparently) be both EU and German ambassador.  I do not think that will play well in some of the more Euro skeptic regiobs; the EU was in part a way to make Germany less influential.


----------



## Remius (10 Jan 2017)

I'm shocked that they kept Monseif in cabinet.


----------



## The Bread Guy (10 Jan 2017)

Remius said:
			
		

> I'm shocked that they kept Monseif in cabinet.


Agreed.


----------



## Rifleman62 (10 Jan 2017)

That's because the Liberals and Trudeau are infallible and have not made a mistake about her.


----------



## a_majoor (10 Jan 2017)

Snubbing President Trump's inauguration was another example of Liberal "Smart Diplomacy" (especially considering the new President's expressed views on NAFTA). One can only imagine how well the next four years are going to go when Canada needlessly displeases its major trading partner and protector.


----------



## dapaterson (10 Jan 2017)

PMs are not invited and do not attend inauguration. 

Plenty of other valid reasons to dislike the PM (holidays on private island belonging to a recipient of millions for government comes to mind).


----------



## George Wallace (10 Jan 2017)

Remius said:
			
		

> I'm shocked that they kept Monseif in cabinet.



In the Liberals' political game of Rock, Paper, Scissors; keeping the quota out trumps merit.


----------



## The Bread Guy (10 Jan 2017)

And the official Info-machine version:


> The Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, issued the following statement today on changes to the Ministry:
> 
> Chrystia Freeland, currently Minister of International Trade, becomes Minister of Foreign Affairs, and retains the Canada-U.S. relations file, including trade relations.
> 
> ...





			
				Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> That's because the Liberals and Trudeau are infallible and have not made a mistake about her.


Just ask them, right?  Yeah, Team Red doesn't seem to get that one.



			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> PMs are not invited and do not attend inauguration.
> 
> Plenty of other valid reasons to dislike the PM (holidays on private island belonging to a recipient of millions for government comes to mind).


But you forget ...


----------



## ModlrMike (10 Jan 2017)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> PMs are not invited and do not attend inauguration.



Perhaps, but it would have been the diplomatic thing to do.


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Jan 2017)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> And the official Info-machine version:Just ask them, right?  Yeah, Team Red doesn't seem to get that one.
> But you forget ...



So two by-elections then?


----------



## dapaterson (10 Jan 2017)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Perhaps, but it would have been the diplomatic thing to do.



Showing up when not invited is not a particularly diplomatic thing to do...


----------



## mariomike (10 Jan 2017)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Snubbing President Trump's inauguration was another example of Liberal "Smart Diplomacy" (especially considering the new President's expressed views on NAFTA). One can only imagine how well the next four years are going to go when Canada needlessly displeases its major trading partner and protector.



Canadians will be safer when he gets his hands on the codes?  



			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> PMs are not invited and do not attend inauguration.





			
				ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Perhaps, but it would have been the diplomatic thing to do.



"The fact Trudeau will not be attend Trump's swearing-in is perhaps unsurprising; the Canadian government has historically sent a delegation to the presidential inauguration that does not include the prime minister."
https://www.google.ca/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=OFp1WIKhPMuC8Qe8poOgAw&gws_rd=ssl#q=Do+canadian+prime+ministers+attend+presidential+inaugurations%3F


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 Jan 2017)

I was going to post this in the meme  thread but it seems more relevant than tounge in cheek.


----------



## Loachman (10 Jan 2017)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Canadians will be safer when he gets his hands on the codes?



Safer than with Hillary's hands on anything...







... except the bars on her well-earned cell.


----------



## mariomike (10 Jan 2017)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Safer than with Hillary's hands on anything...



Thanks for clarifying! I was a bit confused by his answer,
 http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2015/12/17/what-is-nuclear-triad-debate-sot.cnn


----------



## The Bread Guy (10 Jan 2017)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> So two by-elections then?


 :nod:


			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> Showing up when not invited is not a particularly diplomatic thing to do...


Which I guess we'll see if the new Global Affairs Minister tries going to Russia - although they know where _she_ stands on the whole Ukraine thing.

I'm kinda intrigued by Dion's "well, I'll have to think about it" according to the CBC.  I guess he doesn't quite get the concept of "here's your hat - what's your hurry?".


----------



## The Bread Guy (11 Jan 2017)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Which I guess we'll see if the new Global Affairs Minister tries going to Russia - although they know where _she_ stands on the whole Ukraine thing.


Well, we know a bit more about how Russia feels now - highlights mine ...


> Russia has signaled that it will only remove newly appointed Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland from its sanctions list on a reciprocal basis.
> 
> Russian news agencies cited an unidentified Russian Foreign Ministry official as saying on January 11 that Freeland has been on a list of Canadians subject to sanctions, which includes a travel ban, since 2014.
> 
> ...


----------



## George Wallace (11 Jan 2017)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Well, we know a bit more about how Russia feels now - highlights mine ...
> 
> 
> > Russia has signaled that it will only remove newly appointed Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland from its sanctions list on a reciprocal basis.
> ...



Damn!  They are good.  They targeted her way before she was elected and would become the Minister of Global Affairs.


----------



## Lightguns (11 Jan 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Damn!  They are good.  They targeted her way before she was elected and would become the Minister of Global Affairs.



More of that Russian super Int.


----------



## captloadie (11 Jan 2017)

I'm not quite sure what the issue is with the PM's selection to head GAC. Who else has the experience she has, the linguistic capabilities, the global connections, and name recognition? I actually think having spent so much time outside Canada should be lauded as an asset and not a detraction, as her job is to be the Face of Canada abroad.


----------



## Remius (11 Jan 2017)

captloadie said:
			
		

> I'm not quite sure what the issue is with the PM's selection to head GAC. Who else has the experience she has, the linguistic capabilities, the global connections, and name recognition? I actually think having spent so much time outside Canada should be lauded as an asset and not a detraction, as her job is to be the Face of Canada abroad.



It's twofold.  Don't let anyone say otherwise.  This was also a calculated move to send Russia a message.  She is in fact one his most capable ministers.  McCallum going to China was also calculated and will likely impress Beijing. 

My only beef with the entire shuffle is Monseif but I did hear at least one credible explanation that I'm willing to accept for now as to why she stayed.


----------



## The Bread Guy (11 Jan 2017)

captloadie said:
			
		

> I'm not quite sure what the issue is with the PM's selection to head GAC.


One issue is how well she (as well as her boss) can navigate the Russian position given 1)  her history w/Russia and 2)  PEOTUS's suggestions to date that he can make a "deal" with Russia.


			
				Remius said:
			
		

> This was also a calculated move to send Russia a message.


Agreed.  That said, I don't know about her competence one way or another, but I know she's been pretty anti-Russia/pro-Ukraine, and my only question is how her boss will manage all of that in dealing with Russia and the U.S. down the road.


----------



## jollyjacktar (11 Jan 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I was going to post this in the meme  thread but it seems more relevant than tounge in cheek.



It would seem that with Trudeaunomics, the PM will make all Canadians equal for generations to come.  Equally impoverished.  Thanks for nothing, all you Harper haters that brought this crowd into power.


----------



## Remius (11 Jan 2017)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> It would seem that with Trudeaunomics, the PM will make all Canadians equal for generations to come.  Equally impoverished.  Thanks for nothing, all you Harper haters that brought this crowd into power.



So it seems the "Department of Fiscal Projections" is betting that the liberals will be in Power until 2051?


----------



## jollyjacktar (11 Jan 2017)

God, it wouldn't surprise me.


----------



## captloadie (11 Jan 2017)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> One issue is how well she (as well as her boss) can navigate the Russian position given 1)  her history w/Russia and 2)  PEOTUS's suggestions to date that he can make a "deal" with Russia.Agreed.  That said, I don't know about her competence one way or another, but I know she's been pretty anti-Russia/pro-Ukraine, and my only question is how her boss will manage all of that in dealing with Russia and the U.S. down the road.


But unless we reverse current policy, we have already made our choice. We are currently pro-Ukraine/anti-Russia, put in simplified terms. That's why we have trainers in the Ukraine and will be a leading nation in Latvia.


----------



## Journeyman (11 Jan 2017)

Remius said:
			
		

> My only beef with the entire shuffle is Monseif but I did hear at least one credible explanation that I'm willing to accept for now as to why she stayed.


   Do tell.


----------



## George Wallace (11 Jan 2017)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Do tell.



"Quota"

Trudeau wants to fill quotas.....Not select on merit......Although he really doesn't have much to work with.


----------



## Halifax Tar (11 Jan 2017)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Do tell.



I'm guessing to keep the gender and minorities rep.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (11 Jan 2017)

Don't act daft, Remius. You know very well that is not what this graph shows.

What we have to look at is that, in 2014, the Harper government had a plan for dealing with public finances that would have seen surpluses small at first, then increasing, that would have wiped the national debt by 2038, based on current projections.

Then, the Trudeau government came along and introduced a new, high spending plan. That plan, when projected in the future would not reduce, but rather double the national debt in the projection horizon of 30-33 years.

The important figures to keep in mind in our shorter term horizon of one to three election cycles is that, by the end of their current mandate, the Liberals will have added 146 more billion dollars to the national debt than the Conservatives would have under their plan.

Second thing to realize is that, if a new government wanted to go back to the Conservative plan's level after next election, they would have to be able to generate an average of $55 billion $ surplus in each year to do it in a 5 year horizon or a 45 billion$ in each year to do it over a 10 years horizon.*

Another way to look at what the Liberal plan is doing is the following: Imagine that after the next election, the new government wants to make debt reduction an issue again. First, they would have to eliminate the operation deficit in the budget (i.e. "balance" the budget). Then debt reduction can slowly start. To imagine, mentally move the Conservative plan line down to the Liberal debt level for say 2023 (balanced budget 1) and, because we are staring from a greater debt and the greater, the harder to get out of it, flatten the Conservative curve somehow: then look how far to the right the "zero" debt intersection occurs in terms of years. It's probably somewhere around eight to ten years later.

There will be pain and suffering all over again and bigger than what it has been under Harper (because most of the pain had already been inflicted by the Harper government to get to this debt free status).

* The calculation is actually a matter of differential equations resolution as we are dealing with two curves and the difference in the surface between the two curves. However, an easy and quite valid evaluation is to do the following, which is what I did: (1) take a given period; (2) calculate the difference between the number generated by each plan at the beginning and then at the end of the period; (3) average the two numbers; and (4) divide the resulting average by the number of years in the period. This gives you the "average" surplus that must be generated to reduce the debt to get from one plan to the other (smaller debt) one.

In my case, I took the following  "differential" figures: in 2021, 150 billion more $; in 2026, 400 billion more $; and in 2031, 750 billion $ more.

So: 5 years horizon: $(150b + 400b)/2 = $275b, over 5 years (divide by 5): $55b.
10 years horizon: $(150b + 750b)/2 = $450b, over 10 years (divide by 10): $45b


----------



## Remius (11 Jan 2017)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Don't act daft, Remius. You know very well that is not what this graph shows.



Don't act so offended.  It was meant in jest.


----------



## Remius (11 Jan 2017)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Do tell.



Well aside from the gender parity issue, some pundits have guessed that this was a bit of a take the blame moment for Trudeau or at least as close as it will come to that.  Basically he made a campaign promise on electoral reform with no real plan and essentially told her to make it happen with no real road map on how to achieve it.  So sort of a his mistake/her fault sort of thing or whatever.  

So moving her to something else so as to not punish her.  he basically let her flail in the wind with no real direction.  

Does not mean she isn't to blame for what happened just that it's a convenient way to let her off the hook for something he is ultimately responsible for. 

I didn't see it that way at first but it sort of makes sense.


----------



## The Bread Guy (11 Jan 2017)

captloadie said:
			
		

> But unless we reverse current policy, we have already made our choice. We are currently pro-Ukraine/anti-Russia, put in simplified terms. That's why we have trainers in the Ukraine and will be a leading nation in Latvia.


Agreed -- she'll get to manage any friction from the U.S. & Russia, then, if this isn't the deal PEOTUS decides to go with.  How will she do with such friction?  How will her boss do?  Have to wait & see ...


----------



## Jarnhamar (12 Jan 2017)

You have to hand it to our jet setting prime minster;he just doesn't give a shit. 

He comes up with this whole ethics and conflict of interest thing then constantly **cks it off like no one's business. 

There's the whole lying about discussing political matters at  $1500  up to $4500 a seat parties and now this. 




> Trudeau took Aga Khan's private helicopter to island vacation.
> 
> PM says he doesn't see an issue but 'we look forward to discussing' it with ethics commissioner


 http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/politics/trudeau-aga-khan-helicopter-1.3932827

He's likes a pretty honey badger. 

I read else where he took 10 vacations in his first year of office,  that's pretty sweet.  Even if it's only half accurate and he only took 5 good for him and his family.  They deserve a break from their grueling schedule.


----------



## George Wallace (12 Jan 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> You have to hand it to our jet setting prime minster;he just doesn't give a shit.
> 
> He comes up with this whole ethics and conflict of interest thing then constantly **cks it off like no one's business.
> 
> ...



He did take 10 vacations....But....Talking about the Ethics Commissionaire......She is also in a Conflict of Interest.....She was investigating Trudeau, and he extended her tenure another six months........Hmmmmmm?  Are we near the seashore?


----------



## George Wallace (14 Jan 2017)

From the Fraser Institute:

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.



> Trudeau gets a lesson on energy poverty by Ontario resident
> — January 13, 2017
> 
> In a video now circulating around the Internet, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau gets an earful from a distressed Ontarian over the insane cost of electricity in the province.
> ...



More on LINK.


----------



## ballz (14 Jan 2017)

I hope Trudeau does more of these town hall things before the 2019 election...


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Jan 2017)

ballz said:
			
		

> I hope Trudeau does more of these town hall things before the 2019 election...



Guessing that some folks are organizing more vacations.....


----------



## Kirkhill (15 Jan 2017)

Now THIS is surprising - considering the source:

LeDrew is a lawyer, broadcaster and former party president whose job it was to tell Prime Minister Jean Chretien that it was his time to leave office 

He was as loyal a pitbull as the Liberals had.









> Everyone knows that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s reconnect tour is his effort to show Canadians that he is not just a privileged Canadian, but also is capable of understanding what the average citizen is thinking.
> 
> But more importantly, it is also designed to change the channel from a disastrous cash-for-access program that defies all rules and common sense (which the PM still will not abandon), and from an elite private island-in-the-sun fiasco, replete with private helicopters and a retinue of friends.
> 
> ...



http://www.torontosun.com/2017/01/14/wheres-the-common-sense-in-the-pmo

I can't find a single passage to highlight - because every word hits the mark.

If Trudeau can't carry LeDrew I sense trouble.


----------



## Good2Golf (15 Jan 2017)

> In a well morally properly-functioning PMO, someone should have had the good sense to tell Trudeau just so — before the trip. Every elected official needs someone to give him or her the unvarnished truth.



One could posit that PM JT's Office (the PMO) was never intent on doing anything other than facilitating the PM's (and Butts' and Telford's) will.


----------



## captloadie (16 Jan 2017)

It has become a sad reality that everything a high ranking politician does is now put under a microscope and criticized in every aspect. The PM visited a family friend, without incurring cost to the taxpayer, and he is taken to task for it. This age of needing to know every little detail of what is happening is why nothing ever gets done any more, because individuals always have to evaluate every step they make to ensure it passes some fictional sniff test. What if the trip was more than just a holiday? What if he was meeting to bring some sort of behind the scenes peace agreement to fruition? Or working on a beneficial trade agreement? Contrary to popular belief, I think there is still a place for behind closed doors talks.


----------



## Journeyman (16 Jan 2017)

captloadie said:
			
		

> What if he was meeting to bring some sort of behind the scenes peace agreement to fruition? Or working on a beneficial trade agreement?


Do you honestly believe either of those things were happening... or are you just tired of people picking on Justin Kardashian?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (16 Jan 2017)

captloadie said:
			
		

> It has become a sad reality that everything a high ranking politician does is now put under a microscope and criticized in every aspect. The PM visited a family friend, without incurring cost to the taxpayer, and he is taken to task for it. This age of needing to know every little detail of what is happening is why nothing ever gets done any more, because individuals always have to evaluate every step they make to ensure it passes some fictional sniff test. What if the trip was more than just a holiday? What if he was meeting to bring some sort of behind the scenes peace agreement to fruition? Or working on a beneficial trade agreement? Contrary to popular belief, I think there is still a place for behind closed doors talks.



Well, there is the small matter of the Law. You know- the conflict of interest legislation. Which categorical states that no minister shall accept a ride on a privately owned aircraft. Which, if the Liberals were unhappy with, it was well within their ability to rescind, in their first year in office.

But, since they were too busy doing other things, well, it sucks to be Justin Trudeau.


----------



## Remius (16 Jan 2017)

captloadie said:
			
		

> It has become a sad reality that everything a high ranking politician does is now put under a microscope and criticized in every aspect. The PM visited a family friend, without incurring cost to the taxpayer, and he is taken to task for it. This age of needing to know every little detail of what is happening is why nothing ever gets done any more, because individuals always have to evaluate every step they make to ensure it passes some fictional sniff test. What if the trip was more than just a holiday? What if he was meeting to bring some sort of behind the scenes peace agreement to fruition? Or working on a beneficial trade agreement? Contrary to popular belief, I think there is still a place for behind closed doors talks.



I actually agree with the first part of your statement.  However, the fact that the PMO kept this a secret and in all likelihood knew that the helicopter issue would be a problem and chose to ignore that they should have consulted with the Integrity commissioner is the problem.  Regardless of his intentions.  Now I am willing to  accept that maybe the Pm wasn't aware and the PMO decided to do whatever with the expectation of better to ask for forgiveness than ask for permission.  But...

Many people gave the last PM a really hard time in regards to the actions of his staff in the PMO and held him ultimately responsible.  I was one of them back then and I'm one of them now.  The rules were broken by HIS office and he has to accept some responsibility for it.  the optics are very bad and they know it.


----------



## captloadie (16 Jan 2017)

No, I don't think any of that was happening. But I also don't think he was working to better the position of the Aga Khan or his organization. I think he was lazing around on the beach and enjoying the sun and the sand. Ack the breach of the legislation, but the PM has few options to travel, (he should have used a private charter to make the trip or taken a Challenger and "ruined" the aircrews Christmas )

And to be clear, I don't think JT is the best thing since sliced bread. I also don't see the need to vilify him just because he is the head of the LPC.


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 Jan 2017)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> One could posit that PM JT's Office (the PMO) was never intent on doing anything other than facilitating the PM's (and Butts' and Telford's) will.


 :nod: - like all PMO's past & future.


			
				Remius said:
			
		

> Many people gave the last PM a really hard time in regards to the actions of his staff in the PMO and held him ultimately responsible.


That's a reasonable place for the buck to stop, no matter what colour the team jersey is.


----------



## jollyjacktar (16 Jan 2017)

You know, someone at the office pointed out that the British PM flies commercial on British Airways.  He pondered why the hell if it is good enough and safe enough for the British PM to fly commercial then why couldn't the Sun King or any of his successors do the same on Air Canada.  It would damn well give him a taste of what the rest of us endure and let him get closer to those he rules over.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (16 Jan 2017)

There is more than the helicopter ride at issue.

There is also the "small" matter of accepting hospitality of any kind from a registered lobbyist. Can anyone honestly tell me that your island getaway for free and free helicopter ride is below the acceptable gift level you can accept from a lobbyist? And can anyone tell me that no business/politics occurred? Really: You visit with an MP of your party who is not a close friend and with the president of your party! $1500 buys you an hour or so to bend the ear of the PM - how much time did the Aga Khan have to bend his ear over the course of a week? Oh! I forgot: Trudeau will listen, but not talk business himself, except to advance his agenda for the middle class. 

Personally, I have no   sympathy for  the Trudeau's personal friendship with the Aga Khan. Trudeau wilfully decided to become PM of Canada - no one forced the job on him. He has to accept the limitations that come with the job, and one of those limitations is that you have to park your friendships at the door while you are in the job if those friends are lobbyists or get money from the government. And you have to make sure you are completely removed from any decision involving these friends. Interestingly enough, member of he government are supposed to disclose these potentially problematic friendships, confidentially of course, to the office of the Ethics Commissioner and Justin admitted to NOT having done that, allegedly to 'protect" the private life of his friends.

Finally, considering Trudeau himself decided to recruit Chrystia Freedland because he admired her thesis in "Plutocrats, the Rise of the New Global Super Rich" describing the 0.1% and how they jet around the world, above everybody else in every sense, how stupid (sorry no other possible word here) is he to think that a trip like this would not squarely put him in the plutocrats camp in the public eye? I think it was only exceeded in stupidity by his belief that he could actually not tell anyone and it would not be discovered in today's 24 hours a day news world.   

/RANT OFF


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 Jan 2017)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> It would damn well give him a taste of what the rest of us endure and let him get closer to those he rules over.


Only if he flew steerage coach - and what are the odds of ANY PM flying in the back _*if*_ that were to happen?

Also, when discussing the need for special transportation for the PM, let's not forget all those arguments about 1)  PM's/officials'  needing to be in secure touch with folks even while enroute, and 2)  it's not _that_ much more expensive than keeping them on the ground or flying empty, as highlighted in great detail here.


----------



## Journeyman (16 Jan 2017)

captloadie said:
			
		

> I also don't see the need to vilify him just because he is the head of the LPC.


I, personally, am not vilifying him _just_  because he's the head of the LPC;  I truly want him to 'do good,' for the good of my country.  No, the negative comments that he draws upon himself are because he repeatedly shows that he is legislatively weak, ethically corrupt, and out of touch with the majority of Canadians who care about more than his hair.


In this one particular debacle -- the Aga Khan vacation (aka - annual vacation #10) -- I'll take a line from the blog of friend and supporter of this site, Ted Campbell: 





> That’s it in a nutshell: Team Trudeau knew that the prime minister was going to break his own conflict of interest rules but they didn’t care because he’s “entitled;” they decided to try the dishonest course of action: keeping it a secret.


----------



## Good2Golf (16 Jan 2017)

captloadie said:
			
		

> No, I don't think any of that was happening. But I also don't think he was working to better the position of the Aga Khan or his organization...



Quite simply, "it doesn't matter."  

The concept of "not only do right, but be seen to do right" is not new.  

The Law is not new.

The PM and his close advisors know the 'perception is reality' mantra and whether intentional or not, the actions both of the PM and his family during the visit, and those of he and/or his staff to keep information about activities that, whether ever in a court of law or not, are seen to the common citizen to contravene the Conflict of Interest Act (Ref: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-36.65/FullText.html.



> *Travel*
> 
> 12. No minister of the Crown, minister of state or parliamentary secretary, no member of his or her family and no ministerial adviser or ministerial staff shall accept travel on non-commercial chartered or private aircraft for any purpose unless required in his or her capacity as a public office holder or in exceptional circumstances or with the prior approval of the Commissioner.



In my mind, without asking the Commissioner, what would constitute an 'exceptional circumstance'?  If there had been a medical emergency at the Aga Khan's residence, the use of his private helicopter to take the PM or one of his family members to medical facilities beyond the Aga Khan's island would qualify.  Sight seeing around the island to get a bird's eye view of the Aga Khan's opulent abode would not, in my opinion.

Did the PM's RCMP protection detail have the opportunity to survey the Aga Khan's helicopter to ensure that it was safe and had not been tampered with prior to flying Canada's Head of Government?  It goes beyond giving a long-standing family friend an overhead view of an impressive residence.

:2c:

Regards
G2G


----------



## Remius (16 Jan 2017)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> You know, someone at the office pointed out that the British PM flies commercial on British Airways.  He pondered why the hell if it is good enough and safe enough for the British PM to fly commercial then why couldn't the Sun King or any of his successors do the same on Air Canada.  It would damn well give him a taste of what the rest of us endure and let him get closer to those he rules over.



I'm pretty sure that just happened once, several years ago.  nice gesture but it apparently caused a whole series of logistical and security issues. 

Imagine being on that flight.  Delays, extra screening etc.  No thanks.


----------



## Journeyman (16 Jan 2017)

Remius said:
			
		

> Imagine being on that flight.  Delays, extra screening etc.  No thanks.


....but maybe....._just maybe_.... Air Canada might schedule one or two of their less-miserable Flight Attendants (if they have any) for that flight.

/silver lining dreaming


----------



## jollyjacktar (16 Jan 2017)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Only if he flew steerage coach - and what are the odds of ANY PM flying in the back _*if*_ that were to happen?
> 
> Also, when discussing the need for special transportation for the PM, let's not forget all those arguments about 1)  PM's/officials'  needing to be in secure touch with folks even while enroute, and 2)  it's not _that_ much more expensive than keeping them on the ground or flying empty, as highlighted in great detail here.



Yes, I'm sure he wouldn't fly cattle class like the rest of us.  I was impressed with the CDS and his wife in 09 by their flying commercial with me from Quebec City to Ottawa and sitting farther back in cattle class too than I was seated.  BZ.  

Damn certain you wouldn't be able to get the hair that far back in any aircraft as it would no doubt become stuck between rows 3 and 4.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (16 Jan 2017)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Yes, I'm sure he wouldn't fly cattle class like the rest of us.  I was impressed with the CDS and his wife in 09 by their flying commercial with me from Quebec City to Ottawa and sitting farther back in cattle class too than I was seated.  BZ.
> 
> Damn certain you wouldn't be able to get the hair that far back in any aircraft as it would no doubt become stuck between rows 3 and 4.



In a previous job, I often found myself flying from Ottawa to Edmonton on the Thursday night flight.  Using my own upgrade points, I sometimes sat in Business Class......where every single time I had a wonderful chat with members of Parliament and Cabinet who took that flight every Thursday, in Business Class.

Any guess which party they were from?


----------



## jollyjacktar (16 Jan 2017)

The Entitlement Party, of which all the denizens of the Hill have connections to regardless of partisanship.  As far as I'm concerned.   You can bet my MP enjoys far more perks working here in Notawa than I ever shall.  Both the current and former incumbent who are from different teams.


----------



## Good2Golf (16 Jan 2017)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> In a previous job, I often found myself flying from Ottawa to Edmonton on the Thursday night flight.  Using my own upgrade points, I sometimes sat in Business Class......where every single time I had a wonderful chat with member*s* of Parliament and Cabinet who took that flight every Thursday, in Business Class.
> 
> Any guess which party they were from?



You used the plural case, so I'm going to go out on a limb and surmise it was not the Hon. Ann McLellan, thus it would make the business class goers most likely from Team Blue.  ???


----------



## PPCLI Guy (16 Jan 2017)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> You used the plural case, so I'm going to go out on a limb and surmise it was not the Hon. Ann McLellan, thus it would make the business class goers most likely from Team Blue.  ???



Yup.  Just saying.


----------



## George Wallace (16 Jan 2017)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Quite simply, "it doesn't matter."
> 
> The concept of "not only do right, but be seen to do right" is not new.
> 
> ...





Would that not include the use of the RCAF Challenger for holidays?  My interpretation of that is that it would.  Yet another abuse.


----------



## dapaterson (16 Jan 2017)

No.  GoC aircraft are neither private nor chartered.


----------



## Good2Golf (16 Jan 2017)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> No.  GoC aircraft are neither private nor chartered.



^ This.  State aircraft are State aircraft, and perhaps arguable to some, but they are the appropriate resource to use for the Head of Government.  As seen in the past, previous PMs have reimbursed the GoC for equivalent airfares had commercial travel been taken (but for which security of the Head of Government could not reasonably be assured).

Regards
G2G


----------



## George Wallace (16 Jan 2017)

My argument is not for using it as "required in his or her capacity as a public office holder" for business of the State, but using it for personal vacation.  [My interpretation of the clause.]


----------



## blacktriangle (16 Jan 2017)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> In a previous job, I often found myself flying from Ottawa to Edmonton on the Thursday night flight.  Using my own upgrade points, I sometimes sat in Business Class......where every single time I had a wonderful chat with members of Parliament and Cabinet who took that flight every Thursday, in Business Class.
> 
> Any guess which party they were from?



While I vote CPC, this doesn't surprise me at all. Politicians are politicians. The only thing the parties can ever agree on is that they all deserve a raise.


----------



## Kirkhill (16 Jan 2017)

With respect to all parties concerned:

There is a bit of difference between paying the upcharge to move to Business Class (not First Class) and commandeering a whole aircraft for personal use.

On the other hand - have none of you hitched a lift with a service aircraft going your way?


----------



## Retired AF Guy (16 Jan 2017)

Apparently, in 2011/2012 there was a fair bit of controversy over the Aga Khan's development of Bell Island which happened to be located in an ecological park. There were also allegations of improprieties by government minister's in letting the development go forward.



> Bahamas: Aga Khan's Plan for Bell Island Stirs Eco-Controversy
> 
> JANUARY 19TH, 2012
> 
> ...



Article link.

My emphasis. The only thing I could find about the Aga Khan's private helicopter is that [in 2011] it was a "12 seat luxury helicopter."

And, if anyone is interested, its approximately 124 km (as the crow flies), from Nassau International Airport to Bell Island. So about a hour or so flight time??


----------



## Jarnhamar (16 Jan 2017)

Rules and laws don't apply to Canadian royalty.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (16 Jan 2017)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> On the other hand - have none of you hitched a lift with a service aircraft going your way?



Are you honestly comparing Master corporal Bloggins hitching a ride as cargo on a Herc from Trenton to Ottawa that is going that way in any event to save a one way bus fare over the week-end with a minister of the state getting a ride for free specifically for him, that is worth thousands of dollars, where the minister may or may not be in a position to favour the provider with large amounts of public funds in return?


----------



## blacktriangle (16 Jan 2017)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> On the other hand - have none of you hitched a lift with a service aircraft going your way?



No. I'm paid a salary and use my own money to pay for non-duty travel. 

(and who would really trust the military with vacation plans? or care to see military people on vacation? - not me)


----------



## George Wallace (16 Jan 2017)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> On the other hand - have none of you hitched a lift with a service aircraft going your way?



On non-Duty travel, we used to have to pay a nominal fee ($10 in the 1980's) for insurance purposes.......or so I was told when I traveled non-Duty on a Service Flight.  On the other hand, while on Duty, well then....It was no cost.   :warstory:


----------



## Jarnhamar (16 Jan 2017)

“No minister of the Crown, minister of state or parliamentary secretary, no member of his or her family and no ministerial adviser or ministerial staff shall accept travel on non-commercial chartered or private aircraft for any purpose unless required in his or her capacity as a public office holder or in exceptional circumstances or with the prior approval of the Commissioner.”

Seems pretty clear cut to me.

My bet is the ethics commissioner will find that "he didn't know any better and was just doing what he thought was allowable".


----------



## cavalryman (16 Jan 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> My bet is the ethics commissioner will find that "he didn't know any better and was just doing what he thought was allowable".



It does sound better than the real reason:  "Rules are for the little people."


----------



## Loachman (16 Jan 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> On non-Duty travel, we used to have to pay a nominal fee ($10 in the 1980's) for insurance purposes.......or so I was told when I traveled non-Duty on a Service Flight.  On the other hand, while on Duty, well then....It was no cost.   :warstory:



It was $5.00 in each direction, to cover the cost of the boxed lunch. That charge was eliminated shortly before the end of the scheduled service flight system.


----------



## Jarnhamar (16 Jan 2017)

cavalryman said:
			
		

> It does sound better than the real reason:  "Rules are for the little people."



C'mon, the guy just wanted to thank Trudeau for the $55 million dollars Canada will be giving him over the next 5 years for children in Afghanistan.


----------



## Kirkhill (16 Jan 2017)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Are you honestly comparing Master corporal Bloggins hitching a ride as cargo on a Herc from Trenton to Ottawa that is going that way in any event to save a one way bus fare over the week-end with a minister of the state getting a ride for free specifically for him, that is worth thousands of dollars, where the minister may or may not be in a position to favour the provider with large amounts of public funds in return?



And the difference between hitching a lift in the back of a Herc utilizing crew training hours and in the back of a Challenger is....? 

I'm not suggesting that it isn't worthwhile giving Bloggins the perq occasionally nor am I suggesting that the Minister be given priority crew hours.  I'm just suggesting that life is grey.  Or purple.


----------



## jollyjacktar (16 Jan 2017)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> On the other hand - have none of you hitched a lift with a service aircraft going your way?



No, never.


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Jan 2017)

According to an article in the _*Globe and Mail*_, LGen(ret'd) Andrew Leslie is getting a promotion to be parliamentary secretary to the Foreign Affairs Minister and, despite not being a minister, even a very junior one, to be on the cabinet committee dealing with US affairs.


----------



## Good2Golf (17 Jan 2017)

I thought that Parliamentary Secretaries were included in the Ministerial group, and that while they were not members of Privy Council, per se, they had a number of restrictions placed on their conduct that one would otherwise also see placed on Privy Councillors.  No?

Regards
G2G


----------



## Lumber (17 Jan 2017)

Come on guys, we don't live in a communist country; whether you like it or not, we have de facto socio-economic classes. The PM is cut from a different clothe than the rest of us. He was born into money and continues to enjoy it. Let him. I have no fair tale illusions about everyone in this country making the same amount of money and getting the same opportunities as everyone else; life wasn't meant to be fair.

Being in public office is a tough job, especially with everyone criticizing every move and decision you make. There should be a few perks, like free flights, and nannies.  :2c:


----------



## Remius (17 Jan 2017)

I don't think that's the issue Lumber.  And yes you are right.  he's the PM.  The PM should have resources available to him/her to be able to do their job which is 24/7.  this should include things like residences, private aircraft and whatever support required.

I could care less what socio economic class he's from. 

But, he should drop the act and stop pretending that he can relate to the normal average person.  He can't and never will.  He didn't come from that and will likely never become that.  His sob story about how he can understand the plight of immigrants because his Scottish grandfather (Sinclair by the way) told him stories about how hard it was when he came here at 3 years of age shows how out of touch he is. 

Stop pretending to be something your not.  Just be yourself and do what you can for the country.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (17 Jan 2017)

Lumber,
 It is difficult to know if you are being sarcastic, or not.

I actually do not care if the PM uses the Challengers for family holidays. That is what that entire Sqn exists for.

I don't care that he has publically funded nannies.

What I do care about is the Law. Specifically, in this case, the one that states that no Minister of the Crown shall accept a ride in a privately owned aircraft, except in exceptional circumstances.

The Law may or may not be an ass, but the Liberals could have changed it in year one, if they wished. They did not. Consequence time, I would expect...


----------



## Lumber (17 Jan 2017)

Remius said:
			
		

> I don't think that's the issue Lumber.



Yea, my bad, I forgot this was still about the Aga-Khan helicopter ride thing.


----------



## Lumber (17 Jan 2017)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Lumber,
> It is difficult to know if you are being sarcastic, or not.
> 
> I actually do not care if the PM uses the Challengers for family holidays. That is what that entire Sqn exists for.
> ...



Not being sarcastic, but I do agree that there's too much conflict of interest for this to have been a smart decision for the PM to make.

However, I doubt there will be any consequences, and I think it's entirely possible that there is only the semblance of wrongdoing, without anything wrong having actually happened (meaning it could have been just a family trip, not a one-on-one lobby sesh with the ol' Aga).


----------



## Jarnhamar (17 Jan 2017)

[quote author=Lumber]  and I think it's entirely possible that there is only the semblance of wrongdoing, without anything wrong having actually happened (mean it was just a family trip, not one on one lobby sesh with the ol' Aga).
[/quote]

Minus the optics of liberals giving Aga's organization 55 million dollars over 5 years.


----------



## Lumber (17 Jan 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Minus the optics of liberals giving Aga's organization 55 million dollars over 5 years.



You mean they're donating money to a philanthropic organization with a phenomenal track record of providing developmental assistance around the world?!?!

Say it ain't so!

 :gloomy:


----------



## Remius (17 Jan 2017)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Not being sarcastic, but I do agree that there's too much conflict of interest for this to have been a smart decision for the PM to make.
> 
> However, I doubt there will be any consequences, and I think it's entirely possible that there is only the semblance of wrongdoing, without anything wrong having actually happened (mean it was just a family trip, not one on one lobby sesh with the ol' Aga).



Right.  The bad press is the only consequence that will come of this. 

they did break the rules though with the helicopter ride unfortunately and tried hiding it or avoiding dealing with it.  It's also whether they knew it was wrong but still went ahead and did it anyways. 

ultimately Canadians likely don't care too much.


----------



## Lumber (17 Jan 2017)

Remius said:
			
		

> Right.  The bad press is the only consequence that will come of this.
> 
> they did break the rules though with the helicopter ride unfortunately and tried hiding it or avoiding dealing with it.  *It's also whether they knew it was wrong but still went ahead and did it anyways.
> 
> *ultimately Canadians likely don't care too much.



My money is on legitimate naivetém due to lack of experience.


----------



## Remius (17 Jan 2017)

Lumber said:
			
		

> My money is on legitimate naivetém due to lack of experience.



Well in his case sure.  But not his staff nor his office. It's their job to know this stuff.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (17 Jan 2017)

Lumber said:
			
		

> You mean they're donating money to a philanthropic organization with a phenomenal track record of providing developmental assistance around the world?!?!
> 
> Say it ain't so!
> 
> :gloomy:



I think you are missing the point Lumber.

The Aga Khan is a registered lobbyist at the Federal level. The good work they do is irrelevant. What would you say if, next year, the PM and his family was provided with a free private holiday worth tens of thousands of dollars by Amnesty International? Or Mercy Ships Africa? Or UNICEF? or Doctors Without Borders? Would accepting any such trips be acceptable?

And right now, can any of these organizations that also do great work around the world and also lobby Canada for support funds honestly believe that the Aga Khan is NOT getting favoured treatment from the government of Canada on how it splits the set amount that Canada has elected to spend on such organizations - or that budget crunch comes to shove, they will NOT be the ones cut off from public funding first, before the Aga Khan?

As I have said earlier, nobody forced Trudeau to become PM - he made that decision all by himself - and it has consequences on how you deal even with your friends. Don't like it: Don't stand for office.


----------



## Lumber (17 Jan 2017)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I think you are missing the point Lumber.
> 
> The Aga Khan is a registered lobbyist at the Federal level. The good work they do is irrelevant. What would you say if, next year, the PM and his family was provided with a free private holiday worth tens of thousands of dollars by Amnesty International? Or Mercy Ships Africa? Or UNICEF? or Doctors Without Borders? Would accepting any such trips be acceptable?
> 
> ...



No no, I get the point, I'm just starting to wonder if our procurement system would be better off if we just gave our contracts to the vendor who supplied our civil servants with the most cookies.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (17 Jan 2017)

Are you kidding!!! We'd never get warships built by anyone else than Irving: You just can't beat those Nova Scotia grannies in a cookies bake-off.  [


----------



## dapaterson (17 Jan 2017)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Are you kidding!!! We'd never get warships built by anyone else than Irving: You just can't beat those Nova Scotia grannies in a cookies bake-off.  [



So the net change would be...


----------



## Lumber (17 Jan 2017)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> So the net change would be...



That we get ships sooner.


----------



## Lightguns (17 Jan 2017)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Are you kidding!!! We'd never get warships built by anyone else than Irving: You just can't beat those Nova Scotia grannies in a cookies bake-off.  [



Who else in Canada do you want to build ships in Canada?


----------



## gryphonv (17 Jan 2017)

I can think of several ship yards to do it cheaper/better/faster. But unfortunately none are in Canada.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (17 Jan 2017)

Seriously?

Just for starters, Seaspan, whether at their Vancouver or Victoria yards, then Davie. These two are already building ships for Canada and I would trust something coming out of their yards a lot more than any Irving product.

But for smaller ships or warships, you could turn to Chantier Naval Forillon, or Ocean Group, or Aecon Atlantic in Pictou, heck I even bet you that for something up to about 2500 tons, you would be surprised at a product coming out of Newdock in St-John's. Similarly, I bet that  Groupe Verreault could surprise us building full size warships, given a chance.


----------



## dapaterson (17 Jan 2017)

Lumber said:
			
		

> That we get ships sooner.



You've got a wicked sense of humour.


----------



## Lumber (17 Jan 2017)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> You've got a wicked sense of humour.



If instead of a lengthy SOR-Bid-Review-Tender process, PWGSC just awarded a contract to whomever gave them the best _personal_ incentives, then we'd have our military equipment sooo much faster! 

Apply this to everything political (since this is the Politics thread and I don't want to get too off topic):

Instead of spending years bickering about whether to spend more on health-care or more on infrastructure, just throw the money at whoever's lobbyist buys the best looking escorts.


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Jan 2017)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> According to an article in the _*Globe and Mail*_, LGen(ret'd) Andrew Leslie is getting a promotion to be parliamentary secretary to the Foreign Affairs Minister and, despite not being a minister, even a very junior one, to be on the cabinet committee dealing with US affairs.



A linking of trade and defence perhaps?


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Jan 2017)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Seriously?
> 
> Just for starters, Seaspan, whether at their Vancouver or Victoria yards, then Davie. These two are already building ships for Canada and I would trust something coming out of their yards a lot more than any Irving product.
> 
> But for smaller ships or warships, you could turn to Chantier Naval Forillon, or Ocean Group, or Aecon Atlantic in Pictou, heck I even bet you that for something up to about 2500 tons, you would be surprised at a product coming out of Newdock in St-John's. Similarly, I bet that  Groupe Verreault could surprise us building full size warships, given a chance.



OGBD 

I think the "small ship" limit for the National Shipbuilding Programme is/was 1000 tonnes or thereabouts?

How much goodness could you pack into a hull that size, and make it go fast, and have it built at one of those yards?


----------



## a_majoor (17 Jan 2017)

Lumber said:
			
		

> If instead of a lengthy SOR-Bid-Review-Tender process, PWGSC just awarded a contract to whomever gave them the best _personal_ incentives, then we'd have our military equipment sooo much faster!



Minister of Militia Sam Hughes operated this way and look how well Canadian troops were kitted out in 1914-15. The shovel with a hole in it was a special touch, I think......


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (17 Jan 2017)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> OGBD
> 
> I think the "small ship" limit for the National Shipbuilding Programme is/was 1000 tonnes or thereabouts?
> 
> How much goodness could you pack into a hull that size, and make it go fast, and have it built at one of those yards?



Well, first of all, Chris, I am not referring to the National Shipbuilding Strategy or any of the artificial limits they came up with. I am talking shipbuilding in general in response to someone suggesting that only Irving can build warships.

Here is a picture of the current dry dock facility of Groupe Verreault at Les Méchouins. Yes, it's a full size Coast Guard icebreaker of the Radisson class behind a 500 feet tanker. And there are talks of expanding the dry dock. Overall, the facility is as big as the old St-John Shipbuilding facility where the frigates were built. All I am saying is we would be surprised at who could build warships in Canada, especially if they were favoured with the same type of largesses as Irving and Seaspan to "fix" their yards first.

Finally, as for small warships, well - the MCDV's won't last forever and the AOPS do not replace them for many roles they currently fulfill, so I will assume that a program will come up in a medium term horizon.


----------



## gryphonv (17 Jan 2017)

Another thing to consider. (might be a bit off topic)

There are rumblings that Trump may pull the US out of NATO, or at the least try to change it. This would be disastrous to our military. Would we follow the US like a lost lamb? Or stick it out and try to balance the two (which would be a lot more expensive than we spend now). 

Trump had a couple valid points about countries not pulling their weight. Canada included. I don't see us distancing ourselves from collaboration with the US. It could be very beneficial to our Military overall, or it could be disastrous. 

Trump really is a wild card (both good and bad). I don't think the US will pull out of NATO, but it isn't a guarantee they won't.


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Jan 2017)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Well, first of all, Chris, I am not referring to the National Shipbuilding Strategy or any of the artificial limits they came up with. I am talking shipbuilding in general in response to someone suggesting that only Irving can build warships.
> 
> Here is a picture of the current dry dock facility of Groupe Verreault at Les Méchouins. Yes, it's a full size Coast Guard icebreaker of the Radisson class behind a 500 feet tanker. And there are talks of expanding the dry dock. Overall, the facility is as big as the old St-John Shipbuilding facility where the frigates were built. All I am saying is we would be surprised at who could build warships in Canada, especially if they were favoured with the same type of largesses as Irving and Seaspan to "fix" their yards first.
> 
> Finally, as for small warships, well - the MCDV's won't last forever and the AOPS do not replace them for many roles they currently fulfill, so I will assume that a program will come up in a medium term horizon.



Seen OGBD - There are a number of yards that could put hulls in the water, and regardless of size I am sure that those hulls could be appropriately outfitted so that they could usefully contribute to a fleet and a maritime strategy.

The problem that I guess we struggle with is that most of those yards have been around for a while.  We didn't lack for competition when we weren't building ships.  We lacked for ships for them to compete over.

Back to that old hobby horse of mine - we tend to reach for that which we cannot have rather than figuring out how to make the most out of what we can.  And you know I'm not talking about the folks stuck with making the kit they have work.  It's more about all the lost opportunities, in my opinion, to have done something rather than nothing.


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Jan 2017)

gryphonv said:
			
		

> Another thing to consider. (might be a bit off topic)
> 
> There are rumblings that Trump may pull the US out of NATO, or at the least try to change it. This would be disastrous to our military. Would we follow the US like a lost lamb? Or stick it out and try to balance the two (which would be a lot more expensive than we spend now).
> 
> ...



And there you have Trump, clearly defined.  He doesn't want you to know which way he will jump.  Not until he has got the deal he is looking for.


----------



## Remius (17 Jan 2017)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> And there you have Trump, clearly defined.  He doesn't want you to know which way he will jump.  Not until he has got the deal he is looking for.



I heard him described as a monkey with a machinegun and that made me chuckle out loud...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (17 Jan 2017)

I find the liebrals and the Canadian MSM very hypocritical over the whole helicopter thing. They all say it's no big deal that the PM rode in a private helicopter to a billionaires isolated retreat. A lobbyist and director of a fund supported by Canadian taxpayers. Nothing untoward there.

These are the same bunch that absolutely pilloried and harangued Peter Mackay, when he was Minister of National Defence, for riding in a National Defence helicopter. :


----------



## dapaterson (17 Jan 2017)

If it's any consolation, I disapprove of both...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (17 Jan 2017)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> If it's any consolation, I disapprove of both...



I also disapprove of both also. Both the liebrals and the Canadian MSM :rofl:


----------



## Lightguns (17 Jan 2017)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I find the liebrals and the Canadian MSM very hypocritical over the whole helicopter thing. They all say it's no big deal that the PM rode in a private helicopter to a billionaires isolated retreat. A lobbyist and director of a fund supported by Canadian taxpayers. Nothing untoward there.
> 
> These are the same bunch that absolutely pilloried and harangued Peter Mackay, when he was Minister of National Defence, for riding in a National Defence helicopter. :



Throw their core voters in that pile.  The liberals I know just don't care if he commits crimes.  During the Conservative reign, as a member of that party, I remember regularly pillorying my Con MP about their behavior.


----------



## FSTO (17 Jan 2017)

When Trudeau was at his first town hall and someone asked about the sale of military equipment to Saudi Arabia and he replied that "We honour our contracts." 
My first thought was "Really?" "Tell that to the EH-101 consortium, you lying ***** ** ****!"


----------



## Loachman (17 Jan 2017)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I find the liebrals and the Canadian MSM very hypocritical over the whole helicopter thing. They all say it's no big deal that the PM rode in a private helicopter to a billionaires isolated retreat. A lobbyist and director of a fund supported by Canadian taxpayers. Nothing untoward there.
> 
> These are the same bunch that absolutely pilloried and harangued Peter Mackay, when he was Minister of National Defence, for riding in a National Defence helicopter. :



The previous Conservative government, and likely other governments that preceded it, also donated large sums of money to the Aga Khan. I doubt that there is any story there.

I doubt that anybody would object to the helicopter ride in question, as there was, apparently, no reasonable alternative.

The nature of the passengers accompanying the Trudeaus looks a little fishy, though, but may still be explainable.

What really gets the press, and others, going, however, is secrecy and cover-up.  People do not attempt to cover things up, of course, unless there is reason to do so.

Had this been done openly, nobody would have paid the slightest amount of attention. Few would even see the hypocrisy or double standard. Sunny days trump everything else. Here, how about a selfie?


----------



## George Wallace (17 Jan 2017)

Loachman said:
			
		

> ...... Sunny days trump everything else. Here, how about a selfie?


----------



## gryphonv (17 Jan 2017)

That picture is pure gold.


----------



## The Bread Guy (17 Jan 2017)

Loachman said:
			
		

> The previous Conservative government, and likely other governments that preceded it, also donated large sums of money to the Aga Khan. I doubt that there is any story there.
> 
> I doubt that anybody would object to the helicopter ride in question, as there was, apparently, no reasonable alternative.
> 
> ...


There you go being reasonable in a political thread ...  ;D


----------



## Jarnhamar (17 Jan 2017)

Lumber said:
			
		

> You mean they're donating money to a philanthropic organization with a phenomenal track record of providing developmental assistance around the world?!?!
> 
> Say it ain't so!
> 
> :gloomy:



 Say can you think of a province a little closer to home where some of that 55 million could help out in their current crisis? 
I'll give you a hint,  this province gave a lot of money in the past to other provinces for equalization payments and their suicide rate is  presently on the way up.


----------



## Jarnhamar (17 Jan 2017)

[quote author=Loachman]
The previous Conservative government, and likely other governments that preceded it, also donated large sums of money to the Aga Khan. I doubt that there is any story there.

[/quote]

Fair enough.  Honest question,  did any other government, leaders spend the holidays at this private Island? 

I still think this on the heels of the $5000 a seat liberal fund raisers where the pm initially lied about whether or not they talked business is very telling of the government and their rules don't apply mindset.


----------



## Loachman (17 Jan 2017)

As the Aga Khan is an old family friend, I do not see visiting him at his home, not matter its value, as anything unusual or wrong.

Other politicians have likely stayed at other family friends' cottages etcetera in the past, with nothing being said and nobody caring.

And it is not easy to say this, about the "leader" of a party that I despise, and who, himself, grossly underwhelms me at best.

But fair is fair.


----------



## gryphonv (17 Jan 2017)

I keep remembering how big the firestorm over Peter Mackays kerfuffle with our Helicopters. A defense minister using tools available to him. 

The liberals were on board to cry foul about that.

This to me is worse. If the Khan's didn't receive any funds from the government it would be a non issue.

But with all that said, the smug attitude that our PM takes regarding this is making it worse. He should of known it would of been an issue. At the very least he should of ran it by the ethics commissioner first, or came clean about it right away.

Some will say that what our PM does on his own time is his own business and such. I'm sorry but no, when you are a politician, you are to be held to a higher standard. Kind of like how when we are out of uniform and get in trouble with the law, we can still be charged by our own Chain. 

There may be a very good reason why the helicopter was used, and it probably and most likely made the most sense. But its the smugness, hiding, and non disclosure of the fact, even when presented with direct questions is the issue. For someone who campaigned on Openness and Transparency.


----------



## George Wallace (17 Jan 2017)

Loachman said:
			
		

> As the Aga Khan is an old family friend, I do not see visiting him at his home, not matter its value, as anything unusual or wrong.
> 
> Other politicians have likely stayed at other family friends' cottages etcetera in the past, with nothing being said and nobody caring.
> 
> ...



Would be so very true, if not for the fact that everything that he is doing, is exactly what he condemned the previous Government of doing.......and is still blaming them and other Provincial Governments......But what the hey....He can play by his own rules.


----------



## Loachman (17 Jan 2017)

gryphonv said:
			
		

> I keep remembering how big the firestorm over Peter Mackays kerfuffle with our Helicopters. A defense minister using tools available to him.



There is a difference.

A SAR helicopter is not a minister's personal means of transport.

Now - was a great sin committed on that occasion? I think not. A crew could easily fit something like that into a training trip, do a favour for the boss, and demonstrate a capability for no real cost to the public - a training trip would have been flown anyway. It just did not look good when the press found out.

In Trudeau's case, he was visiting a family friend, there was no other means of getting from airport to island, so his friend had him picked up by his usual means of getting around. This was logical and practical under the circumstances, and it cost Canadian taxpayers nothing.

The whole holiday was shrouded in secrecy, however, and that is what really looks bad in this case. It looks like a cover-up, and cover-ups happen for reasons.



			
				gryphonv said:
			
		

> This to me is worse. If the Khan's didn't receive any funds from the government it would be a non issue.



If the size of the donation increases considerably, then an argument can be made for wrongdoing.



			
				gryphonv said:
			
		

> But with all that said, the smug attitude that our PM takes regarding this is making it worse. He should of known it would of been an issue. At the very least he should of ran it by the ethics commissioner first, or came clean about it right away.



Yup. Stupid, and/or arrogant.



			
				gryphonv said:
			
		

> Some will say that what our PM does on his own time is his own business and such. I'm sorry but no, when you are a politician, you are to be held to a higher standard. Kind of like how when we are out of uniform and get in trouble with the law, we can still be charged by our own Chain.



Rich people tend to have rich friends. I have no problem with that. They socialize together. You or I might pick a buddy up from an airport. Where's the harm? His buddy picked him up.



			
				gryphonv said:
			
		

> Kind of like how when we are out of uniform and get in trouble with the law, we can still be charged by our own Chain.



No crime was committed.



			
				gryphonv said:
			
		

> There may be a very good reason why the helicopter was used, and it probably and most likely made the most sense.



Yes. There was no better way to get there.

I suppose that a boat could have been used, although it would have been much slower, but, really, what's the difference whether a boat or a helicopter was used?



			
				gryphonv said:
			
		

> But its the smugness, hiding, and non disclosure of the fact, even when presented with direct questions is the issue. For someone who campaigned on Openness and Transparency.



Yup. Typical Liberal behaviour. That, I neither can, nor will, defend.


----------



## YZT580 (18 Jan 2017)

There are charter aircraft available in Nassau both fixed wing float and helicopter.  His office could have stated in advance the flight arrangements for approval; probably would have been granted.  It is interesting that all reports to the commissioner came out after the trip was revealed by the press.  I googled Trudeau and his guests and cannot find another occasion when these individuals socialized together for a weekend let alone a whole week.


----------



## jollyjacktar (18 Jan 2017)

Today's Halifax Chronicle Herald cartoon fits right in.  Burce MacKinnon cartoon 18 Jan 17


----------



## Journeyman (18 Jan 2017)

Loachman said:
			
		

> No crime was committed.


You keep saying that, despite the Conflict of Interest Act being cited in the thread _several_  times. 
(Ref: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-36.65/FullText.html).

There is no clause saying, "unless they're just buddies hangin' out."  It's a law; not a suggestion.  It was ignored.


----------



## Remius (18 Jan 2017)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> You keep saying that, despite the Conflict of Interest Act being cited in the thread _several_  times.
> (Ref: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-36.65/FullText.html).
> 
> There is no clause saying, "unless they're just buddies hangin' out."  It's a law; not a suggestion.  It was ignored.



Still does not mean it was a "crime".  Breaking a law does not always equate to a crime in the legal sense.   Was the act violated, likely, was it criminal?


----------



## YZT580 (18 Jan 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

>


Mirror mirror on the wall whose the (fill in the blank) of them all.  This picture is worth far more than 1000 words in defining our present PM


----------



## Jarnhamar (18 Jan 2017)

Remius said:
			
		

> Still does not mean it was a "crime".  Breaking a law does not always equate to a crime in the legal sense.   Was the act violated, likely, was it criminal?


lol
Ya, if anything Trudeau is the victim here  


I'm excited to see which Canadian law he blatantly violates next. I'll be disappointed if it's not under a cloud of secrecy.


----------



## The Bread Guy (18 Jan 2017)

Remius said:
			
		

> Still does not mean it was a "crime".  Breaking a law does not always equate to a crime in the legal sense.


And in what sense is that?

I'm one to give Prince Valiant the benefit of the doubt (up until now, anyway), but if that's what the law says ...


----------



## Good2Golf (18 Jan 2017)

Perhaps while a Proof is a Proof, a Law is not necessarily a Law?


----------



## Remius (18 Jan 2017)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> And in what sense is that?
> 
> I'm one to give Prince Valiant the benefit of the doubt (up until now, anyway), but if that's what the law says ...



Violating certain Acts, be they federal, provincial or municipal does not always equate to it being criminal.  If I blow through a stop sign or get caught speeding I can be charged under a traffic act, it does not mean I get a criminal record necessarily.  If you get charged under the NDA you don't always get a criminal record even though you violated the act.  Same goes for things like the privacy act and the access to info act.  Laws can be broken under those but it won't always equate to criminal prosecutions.  Fines, public shaming etc are all possibilities sure.  But if any of you think he's a criminal or will be prosecuted as crime for this think again. 

So when Loachman says "no Crime was committed" he's likely right.  He didn't say "no law was broken".


----------



## gryphonv (18 Jan 2017)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> And in what sense is that?
> 
> I'm one to give Prince Valiant the benefit of the doubt (up until now, anyway), but if that's what the law says ...



Unfortunately this situation is similar to breaking the speed limit while driving. It's not a criminal offense. The max punishment the ethics commissioner can give is a fine of $500. Which is purely symbolic, though the damage to the part will be real.


----------



## Remius (18 Jan 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> lol
> Ya, if anything Trudeau is the victim here
> 
> 
> I'm excited to see which Canadian law he blatantly violates next. I'll be disappointed if it's not under a cloud of secrecy.



Not at all. But it likely is not a criminal offence.


----------



## Rifleman62 (18 Jan 2017)

Apparently speaking any one of the two official languages only depends which province you are in. ;D

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/trudeau-town-hall-sherbrooke-quebec-public-questions-1.3940058

*Justin Trudeau speaks only French at Sherbrooke town hall, despite English questions*

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau answered questions ranging from local concerns about public transit to tabling new federal pot legislation at Tuesday night's town hall in Sherbrooke, Que., and he answered them all in French — because, he said, "we're in Quebec."

A woman asked in English what would be done to help Anglo-Quebecers seeking mental health services when those services are only available in French.

"Thank you for your use of both official languages," Trudeau replied in French. 

"But we're in a French province so I will answer in French," he answered, as the woman grew visibly annoyed. 

"All people who speak one of the two official languages should feel comfortable across the country," he said, in French, while highlighting the federal government's investment in health.

Trudeau spoke exclusively in French, despite a half dozen English questions.


----------



## Altair (18 Jan 2017)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Apparently speaking any one of the two official languages only depends which province you are in. ;D
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/trudeau-town-hall-sherbrooke-quebec-public-questions-1.3940058
> 
> ...


Pandering to French Canadians who helped him break through past the NDP.

English Quebecers only have one place to park their federal vote right now.

That said, isn't this a topic for another thread?


----------



## The Bread Guy (18 Jan 2017)

Altair said:
			
		

> That said, isn't this a topic for another thread?



Yup -- and moved.

*Milnet.ca Staff*


----------



## Good2Golf (18 Jan 2017)

Remius said:
			
		

> Violating certain Acts, be they federal, provincial or municipal does not always equate to it being criminal.  If I blow through a stop sign or get caught speeding I can be charged under a traffic act, it does not mean I get a criminal record necessarily.  If you get charged under the NDA you don't always get a criminal record even though you violated the act.  Same goes for things like the privacy act and the access to info act.  Laws can be broken under those but it won't always equate to criminal prosecutions.  Fines, public shaming etc are all possibilities sure.  But if any of you think he's a criminal or will be prosecuted as crime for this think again.
> 
> So when Loachman says "no Crime was committed" he's likely right.  He didn't say "no law was broken".



...or Loachman may not be right.  

A _crime_ can be committed without it being an indictable offence under the Criminal Code of Canada.

To refer to the Government's position on "crimes." (Ref: http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/just/08.html)



> *What are criminal cases? *
> 
> A crime is considered to be an offence against society as a whole, so it is usually the state that starts a criminal prosecution.
> 
> ...



Probably others more qualified to say if the PM's contravention of section 12 of the Conflict of Interest Act was a summary conviction offence, but even with a lower-case c vice upper-case C, it looks to fit within the GoC's definition of a criminal offence, which I take to call a crime.

:2c:

Regards
G2G


----------



## jollyjacktar (18 Jan 2017)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Apparently speaking any one of the two official languages only depends which province you are in. ;D
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/trudeau-town-hall-sherbrooke-quebec-public-questions-1.3940058
> 
> ...



Exactly what Gen. Leslie did when he came out to Wainwright for Roto 7's (Valcartier) Maple Guardian town hall in the field.  One of us Anglo's asked a question in English.  The response was that this was a Franco Roto and all questions and answers would be in French.  At that point, I tuned out as I only understand English and have tuned him out to this day.  AFAIK, he's dead to me.


----------



## Remius (18 Jan 2017)

G2G, 

If you look at the rest of your reference.

Summary offences

The accused appears before a provincial court judge for a trial that will normally proceed immediately. The maximum penalty for this type of offence is normally a $5,000 fine, six months in prison, or both.

Indictable offences

An accused has three choices:
•Have a judge alone hear the case in provincial court. 
•Have a judge and jury hear the case in a superior court. 
•Have a judge alone hear the case in superior court.

There may be a preliminary hearing before a trial, during which a judge examines the case to decide if there is enough evidence to proceed with the trial. If the judge decides there is not enough evidence, the case will be dismissed.

Otherwise, the judge will order a full trial. 

What he did is neither Indictable nor is it Summary.  Therefore not a criminal offense.  

Criminal Offenses are layed out in other Federal Laws as you said.   Does not mean in every federal law.  The Youth Criminal justice act and the Controlled Substance act are examples. 

I understand that he isn't liked.  But let's not paint this in a way that is neither true nor real.  He broke a law under an act.  He didn't commit a criminal offense. 

And in the end only the media is spinning this.  People don't seem to care too much. I don't like it and see a pattern emerging but I certainly won't agree with the lock him up in jail line for this.  Awesome distraction though and people are falling for it.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (18 Jan 2017)

So let's deal with the two matters here.

First of all, on the Sherbrooke Town Hall thing:  Trudeau senior must be turning in his grave. The very basic underlying concept of the Official Languages Act brought in by Trudeau the father was that "Canadians anywhere in Canada ought to be able to be served by their Federal public servants in their own language, French or English".

Trudeau junior, as PM, is a Federal servant to Canadians and should address Canadians in the language of their choice, not of his choice. To do that in answer to a question that directly addressed the availability, or lack thereof, of service in English is like shooting yourself in the foot on top of that breach. Finally to call Quebec a "French" province (at least in didn't specify "in 2017") from a Federal perspective is an insult to the nearly one million English speakers who live here. I don't think he would have gotten away with this had the Town Hall taken place in Montreal.

Second, the distinction between "criminal", "penal" and "civil" laws.

You are not committing a crime every time you break a law. You are only committing a crime if you break the law appearing in the Criminal code, or in Federal laws that specifically create criminal offences, such as the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, or the Firearm Act, or some provisions of the Customs Act, for instance. This type of law is called "criminal" law and is part of the Federal jurisdiction only under our constitution.

But not all breaches of public law are criminal even though they can attract the imposition of a penalty, and in fact, most breaches of federal laws outside the criminal code and all breaches of provincial laws (since they do not have the power of creating criminal acts) fall under this category. This is called "penal" law. There is a penalty for the breach, but it is not a crime. You can be sure that any penalty for breath of the law that can be meted by an official instead of a court of law definitely falls in this category. This is the category of the Ethics Act, as the Ethics Commissioner is the one with the power to issue the fine for a breach.

Finally, you have the category of the "civil" law. This type of law, though enacted by the various governments, but generally by the Provincial governments under our constitution (and only indirectly by the federal one in matters otherwise of its jurisdiction), governs the relations between individuals. Breaching such law does not give rise to condemnation as a crime nor to the imposition of a penalty under penal law, but rather to orders of execution in kind of one's obligation or payment of compensation for loss to the aggrieved party.


----------



## Good2Golf (18 Jan 2017)

OGBD, thank you for the detail regarding the aspects of criminality in general and penal and civil sub-sets. 

Regards
G2G

p.s.  I agree that the PM's French response to an Anglophone Quebecer's English question was rather ignorant.  He could have at least 'bilanged', but took the low road... :not-again:


----------



## Remius (18 Jan 2017)

Altair said:
			
		

> Pandering to French Canadians who helped him break through past the NDP.
> 
> English Quebecers only have one place to park their federal vote right now.



Don't forget what was going on at the same time.  The CPC leadership debate in French.  No doubt this was calculated to contrast with that and to detract from it.  

He would have shown way more class if he'd answered in English but I guess it was risk management on his part.


----------



## dapaterson (18 Jan 2017)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> First of all, on the Sherbrooke Town Hall thing:  Trudeau senior must be turning in his grave. The very basic underlying concept of the Official Languages Act brought in by Trudeau the father was that "Canadians anywhere in Canada ought to be able to be served by their Federal public servants in their own language, French or English".
> 
> Trudeau junior, as PM, is a Federal servant to Canadians and should address Canadians in the language of their choice, not of his choice. To do that in answer to a question that directly addressed the availability, or lack thereof, of service in English is like shooting yourself in the foot on top of that breach. Finally to call Quebec a "French" province (at least in didn't specify "in 2017") from a Federal perspective is an insult to the nearly one million English speakers who live here. I don't think he would have gotten away with this had the Town Hall taken place in Montreal.



As an Anglo Montrealer now resident in the national capital, who lived through school closures due to the erosion of language of education rights under Bill 101 and the exodus of families, the Right Honorable the Prime Minister's deliberate decision to treat a Quebec Anglo with such disdain leaves a long-lasting sour taste in my mouth.

And I concur: Trudeau (senior) would be appalled and disgusted by his snot nosed kid's behaviour.


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Jan 2017)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> As an Anglo Montrealer now resident in the national capital, who lived through school closures due to the erosion of language of education rights under Bill 101 and the exodus of families, the Right Honorable the Prime Minister's deliberate decision to treat a Quebec Anglo with such disdain leaves a long-lasting sour taste in my mouth.
> 
> And I concur: *Trudeau (senior) would be appalled and disgusted by his snot nosed kid's behaviour.*



Yes, but would the Young Trudeau (senior) be appalled and disgusted?   >


----------



## Lightguns (18 Jan 2017)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> As an Anglo Montrealer now resident in the national capital, who lived through school closures due to the erosion of language of education rights under Bill 101 and the exodus of families, the Right Honorable the Prime Minister's deliberate decision to treat a Quebec Anglo with such disdain leaves a long-lasting sour taste in my mouth.
> 
> And I concur: Trudeau (senior) would be appalled and disgusted by his snot nosed kid's behaviour.



There is nothing more hauntingly nationalist than a Franco Ontarian trying to emulate his Quebecois pur lain roots.


----------



## George Wallace (18 Jan 2017)

YZT580 said:
			
		

> Mirror mirror on the wall whose the (fill in the blank) of them all.  This picture is worth far more than 1000 words in defining our present PM



I have posted elsewhere:

"iPhone, iPhone, in my hand; who is the fairest in the land?"  ( It is 2017 after all.)


On a side note, I was working with a fellow today who claims to have lived near the GG's Residence and 24 Sussex when he was a kid and used to play with the three young Trudeau boys.  He claims that young Justin was prone to having temper tantrums and going off in a huff is he did not have his way.  Seems that his character has not changed as witness in the House of Commons earlier this year, and on other occasions where he has flaunted his 'position' to not follow "the rules".


----------



## Jarnhamar (18 Jan 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

>



What a great example of his leadership.  He has a chance to engage every day Canadians and what does he doing?  Another selfie.  The people around him look really impressed.


----------



## The Bread Guy (19 Jan 2017)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> As an Anglo Montrealer now resident in the national capital, who lived through school closures due to the erosion of language of education rights under Bill 101 and the exodus of families, the Right Honorable the Prime Minister's deliberate decision to treat a Quebec Anglo with such disdain leaves a long-lasting sour taste in my mouth.


Not just yours, apparently ...


> *Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is on the receiving end of three formal complaints filed with the federal commissioner of official languages after speaking only French despite English questions at a town hall meeting Tuesday night in Sherbrooke, Que.
> 
> Nelson Kalil from the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages of Canada confirmed that three complaints had been received as of Wednesday evening. *
> 
> ...


Well done making official bilingualism more palatable to everyone - not ...  :facepalm:



			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> Trudeau (senior) would be appalled and disgusted by his snot nosed kid's behaviour.


 :nod:


----------



## Lightguns (19 Jan 2017)

He has now accumulated formal Federal 3 OF complaints.  Another week of the this getting touch with Canadians and there will be Liberals hanging from lamp posts at this rate.


----------



## Journeyman (19 Jan 2017)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Trudeau said earlier in the day that in retrospect, maybe he should have answered in English when asked questions in that language at the Sherbrooke meeting.
> 
> "I will always defend official bilingualism. I believe deeply in it, but I understand the importance of speaking French and defending the French language in Quebec," he said.
> 
> "That is something I will continue to do while respecting minority language rights across the country."


Maybe he should have someone explain "retrospect" to him.  

Even after considering his actions, he comes out and states that defending minority English in Quebec is unimportant, but defending minority French elsewhere matters.    :facepalm:

He's still not ready.


----------



## jollyjacktar (19 Jan 2017)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> He has now accumulated formal Federal 3 OF complaints.  Another week of the this getting touch with Canadians and there will be Liberals hanging from lamp posts at this rate.



He might be the best candidate the Conservatives could ever wish for.   :nod:


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (19 Jan 2017)

What I find funny is that he was "surprised" to have so many questions in English ... in Sherbrooke, in the Eastern Townships.

There ain't a soul living South of the St-Lawrence in the Township or Monteregie regions (South shore Montreal to the Appalachian chain) who doesn't know that the Townships were first settled and developed by Loyalists and other English settlers (hence their organization as Townships instead of the seigneurie system elsewhere in Quebec), that the English community in that area of the province remains strong and vibrant to this day to the point where they have their own Townshipers' Association.

He obviously never traveled through Quebec in his youth, unless leaving the upscale neighbourhood of Outermont, on the island of Montreal to go downtown counts.  ;D


----------



## George Wallace (19 Jan 2017)

A comment I heard this morning was that even Rene Levesque would have answered her in English.  

Way to be out of touch with the problems of the Middle Class English Quebecers Justin.






One more child who is not impressed with the PM..... [


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (19 Jan 2017)

Well, this could become interesting.

The Montreal Gazette reports that three complaints have been filed with the Language Commissioner's office over Trudeau's lack of "providing services" in English at the Sherbrooke Town Hall.

In and of itself, that mans nothing, but the spokesperson for the Commissioner's office indicated that, to deal wit their investigation, they must first determine if the Town Hall was a "government function" or a "political function".

Here's the thing. If the Commissioner finds that it is a political function and the Liberals don't contest it, it will close the investigation of the complaints, but it will also open a huge can of worms.

The Town Hall in Sherbrooke, for instance, was held at the Militia's Armoury. I bet you anything all the chairs were set up by class A personnel. If this was a government function - no problem. But if it is a political, then the Liberal party of Canada should be fully billed for the use of the Armoury and the provision of personnel or other devices.

And that's just one stop. You can now claim that all of the PM and his team's transportation cost ought to be invoiced to the Liberal party. In fact, as a political, all costs associated with this Town Hall Tour (except the PM's security detail) ought to be paid for by the Liberal party - and none of it be publicly funded.

I can sense a lot of questions coming up in Parliament ... and potential complaints with the Chief Electoral Officer if the Libs don't come clean on repayment.


----------



## daftandbarmy (19 Jan 2017)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> What I find funny is that he was "surprised" to have so many questions in English ... in Sherbrooke, in the Eastern Townships.
> 
> There ain't a soul living South of the St-Lawrence in the Township or Monteregie regions (South shore Montreal to the Appalachian chain) who doesn't know that the Townships were first settled and developed by Loyalists and other English settlers (hence their organization as Townships instead of the seigneurie system elsewhere in Quebec), that the English community in that area of the province remains strong and vibrant to this day to the point where they have their own Townshipers' Association.
> 
> He obviously never traveled through Quebec in his youth, unless leaving the upscale neighbourhood of Outermont, on the island of Montreal to go downtown counts.  ;D



Here's the reason he hasn't got a clue:

Why the Intellectual Elite Can’t Learn Its Lesson

Even after failing to predict Brexit and Trump, elites haven’t reckoned with their own limitations.

http://knowledge.insead.edu/blog/insead-blog/why-the-intellectual-elite-cant-learn-its-lesson-5040


----------



## Kirkhill (19 Jan 2017)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> What I find funny is that he was "surprised" to have so many questions in English ... in Sherbrooke, in the Eastern Townships.
> 
> There ain't a soul living South of the St-Lawrence in the Township or Monteregie regions (South shore Montreal to the Appalachian chain) who doesn't know that the Townships were first settled and developed by Loyalists and other English settlers (hence their organization as Townships instead of the seigneurie system elsewhere in Quebec), that the English community in that area of the province remains strong and vibrant to this day to the point where they have their own Townshipers' Association.
> 
> He obviously never traveled through Quebec in his youth, unless leaving the upscale neighbourhood of Outermont, on the island of Montreal to go downtown counts.  ;D



That bit caught my eye as well. More of a North Shore chap?  Or straight from the island to Dorval (sorry, daddy's airport) and parts beyond?


----------



## Jarnhamar (19 Jan 2017)

[quote author=George Wallace] 

One more child who is not impressed with the PM..... [
[/quote]

Maybe were being too hard on him.  At least his face isn't burried in a phone,  that's good right?


----------



## QV (19 Jan 2017)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Well, this could become interesting.
> 
> The Montreal Gazette reports that three complaints have been filed with the Language Commissioner's office over Trudeau's lack of "providing services" in English at the Sherbrooke Town Hall.
> 
> ...



This is amusing.


----------



## The Bread Guy (20 Jan 2017)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> ... the spokesperson for the Commissioner's office indicated that, to deal wit their investigation, they must first determine if the Town Hall was a "government function" or a "political function".
> 
> Here's the thing. If the Commissioner finds that it is a political function and the Liberals don't contest it, it will close the investigation of the complaints, but it will also open a huge can of worms ...


Niiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiice -- thanks for sharing that.

op:


----------



## Journeyman (21 Jan 2017)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/peacekeeping-pause-trump-1.3945847
*Liberal peacekeeping decision paused because of uncertainty around Trump*

_~whew~_  Dodged that bullet... they were teetering on the brink of having to actually commit to something.


----------



## FSTO (21 Jan 2017)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/peacekeeping-pause-trump-1.3945847
> *Liberal peacekeeping decision paused because of uncertainty around Trump*
> 
> _~whew~_  Dodged that bullet... they were teetering on the brink of having to actually commit to something.



The Trump election has likely delayed the presentation of the Defence Review as well.


----------



## jollyjacktar (21 Jan 2017)

FSTO said:
			
		

> The Trump election has likely delayed the presentation of the Defence Review as well.





			
				Journeyman said:
			
		

> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/peacekeeping-pause-trump-1.3945847
> *Liberal peacekeeping decision paused because of uncertainty around Trump*
> 
> _~whew~_  Dodged that bullet... they were teetering on the brink of having to actually commit to something.



Let the Dithering commence.  This will make it a true Liberal party.  Martin would be proud the traditions will be upheld.   ;D


----------



## Jarnhamar (21 Jan 2017)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/peacekeeping-pause-trump-1.3945847
> *Liberal peacekeeping decision paused because of uncertainty around Trump*
> 
> _~whew~_  Dodged that bullet... they were teetering on the brink of having to actually commit to something.



Talk about an early Christmas present for the Liberals.


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 Jan 2017)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Let the Dithering commence.  This will make it a true Liberal party.  Martin would be proud the traditions will be upheld.   ;D


And yet, if they move ahead with what they'd planned, you'd be happy with that?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (21 Jan 2017)

Bet it doesn't delay the carbon tax......


----------



## Jarnhamar (21 Jan 2017)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Bet it doesn't delay the carbon tax......



I was reading that the Jet Trudea took to fly to his secret billionare island new years get away put out as much if not more carbon whatever than the average Canadian citizen does in a year.  Seems on par with the 370 or so delegation the Liberals flew to Europe to discuss climate change  ;D


----------



## PuckChaser (21 Jan 2017)

Here's the article, Jarn:

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/pm-s-use-of-jet-for-family-vacation-emitted-as-much-co2-as-average-canadian-per-year-1.3250397



> PM's use of jet for family vacation emitted as much CO2 as average Canadian per year
> 
> Josh Dehaas, CTVNews.ca Writer
> Published Friday, January 20, 2017 5:48PM EST
> ...



Also interesting to note is the approx 20% variance in the carbon calculations from 2 websites that specialize in it. Climate change "science" doesn't even know how to calculate the figures accurately.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (21 Jan 2017)

Wait a minute! He went on holiday with one of the publicly paid nanny again!!!!!

These friggin nannies, paid at the taxpayer's expense are so he can attend public functions with his wife and/or his wife can attend to public functions in Ottawa during the day.

When they go on holiday - like any other parents - their kids are THEIR responsibility - not the damned state's. The nannies can take THEIR holidays during that time.

As far as I am concerned, if they decide that during their holiday they are going to need baby sitting services, they'd better pay for the nanny's air fare and pay out of their pocket for the nanny's salary.

As a taxpayer, I am not interested to pay for them to have a lifestyle of the rich and famous they enjoy at my expense.


----------



## Rifleman62 (21 Jan 2017)

Entitled.


----------



## jmt18325 (21 Jan 2017)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I don't think any did. Unless it was overseas infrastructure, or just tossing more money at despots and dictators. He's put millions into that, but none in Canada.



There was certainly infrastructure spending last year.  The projections going forward would obviously include the planned increased spending.

These deficits are far more about slow growth than rampant spending.


----------



## jollyjacktar (21 Jan 2017)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> And yet, if they move ahead with what they'd planned, you'd be happy with that?



Alright, you found my Achilles heel.  Damn...


----------



## jmt18325 (21 Jan 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Minus the optics of liberals giving Aga's organization 55 million dollars over 5 years.



You understand that the Harper government also partnered with his organization, and that he and Harper appeared in public together, including at the opening of of his foundation in Toronto, I hope.  

Harper also made him an honorary citizen of Canada, and invited him to address a joint session of Parliament (he did).  The 'Aga' and Canada go way back.  The Aga and Trudeau also go way back.  This is not cash for access (it should end), and I really couldn't care less about a helicopter ride.


----------



## jmt18325 (21 Jan 2017)

FSTO said:
			
		

> When Trudeau was at his first town hall and someone asked about the sale of military equipment to Saudi Arabia and he replied that "We honour our contracts."
> My first thought was "Really?" "Tell that to the EH-101 consortium, you lying ***** ** ****!"



What does that have to do with Trudeau, exactly?


----------



## jmt18325 (21 Jan 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I was reading that the Jet Trudea took to fly to his secret billionare island new years get away put out as much if not more carbon whatever than the average Canadian citizen does in a year.  Seems on par with the 370 or so delegation the Liberals flew to Europe to discuss climate change  ;D



So, you think he should have taken the Airbus, then?


----------



## jmt18325 (21 Jan 2017)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Wait a minute! He went on holiday with one of the publicly paid nanny again!!!!!
> 
> These friggin nannies, paid at the taxpayer's expense are so he can attend public functions with his wife and/or his wife can attend to public functions in Ottawa during the day.
> 
> When they go on holiday - like any other parents - their kids are THEIR responsibility - not the damned state's. The nannies can take THEIR holidays during that time.



I really tire of this.  I hated it when Harper went to hockey and baseball games, and I hate it with, insert complaint here, when it comes to Trudeau.  Justin Trudeau is the Prime Minister of Canada.  He's not you - he's not me.  He's entitled to and responsible for different things.  He is also entitled to a life.  BTW, only one of the nannies is paid for by the taxpayer, and was at the cost of a different household staff member.  The other is now paid for by the Trudeau's (presumably that means they got their full time maid back)  The Trudeau's don't have any staff in terms of numbers that the Harper family didn't have.


----------



## FSTO (22 Jan 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> What does that have to do with Trudeau, exactly?



That our political parties game of twister that they play to justify their actions when it comes to the purchase (and sale) of military equipment hasn't changed since the cancellation of the Arrow.
JT's absolute cluelessness regarding the military is at times breathtaking.


----------



## The Bread Guy (22 Jan 2017)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Alright, you found my Achilles heel.  Damn...


 :rofl:


----------



## Jarnhamar (22 Jan 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> You understand that the Harper government also partnered with his organization, and that he and Harper appeared in public together, including at the opening of of his foundation in Toronto, I hope.



Did Harper Fly to the Khan's island for a family vacation under a could of secrecy meanwhile  break  Canadian laws  while doing so? 

Do you think it's the provocative of the PM to break inconvenient laws? 

Do you see where donating 55 million tax dollars to someones organization then having a family vacation on their private island,  with no history of family vacations on said private island (and refusing to answering his many times you've been to that island)  might possibly look like a conflict of interest?


----------



## Jarnhamar (22 Jan 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> So, you think he should have taken the Airbus, then?



I think he didn't need a battalions worth of staff in France.  

Considering the reason for going to France, taking a less is more approach would have been more appropriate. 

The climate change meeting was another paid vacation for a lot of staffers.


----------



## George Wallace (22 Jan 2017)

I am still trying to figure out the "family vacation" part of this, when he took along another Liberal Minister, the President of the Liberal Party of Canada and their spouses.  That sounds more like Party Business to me.


----------



## George Wallace (22 Jan 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I really tire of this.  I hated it when Harper went to hockey and baseball games, ........



Harper paid for those hockey and baseball games, and the movies he took his kids to, out of his own pocket; like you and I.  

That whole line of thought is fluff and not news worthy.


----------



## Jarnhamar (22 Jan 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I am still trying to figure out the "family vacation" part of this, when he took along another Liberal Minister, the President of the Liberal Party of Canada and their spouses.  That sounds more like Party Business to me.



It wasn't just his family,  nanny and security?


----------



## PuckChaser (22 Jan 2017)

No. Trudeau brought MP Seamus O'Regan (not a cabinet minister) and his husband, as well as the president of the Liberal Party of Canada and her husband.


----------



## jmt18325 (22 Jan 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I think he didn't need a battalions worth of staff in France.



I think that's an entirely different topic.  If you don't have an answer, change the channel.


----------



## jmt18325 (22 Jan 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Harper paid for those hockey and baseball games, and the movies he took his kids to, out of his own pocket; like you and I.



He didn't pay for his own transport to those events (aside from reimbursing the taxpayer the same way that Trudeau does).  Trudeau paid for his trip to Fogo Island and St Kitts last year the same way you or I would.  If you stay at the house of a family friend, does that make you a bad person?


----------



## jmt18325 (22 Jan 2017)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> No. Trudeau brought MP Seamus O'Regan (not a cabinet minister) and his husband, as well as the president of the Liberal Party of Canada and her husband.



So are those people friends of the Trudeau's (I know that O'Regan is) or was this business related?  That's far more important than the helicopter ride, IMO.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 Jan 2017)

The idea they were all there, for all that time, and nobody spoke about business is ludicrous.


----------



## PuckChaser (22 Jan 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> He didn't pay for his own transport to those events (aside from reimbursing the taxpayer the same way that Trudeau does).  Trudeau paid for his trip to Fogo Island and St Kitts last year the same way you or I would.  If you stay at the house of a family friend, does that make you a bad person?



If that family friend is the head of a company that gets millions in funding from the federal government, and to get to that family you accepted transport in direct violation of the conflict of interest act, it completely makes you a bad person.

This whole thing is a non-issue if Trudeau simply paid for the helicopter ride himself, or insisted on reimbursing the cost. It still smells, but its not in violation of a federal law. The fact that he refuses to admit it was wrong shows a complete disdain for conflict of interest laws which is unfit for a Prime Minister. Like it or not, he's now the leader of a country and doesn't get to do the same things regular folks do simply because he's in a position of power. He can't just hit pause on being Prime Minister and hang out for a free weekend on a Carribean island with a registered lobbyist and pretend everything is ok.


----------



## George Wallace (22 Jan 2017)

Thankfully in Canada you have the right to have a hissy fit.  Temper tantrums, it seems are becoming more common place, even at the highest levels.  We will let you; and of course form our opinions of you from there.


----------



## jmt18325 (22 Jan 2017)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> If that family friend is the head of a company



I have to stop you right there, because he's not the head of a company, but rather a religious and philanthropic organization.


----------



## George Wallace (22 Jan 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I have to stop you right there, because he's not the head of a company, but rather a religious and philanthropic organization.



NO!  The fact is that he is a "LOBBYIST" and thus, even if a "Family Friend", this is a conflict of interest.


----------



## jmt18325 (22 Jan 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> NO!  The fact is that he is a "LOBBYIST" and thus, even if a "Family Friend", this is a conflict of interest.



Where did I say he wasn't a lobbyist?  To me that fact, is, again, far worse than the helicopter ride.


----------



## PuckChaser (22 Jan 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I have to stop you right there, because he's not the head of a company, but rather a religious and philanthropic organization.


You really love to pick fly $#^$ from pepper, don't you?

You know exactly what I meant and chose to ignore the entire post to correct a semantic error.

It doesn't matter if it's a business or a charity, it's still wrong. I'd also argue that if the head of a charity can purchase an island for $100m, that charity probably doesn't need any Canadian taxpayer money.


----------



## jmt18325 (22 Jan 2017)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> You really love to pick fly $#^$ from pepper, don't you?
> 
> You know exactly what I meant and chose to ignore the entire post to correct a semantic error.



What you see as a 'semantics error' is actually a very important detail.  He shouldn't have went and it was wrong, but it isn't like he was doing some kind of back room business deal with the CEO of General Motors.  The Aga is a long time family friend that is also the head of an organization that Canada has partnered with many times to do good work around the world.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (22 Jan 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> What you see as a 'semantics error' is actually a very important detail.  He shouldn't have went and it was wrong, but it isn't like he was doing some kind of back room business deal with the CEO of General Motors.  The Aga is a long time family friend that is also the head of an organization that Canada has partnered with many times to do good work around the world.



How in the hell do you know what exactly did, or did not happen on that island? Were you there?

That is exactly the problem with this affair. Whether true or not, it now appears to the world that this particular Prime Minister is for sale. 

That is a massive problem for not just the PM and his political fortunes, but for the entire country.


----------



## PuckChaser (22 Jan 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> What you see as a 'semantics error' is actually a very important detail.  He shouldn't have went and it was wrong, but it isn't like he was doing some kind of back room business deal with the CEO of General Motors.  The Aga is a long time family friend that is also the head of an organization that Canada has partnered with many times to do good work around the world.



Who is a registered lobbyist. It doesn't matter if its an international business or a charity. There's a reason we have conflict of interest laws, and its not up to the Prime Minister to decide which laws he follows and which he doesn't. The only reason Trudeau is fighting this, is because even with his trust fund wealth, that flight would have cost $20-40K CAD based on calls made to private helicopter contractors in the area.

This whole issue is moot if he followed the rules, and cleared it with the ethics commissioner first.


----------



## jmt18325 (22 Jan 2017)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> How in the hell do you know what exactly did, or did not happen on that island? Were you there?



I don't know what went on.  On the other hand, I see no reason to speculate, or to pretend the Aga Khan is someone he isn't.

He shouldn't have gone.


----------



## QV (22 Jan 2017)

JT is such a disappointment.  I do hope his townhall road show keeps going though... it's like a slow motion train wreck.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (22 Jan 2017)

Wait until he gets to western Canada. The real fun will begin there for JT....


----------



## jmt18325 (22 Jan 2017)

QV said:
			
		

> JT is such a disappointment.



I reluctantly have to agree with you up to this point.  Hopefully this year brings something different.


----------



## Loachman (22 Jan 2017)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> This whole thing is a non-issue if Trudeau simply paid for the helicopter ride himself, or insisted on reimbursing the cost.



I am no fan of the Sun King, for many reasons. And I really hate to defend him, his government, or his party, or his hairdresser, but:

I still cannot be offended by his helicopter ride. It is a method of transportation, and the only viable one in this situation. Had the distance been much less, the Aga Khan could have sent a boat to pick him up. Would that have been any different, other than the cost? What if he flies in to see another friend in another country, and that friend sends his car and a driver? Would that be any different, other than the cost?

What about the accommodation? Why can he stay as a guest at no charge and not be challenged on that, but a helicopter ride, alone, is a huge sin?

I stated several days ago that this is not a crime. A crime occurs when somebody is murdered, assaulted, raped, robbed, defrauded etcetera, ie death or injury or property loss is incurred. There are lots of paper crimes where no such injury or loss occurs, but they are considered to be crimes just "because". The Firearms Act is a prime example of that. What real injury or damage was done, to Her Majesty or Canada by, going on a friend's helicopter? Why is free accommodation not considered to be at least as injurious or damaging? I question the wisdom of the rule in this case, as it is completely inflexible in its application while also being too narrow in scope, unless I am missing something (as I may well be because I am not fussed enough about this incident to bother studying every little detail).

He screwed up by trying to keep this secret from the press and public, by not seeking advice from the ethics commissioner beforehand, and being hypocritical, and deserves everything coming his way for that.

I take glee, however, in any loss of popularity or increased scrutiny that this brings.

And I am also finding myself in general agreement with jmt18325 on a lot of things in this thread, which is a novelty that I find equally troubling. I should perhaps start drinking heavily and see if I can get over both distressing situations...

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/trudeau-not-first-politician-to-face-heat-for-ride-in-aga-khan-s-helicopter-1.3252064

Trudeau not first politician to face heat for ride in Aga Khan's helicopter

Jordan Press, The Canadian Press

Published Sunday, January 22, 2017 1:06PM EST

OTTAWA - If only Justin Trudeau had bumped into Earl Deveaux at the airport in the Bahamas - he might have been able to save himself a chopper-load of political grief.

After all, Deveaux - formerly the island nation's environment minister - has himself been a passenger on board the Aga Khan's private helicopter, just like Trudeau, and was made to suffer the professional consequences.

It was September 2010 when someone snapped a photo of Deveaux walking away from the helicopter in question during a stopover on his way to the Aga Khan's private island - the same island Trudeau and his family visited during a New Years getaway.

For Deveaux, the political perils were decidedly more glaring.

The Aga Khan was seeking permission to dredge offshore from his island, inside an established marine reserve, in order to make room for his massive luxury yacht, among other vessels. Locals feared irrevocable environmental harm.

The area, known as the Exumas, had become popular with celebrities and super-wealthy people keen on owning their own island. Indeed, the Hollywood Reporter calls the Bahamas the "epicentre of the private-island world."

Owners include actor Johnny Depp, singers Faith Hill and Tim McGraw and former investment banker Steve Harrington.

And, of course, the Aga Khan - the wealthy philanthropist and hereditary spiritual leader to the world's approximately 15 million Ismaili Muslims who also happens to be a close family friend of Canada's prime minister.

Trudeau has been facing heat over the flight ever since the National Post reported on his family holiday at the Aga Khan's island, which also included Liberal MP Seamus O'Regan and Liberal party president Anna Gainey.

The federal Conflict of Interest Act and Trudeau's own ethics guidelines for his cabinet ministers bar the use of sponsored travel in private aircraft, allowing it only for exceptional circumstances and only with the commissioner's prior approval.

The act also prohibits a minister or any member of their family from accepting gifts or "advantages" that could reasonably be seen as influencing government decisions. The only exception is if the person providing the gift is a friend.

The federal ethics commissioner is looking into the holiday and the chopper flight. Trudeau has repeatedly called the Aga Khan a longtime family friend who served as a pallbearer at his father's funeral.

Back in 2010, there were immediate calls for Deveaux's resignation. The Bahamian newspaper the Tribune quoted him as saying he couldn't be bought with a single flight.

Then-prime minister Hubert Ingraham stood by his minister, admitting that he, too, had hopped a ride in the very same helicopter to meet with the Aga Khan and foreign dignitaries.

At the time, a frequent political argument - similar to that of Trudeau - was that there was no other means of accessing the 140-hectare Bell Island, which the Aga Khan reportedly purchased in 2009 for $100 million US.

Another: In the island archipelago of the Bahamas, local politicians ride regularly in private helicopters owned by developers.

Such practices were also once commonplace in Canadian politics, but are now expressly forbidden under federal ethics rules, which is why the flight has fostered such controversy.

Deveaux left Bahamian politics in 2012, after the dredging work on Bell Island had been approved.

Year ago, the Tribune described the helicopter as an AB-139, built by AgustaWestland, the same company that built the Cormorant helicopters the Canadian military uses for search and rescue missions. It seats 13 people and costs upwards of $10 million.

It's not clear if Trudeau rode the same model helicopter.

O'Regan told the National Post earlier this month that he wanted to repay the Aga Khan for the cost of the private flight. His office did not respond to questions this week about whether that had happened, and if so, how much he'd paid.

To be sure, operating an AB-139 is likely no bargain, considering the cost of fuel, maintenance, capital depreciation or lease payments, salaries for pilots and mechanics, hanger space, tools and support contracts.

Privately chartering an AB-139 to travel the 115 kilometres between Nassau and Bell Island could cost between $5,300 and $8,000 per hour, based on estimates provided by private charter services contacted by The Canadian Press.


----------



## Brad Sallows (23 Jan 2017)

To be ethical means doing the right thing, and avoiding the appearance of impropriety.  If you fail to avoid the appearance of impropriety - irrespective of whether "it" was technically permitted - you've failed to demonstrate good ethical judgement.


----------



## jmt18325 (23 Jan 2017)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> To be ethical means doing the right thing, and avoiding the appearance of impropriety.



Quite true.  To be human means to fail at that.  Trudeau did something he shouldn't have - hopefully he learns from that.


----------



## Jed (23 Jan 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Quite true.  To be human means to fail at that.  Trudeau did something he shouldn't have - hopefully he learns from that.



That's the problem. He won't learn from this. He will continue to take the clueless elitist approach that he was shown his entire life.


----------



## Loachman (23 Jan 2017)

Yes.

Yes.

And Yes.


----------



## jollyjacktar (23 Jan 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I reluctantly have to agree with you up to this point.  Hopefully this year brings something different.



Well, keep your hope in one hand and put your other hand behind your ass and see which one fills up first...   :nod:


----------



## QV (23 Jan 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Quite true.  To be human means to fail at that.  Trudeau did something he shouldn't have - hopefully he learns from that.



I don't want a PM that doesn't already know this was wrong.  This is basic and if he didn't know, that is pretty bad.  However I don't think JT didn't know.  I think he knew and tried to deceive the Canadian public which is much much worse.


----------



## Good2Golf (23 Jan 2017)

In the spirit of helping people keep themselves informed, if interested, here is the Canadian Lobbying Commisssion's page regarding the AKFC (Aga Khan Foundation - Canada):

https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/clntSmmry?clientOrgCorpNumber=278184

Regards,
G2G


----------



## Journeyman (23 Jan 2017)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> In the spirit of helping people keep themselves informed......



     :rofl:    Like people here, in a POLITICS thread, are interested in informed opinions -- of their own or others!!


----------



## Jarnhamar (23 Jan 2017)

[quote author=jmt18325] *  it was wrong, but*  it isn't like... 
[/quote]

Nice attempt to dismiss and minimize wrong doing.


----------



## Jarnhamar (23 Jan 2017)

QV said:
			
		

> I don't want a PM that doesn't already know this was wrong.  This is basic and if he didn't know, that is pretty bad.  However I don't think JT didn't know.  I think he knew and tried to deceive the Canadian public which is much much worse.


JT knows a lot of Canadians who voted for him would drink his bath water,   he doesn't care.


----------



## jmt18325 (23 Jan 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Nice attempt to dismiss and minimize wrong doing.



There are always buts in life.  Nuance is an actual thing.


----------



## Loachman (24 Jan 2017)

Once again the family arrogance gene shines through. While neither the holiday nor flight bother me, I am certainly bothered by his refusal/inability to recognize that many _do_ see the holiday and/or flight as inappropriate and the pathetic cover-up.

People make mistakes. Assuming no death, injury, or major property loss, it is not so much the mistakes that count as the way that people deal with their aftermath. And he is not dealing well with this one at all. A little humility and a sincere apology would have helped him greatly, but humility is not his "thing".

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/canadians-split-on-trudeaus-use-of-private-aircraft-while-on-holiday-in-the-bahamas-poll

Trudeau says '*we don’t see an issue*' with free travel from the Aga Khan but a slim majority disagree in new poll

David Akin | January 24, 2017 8:28 AM ET

OTTAWA – Canadian public opinion appears to be split as to whether it was appropriate for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his family to accept free travel, over the Christmas holidays, on the private helicopter of the billionaire philanthropist and Trudeau family friend the Aga Khan.

A new poll says 42 per cent agree that the travel was inappropriate and 41 per cent thought it appropriate. About 17 per cent had no opinion. Toronto-based Forum Research, on its own initiative, polled about 1,300 Canadians last weekend on the issue and provided the results exclusively to the National Post.

The National Post was the first to report the details of Trudeau's holiday. He and his family left the country on Boxing Day, returning to Canada a few days after New Year's. The Trudeaus were flown on an RCAF executive jet from Ottawa to Nassau, the capital of the Bahamas.

From Nassau, the Trudeaus were flown to the Aga Khan's private 349-acre island, which is about 115 km from Nassau over open ocean, on the Aga Khan's private helicopter, believed to be an AgustaWestland AW139 that can seat about 13.

The vacation sparked two separate complaints from Conservative MPs to Parliament's Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Mary Dawson. Dawson acted on the complaints, opening an investigation into two separate potential violations of the statute by the prime minister.

The first issue involves a potential conflict of interest in receiving a free vacation from the Aga Khan, the founder and a director of an organization that is a federally registered lobbying organization and, second, for potentially violating a section of the act that prohibits all ministers from using private aircraft. 

It is that last issue that Forum decided to test in a poll, asking 1,332 Canadians in an automated telephone poll conducted Jan. 19-21, "Was it appropriate for Justin Trudeau to accept a flight aboard a private helicopter while on vacation?"

Forum says the results are accurate within 3 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

"Canadians are divided on whether Justin Trudeau's helicopter flight was appropriate. Besides the expected divide among party lines, the sentiment differs by age. It appears that the younger Canadians are less likely to raise issue with the Prime Minister’s vacation activities," said Forum Research President, Lorne Bozinoff.

Trudeau, speaking to reporters earlier this month said, "we don’t see an issue with this."

Perhaps not surprisingly, those who told the pollster they support the Liberals were less likely to think the travel was inappropriate - 55% of those said it was appropriate while 27% of Liberals said it was inappropriate.

In Canada's two most populous provinces, Ontario and Quebec, opinion was almost perfectly split with 42% and 41% respectively giving the trip a thumbs down while 42% and 39% respectively thought it not a problem.

If Dawson rules that Trudeau was in violation of the act because of his decision to use the private aircraft of the Aga Khan, Trudeau faces no penalty other than a notice of violation.

But Trudeau's political opponents would certainly try to exact a stiff political penalty. Trudeau would be the first sitting prime minister to violate a federal law while in office.


----------



## Rifleman62 (24 Jan 2017)

Hopefully, when Trudeau takes a telephone call from President Trump, Trudeau will be somewhere else than in Quebec otherwise 





> "But we're in a French province so I will answer in French,"


----------



## jollyjacktar (24 Jan 2017)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Hopefully, when Trudeau takes a telephone call from President Trump, Trudeau will be somewhere else than in Quebec otherwise



 :rofl:


----------



## gryphonv (24 Jan 2017)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Hopefully, when Trudeau takes a telephone call from President Trump, Trudeau will be somewhere else than in Quebec otherwise



Somehow I think, he'll be the one calling Trump.


----------



## George Wallace (24 Jan 2017)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Hopefully, when Trudeau takes a telephone call from President Trump, Trudeau will be somewhere else than in Quebec otherwise



Does it matter?  He will likely answer in both official languages, unless he is in Quebec and then he will answer in Quebecois.  

I am still trying to figure out why he is answering in both languages in Peterborough and Calgary, but only in the opposite language (Quebecois to an English question) in Sherbrooke.  There is no continuity to his logic.


----------



## Loachman (24 Jan 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> There is no continuity to his logic.



He has logic?


----------



## gryphonv (24 Jan 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Does it matter?  He will likely answer in both official languages, unless he is in Quebec and then he will answer in Quebecois.
> 
> I am still trying to figure out why he is answering in both languages in Peterborough and Calgary, but only in the opposite language (Quebecois to an English question) in Sherbrooke.  There is no continuity to his logic.



Maybe the long term effects of hair products penetrating his skull are taking effect.


----------



## George Wallace (25 Jan 2017)

How stupid does this moron really think intelligent Canadians are?  He is now taking credit for KEYSTONE.  Claims that Harper couldn't get it passed in ten years and now we have it.  What a fucking MORON.  The LIBERALS didn't do anything.  TRUMP did.

The Liberals would never have gotten it done either, if Obama was still in office.  The Part-time Drama Teacher is playing the Drama Queen.


----------



## RocketRichard (25 Jan 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> How stupid does this moron really think intelligent Canadians are?  He is now taking credit for KEYSTONE.  Claims that Harper couldn't get it passed in ten years and now we have it.  What a ******* MORON.  The LIBERALS didn't do anything.  TRUMP did.
> 
> The Liberals would never have gotten it done either, if Obama was still in office.  The Part-time Drama Teacher is playing the Drama Queen.


"stupid, moron, *******MORON, playing a Drama Queen". Interesting comments from an older person.  Potential members of the CAF and young soldiers read this forum.  Ironic comments on Bell Let's Talk Day. I hope your day gets better George. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Scott (25 Jan 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> How stupid does this moron really think intelligent Canadians are?  He is now taking credit for KEYSTONE.  Claims that Harper couldn't get it passed in ten years and now we have it.  What a fucking MORON.  The LIBERALS didn't do anything.  TRUMP did.
> 
> The Liberals would never have gotten it done either, if Obama was still in office.  The Part-time Drama Teacher is playing the Drama Queen.



I've had about enough of your terms of endearment for people here, including the PM. We have rules on the site.

We KNOW you HATE the current PM. You DO NOT need to keep reminding us with MORE AND MORE vitriol. Your regular amount was ENOUGH.


----------



## George Wallace (25 Jan 2017)

RocketRichard said:
			
		

> "stupid, moron, *******MORON, playing a Drama Queen". Interesting comments from an older person.  Potential members of the CAF and young soldiers read this forum.  Ironic comments on Bell Let's Talk Day. I hope your day gets better George.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk



Hmmm?  In continuing in his "Controversy of the Day" during his "Cross Canada Try To Get In Touch With The Middle Class Tour", that is but one of his many controversies. I would venture to say that the PM and the Liberal Party of Canada have been using, what the Trump Presidency is being accused of, the "Alternate News Alternative Facts" for some time.  

Not only is he taking credit for the Keystone XL deal going through, but apparently he has also "MISSPOKE" when commenting on the Alberta Oil Sands.  Do you seriously think that intelligent Canadians don't see these "Alternate News Alternative Facts" and 'controversies' for what they really are?



[Edit:   ???   This has nothing to do with Bell Let's Talk Day. ]


----------



## jollyjacktar (25 Jan 2017)

The PM seemed to be, at least by the sound of the sound bites on radio this morning, more than a little flustered and frustrated by his reception in Calgary.  I'm starting to wonder if he will be so foolish as to do another one of these "speaking to the Peasants" jaunts across the country.  I'd wager he is regretting his choice to do this one.  I will hand it to him for sticking to the plan over the rough ride he'll be getting more and more.


----------



## gryphonv (25 Jan 2017)

At first, I was pleasantly surprised he choose to do the town hall tour. 

Unfortunately after shooting himself in the foot so many times he just reinforced my opinion of him. I feel its been a huge political blunder, I can't wait until parliament goes back into session, he's handed so much ammo to them it's hilarious. I'm generally interested to see his approval ratings before and after this 'tour'.


----------



## jmt18325 (25 Jan 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> The Liberals would never have gotten it done either, if Obama was still in office.  The Part-time Drama Teacher is playing the Drama Queen.



He could have blocked it.  He doesn't because he supports it.  Maybe your anger is a bit misplaced?


----------



## gryphonv (25 Jan 2017)

To be fair, Trump approved the XL pipeline with 'conditions' He hasn't listed all of his conditions yet.


----------



## Remius (25 Jan 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> [Edit:   ???   This has nothing to do with Bell Let's Talk Day. ]



The term Drama Queen is sometimes associated with histrionic personality disorder, a mental health condition.  I suspect that might have been the reference to Bell Let's Talk Day.

At the same time I don't think it was your intent to link the two.

But I agree with jmt18325.  I think your anger is misplaced.  The Liberals always supported the pipeline.  They are taking credit for moving energy projects forward whereas the Conservatives didn't for a variety of reasons. So, sure under Obama it probably wouldn't have happened but their plan would still have had pipelines created, something the CPC didn't achieve or come close to achieving. 

This is a good article that explains the Liberal's approach to getting it done.  

http://www.canadianbusiness.com/economy/how-the-trudeau-government-tore-up-the-rulebook-on-pipelines/

Specifically this para:

_Top of the list will be consulting provincial governments, something Harper refused to do. (He never met with the premiers after 2009.) “The Conservatives were so constrained by their ideology that they couldn’t imagine any sort of direct interference with the market. They had such a strict view of the federal-provincial division of power that they wouldn’t touch natural resources. They left everything up to the provinces and the oil and gas sector,” Brownsey says. Into that political vacuum stepped B.C. Premier Christy Clark with her “five conditions” for oil pipeline support, a strategy the wily former talk radio jock used against Harper whenever it was convenient, and a Quebec government eager to assert its environmental review authority over Energy East. Carr says the Liberals are returning to “co-operative federalism” and a hands-on approach: “It’s not possible to consider major national projects and a nation building policy if you don’t have all levels of governments talking to each other.”_


----------



## George Wallace (25 Jan 2017)

gryphonv said:
			
		

> To be fair, Trump approved the XL pipeline with 'conditions' He hasn't listed all of his conditions yet.



One of his conditions stated was that the Pipe be all "American steel".  I have no problems with that comment, as referring to pipe installed in the USA.  I would have a problem if he insists ALL pipe for the project be "American steel" even if it was in Canada.  TCP has already pipe ready for the project, none of it from American mills.  We shall see what all the details are soon enough, I suppose.


----------



## George Wallace (25 Jan 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> He could have blocked it.  He doesn't because he supports it.  Maybe your anger is a bit misplaced?



No.  As you said: Trump supported it and has put his OK to it.  It was Trump who OK's Keystone XL and for Trudeau to take any credit for it is an "Alternative Fact".


----------



## George Wallace (25 Jan 2017)

gryphonv said:
			
		

> At first, I was pleasantly surprised he choose to do the town hall tour.
> 
> Unfortunately after shooting himself in the foot so many times he just reinforced my opinion of him. I feel its been a huge political blunder, I can't wait until parliament goes back into session, he's handed so much ammo to them it's hilarious. I'm generally interested to see his approval ratings before and after this 'tour'.



I too doubt that his staff would think of doing this again.  As I see it, those in his "Lovefest" are still in the "Lovefest".  Those who were not, are still not overly impressed, and some may even be more alienated.  As for his approval ratings before and after, I am sure the polls will show little change.


----------



## Remius (25 Jan 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> No.  As you said: Trump supported it and has put his OK to it.  It was Trump who OK's Keystone XL and for Trudeau to take any credit for it is an "Alternative Fact".



Oh come on.  So Trudeau didn't support it and didn't Ok it? It takes two for this deal.  Heck, even the Conservatives insisted the Liberal Government make Keystone a priority given that Trump had been elected. 

So he supports and approves of Keystone and he still takes flak from his detractors. I bet his opponents here would still decry him for something if he doubled the defence budget.  

I for one am happy the project will go ahead.  I see no need to get angry at Trudeau or anyone else for that matter because of it.


----------



## jmt18325 (25 Jan 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> One of his conditions stated was that the Pipe be all "American steel".  I have no problems with that comment, as referring to pipe installed in the USA.



I do - the pipe is already stockpiled, stamped with Made in Canada.  So, that might make it a no go right there.


----------



## The Bread Guy (25 Jan 2017)

More on the "what if?" on U.S.-made pipe, from a media outlet with its eye on things steel ...


> The Keystone XL pipeline stole the show Tuesday with President Donald Trump's executive order to proceed with the project that will pipe Canadian tar sands oil through the United States to Gulf of Mexico refineries. Trump's green light on that and the Dakota Access pipeline, which will pipe oil from the shale fields of North Dakota to Illinois, meant little directly for Ohio.
> 
> Yet *Trump signed yet another order that could -- big emphasis on "could" -- help Ohio's industry. He ordered the commerce secretary to develop a policy requiring U.S.-made steel for new and retrofitted pipelines.
> 
> "We are -- and I am -- very insistent that if we're going to build pipelines in the United States, the pipe should be made in the United States," Trump said* ...


More tea leaves to read ...


----------



## Rifleman62 (9 Feb 2017)

Finally, the wait is over. Bombardier gets money!!

While we the taxpayer are forking over money to Bombardier, a private, family owned company, this from my MP:


> Another concern I have been raising in Ottawa is related to recent changes to mortgage regulations. Last week at the Finance Committee we heard from many expert witnesses on how newly proposed mortgage changes may adversely impact Canadians.
> 
> While many are aware of mortgage changes that raise the threshold to qualify for a mortgage, many were very surprised to learn that under the proposed changes those who want to *re-finance an existing mortgage* will find it more difficult to obtain financing due to less financing options and more than likely an increase to the mortgage rate.
> 
> ...



http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/kevin-libin-bombardier-played-hard-to-get-but-the-federal-liberals-were-determined-to-hand-it-money-it-didnt-need
*
Kevin Libin: Bombardier played hard to get, but the federal Liberals were determined to hand it money it didn’t need*

Kevin Libin | February 8, 2017 | Last Updated: Feb 9 8:14 AM ET

*Justin Trudeau defends Bombardier loans in the House* (video at link. I didn't watch it as can stand the PM's whining child voice)

It seems like just a few weeks ago that everyone was tut-tutting Donald Trump for using Twitter threats of a border tax to keep the maker of Carrier air conditioners from moving jobs out of the States. Well, actually, it was just a few weeks ago. The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board blasted what it called Trump’s “shakedown,” with bad economics that would “hurt workers and the economy.”

But Americans could have it worse. Up here in Canada, it’s taxpayers who always find themselves on the receiving end of job-preserving shakedowns, the latest being Tuesday’s announcement from the federal Liberals that they would be handing Bombardier $372 million as an “an investment in thousands of middle-class jobs.”

Perhaps Ottawa’s carrot, in the form of giving a company money in hopes it will keep jobs at home, looks less obnoxious than Trump’s stick, a threat to take money from a company if it ships jobs away, although it’s hard to see much difference. But at least after Trump tweeted Carrier into submission he got a firm commitment from the company to cancel plans to send hundreds of Indiana jobs to Mexico.

Nothing in this Bombardier announcement stipulates anything so irresponsibly uneconomic as requiring the company to promise to keep jobs here that would be more efficiently done elsewhere, or even promising to create new ones. There is no need for Bombardier to invest anything more in the economy than it otherwise planned to. Ottawa calls the $372 million a “repayable loan,” which also has an inoffensive ring to it, but don’t put much stock in that. *There’s no complete record on whether such “loans” are ever repaid. Bombardier forcefully fights requests for those public disclosures in court. And it wins.*

    The Liberals had to buckle on virtually every condition they put to Bombardier to convince it to take federal cash

In fact, Tuesday’s announcement *specified no details of the terms of the loan at all. No repayment schedule, or whether Bombardier put up any assets to secure it,* as any private lender would naturally require. But then, if Bombardier were interested in the features of a normal lending arrangement, it could have just borrowed from a normal lender. And that would be silly, when politicians proved so eager to fork over cash with so few strings attached.

The Liberals clearly put in much effort to get Bombardier to even agree to take the money. They had to buckle on virtually every condition they had originally stipulated Bombardier must meet before it could have access to any federal cash. First they said Bombardier would have to make a “business case” for why it needed a $1.3-billion bailout — to match one from Quebec — for its struggling CSeries program.

That was in November 2015. But then the aerospace company’s executives rather smirked at that condition, when they publicly stated, not long afterward, that they didn’t really need the money anyway. “Really, the federal funding would just be an extra endorsement” for its CSeries program, said Bombardier vice president Rob Dewar last March. “That’s really just an extra bonus that would be helpful but is very clearly not required.”

Next the Liberals talked of wanting changes to Bombardier’s family-run dual-class governance structure. But then it turned out they didn’t even feel confident enough to put those stipulations to the company.

Running out of demands, the government floated a last-ditch “six-point checklist” that it wanted satisfied, including figuring out why previous handouts to Bombardier had only led to more. With Bombardier having accumulated more than $2 billion in aid from various levels of government since the 1960s, perhaps the Liberals were considering that it might be wise if the handouts would, at some point, finally stop.

That there seems to have been no longer any desire to get tough on Bombardier over governance, over its “business case,” or even over an undemanding six-point checklist is itself the answer to the question of why the giveaways never stop (the previous Conservative government, too, handed Bombardier $350 million in 2008 to develop the CSeries). They can’t, they won’t, and they don’t stop because politicians are more hooked on Bombardier handouts than the company itself is.

As Bombardier’s executives point out, they’re now past the worst of their troubles, which hit their nadir roughly a year ago, back when the federal government first started talking about attaching conditions to federal aid. Since then, the CSeries booked 117 orders for new planes, after winning none during a particularly miserable 2015. Big names like Air Canada and Delta bought a bunch. Swiss Air, started flying the plane commercially and was praising to the skies the CSeries’ reliability, its reduced cabin noise and improved light, and its “intuitive flying experience.” Bombardier’s shares have more than tripled in 12 months.

Far from looking like a failure, then, the CSeries suddenly looks like a successful, innovative globally admired product — and the Liberals, having stalled on providing any federal aid, had no way to claim any credit at all for it. Why, Canadians might just begin to get the idea that federal government involvement isn’t even necessary for companies to compete globally.

_The federal Liberals were left with little choice. If Bombardier wasn’t going to shake Ottawa down, the Liberals would just have to go ahead and shake down themselves._

Even there, their efforts fell pitifully short. Coming up with just a fraction of the original $1.3 billion that Quebec politicians had expected, the Bloc Québécois scoffed it was “too little, too late.” The federal Liberals could barely even get a piece of the CSeries; Bombardier said most of the money would instead now go to its Global business jet program, which has been around for 20 years. Compared to Trump’s shakedowns, the Liberals efforts compare pitifully. Sad! Troublingly, that can only mean they’ll keep trying until they get better at it.

Related:

http://business.financialpost.com/news/transportation/brazil-makes-good-on-threat-to-take-canada-to-wto-over-bombardier-loans
*
Brazil makes good on threat to take Canada to WTO over Bombardier loans*


----------



## jmt18325 (9 Feb 2017)

For needed context to the above:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/loans-for-bombardier-a-painless-boost-for-tories/article1057473/

https://www.wsj.com/articles/canadian-loan-to-help-finance-bombardier-sales-in-south-africa-1425294002


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 Feb 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> For needed context to the above:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/loans-for-bombardier-a-painless-boost-for-tories/article1057473/
> 
> https://www.wsj.com/articles/canadian-loan-to-help-finance-bombardier-sales-in-south-africa-1425294002


There you go, being all context-y and such  ;D


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 Feb 2017)

And here's the info-machine's version to comb through for buzzwords ...


> *Government of Canada and Bombardier announce significant investment to strengthen leadership in aerospace*
> 
> _Minister Bains announces repayable program contributions for Bombardier to foster Canadian innovation and strengthen the aerospace sector_
> 
> ...


Attached in case the link doesn't work for you.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (9 Feb 2017)

Just so we are clear here, for those who love Quebec bashing:

The federal government loan is actually related to development and production of the Global 7000 corporate jets, which are built at the ONTARIO plant of Bombardier near Toronto.

The C-series stands on its own with the Quebec government investment last year and the combined Swissair/Delta/Air Canada sales already in the books.

Also, it is a sheer coincidence that Embraer just filed a complaint with the World Trade Organization. The Embraer complaint relates to the Quebec government investment last year. It just happen to have come out on the same day.


----------



## Rifleman62 (9 Feb 2017)

It's not Quebec bashing, it is taxpayer bashing the Liberal government for again, and again giving money to a privately owned company with no return. Please provide details of the loan repayments to Canada.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (9 Feb 2017)

You shouldn't make this about the Liberal's, Rifleman. 

Count how much money was given as subsidies or as "loans" to privately owned industries in the Maritimes or Ontario by the Conservatives, both under Harper and other past Conservative PM's. It's a political game played by all - who have been in power - and only really decried strongly by those who know they will never form a government.  :nod:

The only ones who probably have some valid beef are the Western provinces, at least from the time that the incredibly generous and large subsidies, special tax cut, loans and other incentives to the development of the tar sands were stopped because the industry was now profitable (and then conveniently forgotten by the industry who tried to re-write history by claiming to have done it all by itself  )


----------



## Rifleman62 (9 Feb 2017)

Yes you are correct as far as I know. Your posts are knowledgeable and I enjoy your point of view.


----------



## jmt18325 (9 Feb 2017)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> The C-series stands on its own with the Quebec government investment last year and the combined Swissair/Delta/Air Canada sales already in the books..



Total nitpick - it's Swiss International Airlines, or just Swiss.  Swissair is no more.


----------



## Old Sweat (9 Feb 2017)

According to this story from The Hill Times reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act, the Liberals and Conservatives are tied in a poll conducted in early February. Now, one poll 15 months into a mandate is hardly conclusive, but it bears watching.

Liberals and Conservatives tied in nationwide poll, Grits still strong in Central Canada, but losing younger voters
The survey taken in early February puts each party at 34 per cent public support.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's Liberals have lost their edge over the Conservative Party of interim Leader Rona Ambrose, a new poll indicates, though the governing party is holding strong in Central Canada. 

By PETER MAZEREEUW
PUBLISHED : Thursday, Feb. 9, 2017 2:00 PM

The federal Liberal and Conservative parties would each win the votes of one-third of Canadians if an election were held now, according to a poll taken at the beginning of February.

A year and four months after taking power, the Liberals have lost about one-third of the voters who supported them in the October 2015 election, according to the poll conducted by Campaign Research, the Toronto polling firm at which Nick Kouvalis, Conservative leadership candidate Kellie Leitch’s former campaign manager, serves as a principal. Richard Ciano, another firm principal, is a supporter and volunteer for Ms. Leitch’s campaign.

Another poll released Feb. 7 by Nanos Research gave the Liberals a five-and-a-half point lead over the Conservatives, who registered a 12-month high at 32.5 per cent support. The Nanos poll was based on a four-week rolling average of responses, while the Campaign Research poll surveyed voters between Feb. 3 and Feb. 6. It asked respondents which party they were most likely to vote for if a federal election were held tomorrow, or if they hadn’t made up their mind, which party they were leaning toward.

The virtual tie between the two biggest parties in Parliament likely has more to do with poor Liberal performance than strong Conservative performance, said Campaign Research CEO Eli Yufest.

  
Mr. Yufest pointed to negative attention the Liberals garnered in recent weeks over Mr. Trudeau’s vacation on the Aga Khan’s private island, a broken promise to change Canada’s electoral system, political fundraisers with wealthy businesspeople, and comments about phasing out Canada’s oilsands as likely contributors to the Liberal decline.

“There’s no doubt that they’re battling some strong headwinds,” said Mr. Yufest.

The NDP took 16 per cent support overall, with the Greens and Bloc Québécois tied at six per cent each.

Liberals holding strong in Central Canada; losing young voters
The Campaign Research poll shows the Liberals have lost any edge they may have had among young voters; those under the age of 35 were one percentage point more likely to say they would vote Conservative if an election were held now (34 versus 33 per cent support). The Liberals had a three percentage point edge in support from Canadians aged 35 to 44 and among those 65 and over (34 versus 31 per cent, and 38 versus 35 per cent, respectively), while other age categories were either even or one point stronger for the Conservatives.
  
The Liberals held an edge among female respondents, 36 per cent of whom indicated they would support the Liberal Party right now, versus 33 per cent for the Conservatives and 17 per cent for the NDP. In contrast, more men supported the Conservatives, at 35 per cent, than the Liberals, at 32 per cent, or any other party.

The Liberals had healthy leads among respondents from Atlantic Canada, Quebec, and Ontario, while the Conservatives had large leads among respondents from the Prairies, British Columbia, and Alberta.

Liberal defectors evenly split

Sixty-eight per cent of those who said they voted Liberal in the 2015 election indicated they would do so again if another election were held now, according to the poll. About 12 per cent of them said they would now vote Conservative, and 11 per cent NDP.

  
The Conservatives have managed to hold onto 86 per cent of those who voted for them in the last election, but the NDP was even worse off than the Liberals, with only 65 per cent of respondents indicating they would still vote NDP. The New Democrats bled the most support to the Liberals, at 15 per cent. Green voters were even less likely to still vote Green, with only 47 per cent indicating support for the party now, and 17 per cent suggesting support for the Liberals. The Bloc held 80 per cent of its prior support.

The Campaign Research poll also included some conflicting results about how Canadians view Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. More Canadians (46 per cent) disapprove of the job Mr. Trudeau is doing as prime minister than approve (39 per cent), while the opposite is true for interim Conservative Leader Rona Ambrose—36 per cent approve, 29 per cent disapprove, 35 per cent don’t know—and interim NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair, at 41 per cent approval versus 33 per cent disapproval, while 27 percent don’t know.

However, Mr. Trudeau trounced his rivals when voters were asked who would make the best prime minister of Canada, winning 31 per cent support versus 14 for Ms. Ambrose, and 11 for Mr. Mulcair. Twenty-two per cent indicated none of the current party leaders would make the best prime minister.

Mr. Yufest said he attributed that contrast to the fact that many Canadians know Ms. Ambrose and Mr. Mulcair are interim leaders, and unlikely to be prime minister anytime soon.

The automated telephone poll sampled 1,457 Canadian voters, was weighted to be representative of Canada’s population, and has a margin of error of plus or minus three per cent, 19 times out of 20, according to Campaign Research. Subsets such as gender, age, and region, have higher margins of error.


----------



## Remius (9 Feb 2017)

I honestly believe that if Rona Ambrose were to run she would give the Prime Minister a run for his money.  Possibly leaving him or her in a minority situation.  Unfortunately the current leadership gong show for the CPC will likely give them a leader that will not be able to do what I think she can.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 Feb 2017)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> It's not Quebec bashing, it is taxpayer bashing the Liberal government for again, and again giving money to a privately owned company with no return. Please provide details of the loan repayments to Canada.



I've posted a couple of times about this before, you can search if interested.You're all discussing the news story. That's what they want. You have to go down deeper.

You have take a pretty good look at Power Corporation. The names of the players and their extensive holdings world wide where Canada has large monetary interests.

Bombardier is grey. They'll say it isn't part of PC but both have many, if not most, of the same people in the key positions.

Both the liberals and the conservatives recieve largesse from both PC and BB. Look at how many of our politicians have, or do, work for both corps. The cross marriages within are like alliances in a small kingdom. A kingdom that controls almost all  of our insurance companies large interests in financial institutions, natural resources and such more. In Canada and out. Lke China, where we have great partnerships negotiated by our politicians who work(ed) for PCBB, who got the overseas contracts.

Look at it like a triangle. One side Power Corp, one Bombardier and the third the GoC. All three support each other equally and financially and are simply moving the money a round. Our tax money, that they invest, use for projects, whatever. They don't pay back the loans. Taxpayers are just another revenue stream.😩😥

Edit for spellng


----------



## Good2Golf (10 Feb 2017)

:goodpost:

...and Bombardier is the shorter/smaller side of that triangle.  

Power Corp. is capitalized at almost half a trillion dollars and manages and administers over two trillion dollars (that's $2,000,000,000,000+!)...its annual revenues alone are more than twice Canada's defence budget.  

If one were to look up "influence" in the Canadian version of Websters Dictionary, the definition would say, "See Power Corporation Canada."  :nod:

Regards
G2G


----------



## a_majoor (11 Feb 2017)

Evidently people might not like the man, but are interested in results. Remember the Brexit, rise of the Front National, AfD and other nationalist parties and the election of Donald Trump were ultimately powered by the disconnect between the political, bureaucratic, media and academic class and he taxpayers, not to mention the dismal disconnect between the rhetoric of the politicians and their enablers and results on the ground. Could Canada see a "Trumpening"? The conditions are aligning in the direction:

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/canadians-deeply-dislike-trump-but-prefer-him-to-trudeau-on-economy-security-poll



> *Canadians deeply dislike Trump, but prefer him to Trudeau on economy, security: poll*
> David Akin | February 8, 2017 | Last Updated: Feb 9 9:36 AM ET
> More from David Akin | @davidakin
> 
> ...


----------



## Lightguns (14 Feb 2017)

Driving into Oromocto this morning (slowly I might add) and along the highway was; 1, 2, 3, and more rigs flatbedding a turretless LAV and a LAV with a turret with a soft recoil 105mm by the looks of the muzzle brake.  Total 15 trucks went by so loaded.  Guess we are filling our contract with the Wahhabis!


----------



## Loachman (14 Feb 2017)

One of the comments, regarding the first photograph in the article: "Is that a plant that he is laughing with?? A meeting of intellects, perhaps??"

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/john-ivison-trudeau-was-always-a-joke-to-the-right-he-should-worry-now-the-lefts-joined-in-the-laughter

John Ivison: Trudeau was always a joke to the right; he should worry now the left's joined in the laughter

John Ivison | February 10, 2017 | Last Updated: Feb 12 6:03 PM ET

The biggest issue facing indigenous youth is the lack of sheds to store their canoes, says Romeo Saganash, the Cree NDP member of parliament for the Quebec riding of Abitibi-Baie-James-Nunavik-Eeyou. He has written to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau calling for a National Canoe and Paddle Program to be included in the next budget.

It turns out that satire did not die when Henry Kissinger was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, as Tom Lehrer maintained. The great explosion of burlesque sparked by the election of Donald Trump appears to be seeping across the border - and the joke is on our prime minister.

In the letter, also posted on Facebook, Saganash says he was convinced about the efficacy of this great national endeavour by comments the prime minister made recently, quoting Trudeau as saying he had spoken with chiefs who told him they needed youth centres and TVs for their young people.

"And when a chief says that to me, I pretty much know they haven't actually talked to their young people because most young people I've talked to want a place to store their canoes and paddles, so they can connect back out on the land," Saganash's letter quotes Trudeau as saying.

Writes Saganash, "Who am I to argue with your recent comments that you know what is best for indigenous youth facing so many critical issues including a suicide epidemic?" The Cree MP then offers to paddle across the country to tell First Nations not to worry about the impact of projects like the Kinder Morgan pipeline that the Liberals have given the green light.

The right has long lampooned Trudeau for being too stupid, too callow, too entitled to be a successful prime minister. But Saganash's attack is much more devastating because it comes from the left, it mocks his arrogance, and it questions his principles.

Saganash writes, with dripping sarcasm, that he understands there may not be enough money for the federal government to meet its legal and moral obligation to indigenous youth. Despite Trudeau's rhetoric that his primary relationship is with aboriginal Canadians, and the money committed in the last budget, the charge is clear - this prime minister is a promise-breaker who cannot be trusted to keep his word.
This loss of faith in Trudeau by voters on the left was also evident during this week's visit to Iqaluit, where he was approached by a woman who asked him why he had killed his campaign promise on electoral reform.

"Proportional representation in any form would be bad for Canada," he replied, to the consternation of the woman who said she "very respectfully" disagreed.

That de facto defence of the status quo strikes a very different tone than the one the prime minister adopted right up until he decided to be flexible in the application of his commitment to reform. Anyone remember him saying, "We can have an electoral system that does a better job of reflecting the voices of Canadians from coast to coast to coast?"

On the plane on the way back from witnessing the Conservatives lose the last election, I wrote a column suggesting elation would inevitably give way to letdown. In those heady times, when the mood in many quarters was a triumphant mix of VE Day and the moon landing, it seemed scarcely possible. But finite resources and realpolitik mean that many on the left now hold our prime minister in the same contemptuous light as those on the right. That is evident in the opinion polls, where the NDP is gradually edging up from their doldrums by a point or two per month.

With his open-necked shirt and sleeves rolled up, unplugged and seated, as he tackles another interminable townhall, the prime minister comes across as a man of good intentions. Sadly for him, he is now being judged on results, not intentions.

These are strange, heady days. As the American wit Will Rogers said long before the advent of Donald Trump, people are now treating their comedians seriously and their politicians as a joke.


----------



## Loachman (15 Feb 2017)

Bombard's Body Language: Trump and Justin Trudeau Press Conference 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOvsfo0YRH4


----------



## a_majoor (15 Feb 2017)

Loachman said:
			
		

> One of the comments, regarding the first photograph in the article: "Is that a plant that he is laughing with?? A meeting of intellects, perhaps??"
> 
> http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/john-ivison-trudeau-was-always-a-joke-to-the-right-he-should-worry-now-the-lefts-joined-in-the-laughter
> 
> ...



Of course what is sad is it took so long people to see what was in front of them all along......


----------



## jmt18325 (15 Feb 2017)

Not many people thought that Trudeau was a joke in Washington the other day.  Not many people will think he's a joke in Europe tomorrow (tonight).  The far left and right?  Maybe.


----------



## jollyjacktar (15 Feb 2017)

If what I was reading was a good indicator of the PM's visit to Washington, most folks didn't know or care that he was there and as a matter of fact couldn't even remember his name.  If that isn't a giggle of jokiness, I don't know what might be.  We're not earth shaking in a global sense despite what we might imagine...


----------



## mariomike (15 Feb 2017)

He seemed to make a favourable impression with at least one individual.  
https://www.theguardian.com/media/shortcuts/2017/feb/15/pictures-of-swooning-ivanka-trump-and-justin-trudeau-go-viral


----------



## Fishbone Jones (15 Feb 2017)

She looks more amused with the man child than enamoured with him.


----------



## jmt18325 (16 Feb 2017)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> If what I was reading was a good indicator of the PM's visit to Washington, most folks didn't know or care that he was there and as a matter of fact couldn't even remember his name.



Canadians, on the other hand, were very happy with his performance.  Even most Conservatives were willing to openly say so.  I think it speaks to the partisanship on this website that people can't recognize a good even when it exists, and instead have to refer to the PM as a man child when he was exhibiting nothing like that.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 Feb 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Canadians, on the other hand, were very happy with his performance.  Even most Conservatives were willing to openly say so.  I think it speaks to the partisanship on this website that people can't recognize a good even when it exists, and instead have to refer to the PM as a man child when he was exhibiting nothing like that.



You a little butthurt bro? I respect the office, not the man child currently occupying it. And this time around, I have a healthy and virulent** hatred for the current Libranos Family.

Political correctness is not a law and I still operate on the sticks and stones adage.

I'm offended that you're offended. Try some cepacol. 

** - vir·u·lent: bitterly hostile.
"a virulent attack on liberalism"
synonyms:	vitriolic, malicious, malevolent, hostile, spiteful, venomous, vicious


----------



## Loachman (16 Feb 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Canadians, on the other hand, were very happy with his performance.



Not this Canadian.

This Canadian was embarrassed.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 Feb 2017)

:goodpost:

Another liberal trait. Presuming they are right and therefore speak for all. Including the 60% of Canadians that don't like, or didn't vote, for the liberals.

The other they use a lot is trying to shame and shun someone into silence by hoisting a false flag based on righteous indignation over mere words and inciting others to join the sheep herd to ostracize the individual.


----------



## Occam (16 Feb 2017)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Another liberal trait. Presuming they are right and therefore speak for all. Including the 60% of Canadians that don't like, or didn't vote, for the liberals.



I hear that statistic presented a lot.  I haven't seen stats on it specifically since the election, but at that time, Liberal supporters were most likely to have NDP as their second choice, while NDP supporters were most likely to have the Liberals as their second choice.  Conservative supporters were more likely to choose nobody as their second choice.  All of that to say that the portion of the political spectrum where the Liberals and NDP reside has a lot more popularity than the portion of the spectrum where the CPC resides.  I don't see that changing anytime soon with some of the characters who are running for leadership of the CPC.

I'm not happy with some of the things that the Liberals have/haven't done since taking office, but I'd still take my chances with NDP before putting a tick in the box of the CPC again, given the current slate of leadership contenders.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 Feb 2017)

Slice and dice it any way you wish. The fact stands that 60% didn't vote liberal.  :dunno:

Interesting observation though. Thanks.

However, election percentages aren't the point of the post.


----------



## Kat Stevens (16 Feb 2017)

Don't you know that "the majority didn't vote for Dude Dudenheim" is only relevant when the other guy didn't win?  ;D


----------



## Occam (16 Feb 2017)

Yup, I know election percentages weren't the point of the post, and I even qualified my response with "I haven't seen stats on it specifically since the election..." - but I suspect that not a lot has changed since then.  The CPC are still the outliers of the three on the Canadian political spectrum.  That will get even worse depending on who wins leadership of the party *cough cough Leitch O'Leary cough cough*.


----------



## Jarnhamar (16 Feb 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Canadians, on the other hand, were very happy with his performance.  Even most Conservatives were willing to openly say so.  I think it speaks to the partisanship on this website that people can't recognize a good even when it exists, and instead have to refer to the PM as a man child when he was exhibiting nothing like that.



Can you please cite the source you're using when you state Canadians were very happy (I'm presuming you're suggesting   majority here)  as well as a source that _ most_  Conservatives thought so as well?


----------



## Remius (16 Feb 2017)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Not this Canadian.
> 
> This Canadian was embarrassed.



I'm curious as to what was embarrassing about that trip.  Even conservative pundits hailed it as a success.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (16 Feb 2017)

Just to provide some perspective here: I like to watch the BBC World News to get a more "detached" perspective on the North American going ons, i.e. how the rest of the world sees our news.

The day of Trudeau's visit, it rated a 30 seconds spot that was mostly used to say that our two nations would reinforce trade, that Trump didn't screw up and the whole leading as a segway into a five minutes portion on Flynn's resignation. In the US media, it was about the same for overall coverage.

We should all breathe deeply, get off our high horses and come down to earth: On the planetary scale, nobody gives a crap about Canada except us.


----------



## jmt18325 (16 Feb 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Can you please cite the source you're using when you state Canadians were very happy (I'm presuming you're suggesting   majority here)  as well as a source that _ most_  Conservatives thought so as well?



Any Conservative I've heard from.  I was listening to Charles Adler. Both he and Ian Lee praised Trudeau's performance, as did all of the callers.  That isn't exactly a Liberal bastion.


----------



## jollyjacktar (16 Feb 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Any Conservative I've heard from.  I was listening to Charles Adler. Both he and Ian Lee praised Trudeau's performance, as did all of the callers.  That isn't exactly a Liberal bastion.



Well then, you've heard from some Conservatives here who aren't impressed.  I'm not a hard Con myself, but I have not heard much come from the PM as yet that has made me want to praise him.  So far, I am very much underwhelmed.


----------



## suffolkowner (16 Feb 2017)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Well then, you've heard from some Conservatives here who aren't impressed.  I'm not a hard Con myself, but I have not heard much come from the PM as yet that has made me want to praise him.  So far, I am very much underwhelmed.



Are we talking about just recently in Europe/US or since the election? If it's since the election than I am very much underwhelmed as well, but if it's just his recent trips to the US and Europe i must have missed something.


----------



## jollyjacktar (16 Feb 2017)

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> Are we talking about just recently in Europe/US or since the election? If it's since the election than I am very much underwhelmed as well, but if it's just his recent trips to the US and Europe i must have missed something.



Since Sunny Ways, Day 1's walk up towards Rideau Hall.


----------



## Remius (16 Feb 2017)

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> Are we talking about just recently in Europe/US or since the election? If it's since the election than I am very much underwhelmed as well, but if it's just his recent trips to the US and Europe i must have missed something.



You haven't missed a thing. 

Some conservatives here would still be underwhelmed if Trudeau cured cancer.  Just as some leftists would still think Harper was Satan even if he achieved world peace. 

If the right is upset and the left is upset, it sounds like something was done right.  

this trip was good for Canada. 

There is plenty to after Trudeau and his team about.  This and the CETA visit aren't one of them.


----------



## jollyjacktar (16 Feb 2017)

Remius said:
			
		

> You haven't missed a thing.
> 
> Some conservatives here would still be underwhelmed if Trudeau cured cancer.  Just as some leftists would still think Harper was Satan even if he achieved world peace.
> 
> ...



Don't kid yourself, I would love to be bowled over with delight in the PM, his and his government's performance.  So far, for me, there has been far more rain than sunshine and thus why I am underwhelmed to date.  His latest gaffs of "possible" conflict of ethics/interests with lobbyist's like Agha Khan, or cash for access etc don't make me smile.  I honestly don't give a shit about electoral reform, so I'm not going to stamp my feet and hold my breath like some folks are.


----------



## mariomike (16 Feb 2017)

Conflicts of personalities, and parties, aside, I find it funny - in a way - that if we lie to the government it's a crime. But, if they lie to us it's politics.  



			
				Remius said:
			
		

> Some conservatives here would still be underwhelmed if Trudeau cured cancer.  Just as some leftists would still think Harper was Satan even if he achieved world peace.


----------



## Loachman (16 Feb 2017)

Remius said:
			
		

> You haven't missed a thing.
> 
> Some conservatives here would still be underwhelmed if Trudeau cured cancer.  Just as some leftists would still think Harper was Satan even if he achieved world peace.
> 
> ...



My leanings are definitely Conservative, but with a strong Libertarian flavour. I have, over many decades, found much less with which to fault the Conservative Party and its various predecessors than I have found to fault the Liberal Party, but I have still found much more than I'd like.

I will apportion complaint to either, as I see fit, and credit where it is also due.

I have defended Trudeau here, before, and, more recently, in the comments section on a news article, because (in the latter case) no Prime Minister has the ability to interfere with every single thing done by every government agency in accordance with their regulations.

The meeting with Donald Trump was a "success" only because trade with Canada is in America's, and in particular a few key northern states', interests.

For those who have not watched the Youtube link that I provided a day or two ago, I suggest watching it. I check Bombard's Body Language fairly regularly. I have taken to doing so with the sound muted, and then watching a second time with sound on, to compare her (more detailed) analysis with mine. President Trump definitely appeared less than impressed with Trudeau. There is a major difference between their interests.

President Trump is focussed on rebuilding his country's economy and security (borders, Armed Forces, law enforcement etcetera). Trudeau is focussed on feminism, climate change windmill-tilting, refugees (in an opposite way to President Trump), and other squishy/frilly things.


----------



## mariomike (16 Feb 2017)

Loachman said:
			
		

> President Trump is focussed on rebuilding his country's economy and security (borders, Armed Forces, law enforcement etcetera). Trudeau is focussed on feminism, climate change windmill-tilting, refugees (in an opposite way to President Trump), and other squishy/frilly things.



The International Association of Firefighters and Paramedics ( 300,000 members as of 2012 ) refused to endorse either candidate in the 2016 US presidential election. 
https://www.statter911.com/2016/08/15/firefighters-union-will-not-endorse-trump-clinton/

They did however endorse PM Trudeau in the Canadian election.
https://www.facebook.com/IAFFCanada/photos/a.594193077284163.1073741829.581381598565311/1151703838199748/?type=3&theater


----------



## Kirkhill (16 Feb 2017)

This commentary from the Telegraph

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/16/era-political-shocks-proof-democracy-working-not-crisis/



> *The era of political shocks is proof that democracy is working, not that it is in crisis*
> 
> FRASER NELSON
> Fraser Nelson 16 FEBRUARY 2017 • 7:00PM
> ...



I am a democrat.  I believe in the rule of the majority.  I believe in the rule of the majority because I value stability - even as I value chaos.  And political stability only comes when the governed are not discomfited.

Stability is not stasis.  Stasis is rolling down a rut - fat, dumb and happy.  Stability is active control so as to manage whatever gets thrown at you.


----------



## Flavus101 (16 Feb 2017)

Good for the firefighters and paramedics!

Pray tell, was that decision unanimous down to the last 300,000th member?


----------



## mariomike (16 Feb 2017)

Flavus101 said:
			
		

> Good for the firefighters and paramedics!
> 
> Pray tell, was that decision unanimous down to the last 300,000th member?



IAFF Endorsement Philosophy
http://www.iaff.org/politics/FIREPAC/endorsementpolicy.html

The IAFF believes that every IAFF member has an absolute right to vote for the candidate that he or she feels best represents and embraces that individual’s views and political philosophy. No one, including your union, has a right to tell you how to vote.

The IAFF knows that its members are intelligent enough to review the history, positions and platform of each candidate and to make a decision based on that information. The IAFF will never criticize any member for his or her choice of candidate.  There are many issues that are important to all Americans – including IAFF members – beyond fire service and labor issues. Consequently, the IAFF respects its members’ right to vote for candidates who have not won the endorsement of the IAFF or your local affiliate.

However, the IAFF asks that its members respect the IAFF’s duty to make its endorsement based on fire service, employment and labor issues that directly affect our members.  This union views candidates through a very narrow focus.  Decisions are predicated on how candidates stand on fire fighter and labor issues such as collective bargaining rights, protection of fair labor standards (FLSA) and overtime rights, pay fairness and equity for federal fire fighters, presumption of disability for federal fire fighters, funding for first responder initiatives, full funding of the FIRE and SAFER programs, protection of pension and social security benefits, and protection and extension of health care benefits for active and retired members to name a few.  These are the types of issues that IAFF FIREPAC will base its decision on when deciding whether or not to support a candidate.  IAFF FIREPAC does not and will not base its decisions on issues such as Second Amendment rights, reproductive rights, the environment or other social issues that many of our members hold firm beliefs about.

The IAFF has one mission: to improve the lives and livelihoods of professional fire fighters. This union is an advocacy group similar to the NRA, Christian Coalition, Sierra Club, Chamber of Commerce, National League of Cities, etc. Its range of issues is very specific. No one expects the NRA to base endorsements on fire fighter bargaining rights.  Likewise, no one expects the Christian Coalition to base its support of candidates on funding the FIRE or SAFER Acts.  Consequently, no one should expect the IAFF to base its endorsement on anything other than its specific set of issues.  

While you may personally disagree with an IAFF endorsement and believe that another candidate better represents your own viewpoint, please be mindful that the IAFF endorsement is about the candidate’s stance on fire service and labor issues.

In any union, association or even political party, when an organization endorses a particular candidate or a specific position on any issue, not everyone who is a member is in agreement. People are entitled to disagree and express their own opinions.   
Politics within the IAFF is an issue of mutual respect. The IAFF respects its members’ right to vote for whomever they choose.  Please respect the IAFF’s right to endorse candidates, regardless of party, who have demonstrated their support for the IAFF and professional fire fighters. The IAFF also respects the right of state associations and individual affiliates to endorse the candidate that they believe best represents the views of their membership at the state and local level.


----------



## Jarnhamar (16 Feb 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Any Conservative I've heard from.  I was listening to Charles Adler. Both he and Ian Lee praised Trudeau's performance, as did all of the callers.  That isn't exactly a Liberal bastion.



Oh,  a couple people you listened to and some Conservatives you spoke with.  My bad,  you're original statement sounded like you were speaking about a lot more people. 

I watched a bit of the meeting.  I find it hilarious that people try and elevate everything Trudeau does into some kind of brilliant award winning performance. The constant attempts to praise anytning and everything he does reminds me of North Korean propaganda videos.   

The link Loachman posted is great. Take a watch if you haven't.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 Feb 2017)

Had a big honking post about Political Correctness, Free Speech, the difference between the left and right.

Canned it. It's almost Friday and I didn't want to wreck the weekend for any SJWs.

See? Us Deplorables DO have a heart.  [


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 Feb 2017)

mariomike said:
			
		

> The International Association of Firefighters and Paramedics ( 300,000 members as of 2012 ) refused to endorse either candidate in the 2016 US presidential election.
> https://www.statter911.com/2016/08/15/firefighters-union-will-not-endorse-trump-clinton/
> 
> They did however endorse PM Trudeau in the Canadian election.
> https://www.facebook.com/IAFFCanada/photos/a.594193077284163.1073741829.581381598565311/1151703838199748/?type=3&theater



I don't see the point of your post. Sorry.

What I do see, is that unions should stay out of politics.


----------



## Jarnhamar (16 Feb 2017)

[quote author=recceguy]

What I do see, is that unions should stay out of politics.
[/quote]

Yup.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/liberals-take-first-step-towards-repealing-tory-bill-that-would-force-unions-to-disclose-financial-records


> *Liberals take first step towards repealing Tory bill that would force unions to disclose financial records*


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 Feb 2017)

Even as an ordinary union member, you will never, ever see a full financial disclosure. You may get to see a financial statement from your local bargaining unit of what they are doing, but unless you're on the national executive, you will never see what they do with your money.

So of course the liberals want to get rid of it. They'll likely get a few million in surprise cash come election time, from their grateful union execs.


----------



## ModlrMike (16 Feb 2017)

Can you say Third Party Financing?


----------



## jmt18325 (16 Feb 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Oh,  a couple people you listened to and some Conservatives you spoke with.




So, do you have evidence to the contrary?  The Conservative Party even supported what he was doing there, and had nothing bad to say.  

There are enough actual bad things you can find about Trudeau without people inventing things.


----------



## jmt18325 (16 Feb 2017)

Loachman said:
			
		

> For those who have not watched the Youtube link that I provided a day or two ago, I suggest watching it. I check Bombard's Body Language fairly regularly. I have taken to doing so with the sound muted, and then watching a second time with sound on, to compare her (more detailed) analysis with mine. President Trump definitely appeared less than impressed with Trudeau. There is a major difference between their interests.



For what it's worth, I'm sure the feeling was mutual.  Feelings aren't as important as results.  



> President Trump is focussed on rebuilding his country's economy and security (borders, Armed Forces, law enforcement etcetera). Trudeau is focussed on feminism, climate change windmill-tilting, refugees (in an opposite way to President Trump), and other squishy/frilly things.



This is hyperbolic partisan nonsense.  Trump has no plan and hasn't had any results (I'm willing to give him time).  Trudeau has delivered on far more than the things you give him credit for (not that any of those things are unimportant, as you've attempted to paint them).


----------



## Jarnhamar (16 Feb 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> So, do you have evidence to the contrary?  The Conservative Party even supported what he was doing there, and had nothing bad to say.
> 
> There are enough actual bad things you can find about Trudeau without people inventing things.



Sorry JMT you can't say "most Conservatives" without some type of solid source. It's like me saying most Liberals want to drink Trudeaus bath water. It certainly looks that way to me but I realize how unscientific that ratio is.


----------



## jmt18325 (16 Feb 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Sorry JMT you can't say "most Conservatives" without some type of solid source. It's like me saying most Liberals want to drink Trudeaus bath water. It certainly looks that way to me but I realize how unscientific that ratio is.



I can't prove it's most Conservatives - you're right.  It's certainly true of most Conservatives I've heard from on the matter (all of them, until I logged into this website).


----------



## jollyjacktar (16 Feb 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I can't prove it's most Conservatives - you're right.  It's certainly true of most Conservatives I've heard from on the matter (all of them, until I logged into this website).



There, that's much better and a more precise account of your personal experience of interacting with the right.  No generalizations.  Didn't hurt a bit too, I'll bet.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (17 Feb 2017)

We really have to get video conferencing. Hell, I'll pay the shot.

It'll be worth it to see the heads explode when I post.





			
				jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I can't prove it's most Conservatives - you're right.  It's certainly true of most Conservatives I've heard from on the matter (all of them, until I logged into this website).


 :backpedalling:


----------



## Jarnhamar (17 Feb 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> It's certainly true of most Conservatives I've heard from on the matter (*all of them, until I logged into this website*).



I hear you dude. This place is a real wretched hive of scum and villainy.


----------



## The Bread Guy (17 Feb 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I hear you dude. This place is a real wretched hive of scum and villainy.


So young to be so cynical ...  ;D


----------



## jmt18325 (17 Feb 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I hear you dude. This place is a real wretched hive of scum and villainy.



No, just partisanship.


----------



## Loachman (17 Feb 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> This is hyperbolic partisan nonsense.



If, by "hyperbolic partisan nonsense", you mean "reality", then I agree.



			
				jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Trump has no plan



Do not be too sure about that. It's not like he's been underestimated once or twice before.



			
				jmt18325 said:
			
		

> hasn't had any results (I'm willing to give him time).



Wait for it. The foundations are being laid.



			
				jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Trudeau has delivered on far more than the things you give him credit for



You're right. I'm sorry. I forgot about the projected deficit. That's going to be _much_ more impressive than promised.

Anything else?



			
				jmt18325 said:
			
		

> (not that any of those things are unimportant, as you've attempted to paint them).



Yes, they are unimportant, other than the "climate change fighting", which will achieve nothing beyond destroying people's jobs and pushing them closer to poverty as we enter a period of reduced solar activity and its attendant cooling phase. And, now that the photo op is over, interest in refugees seems to have been lost and intake reduced.


----------



## Jarnhamar (17 Feb 2017)

[quote author=Loachman]

You're right. I'm sorry. I forgot about the projected deficit. That's going to be _much_ more impressive than promised.

[/quote]
What's the big deal about the deficit?



> Justin Trudeau says a Liberal government won't balance the books for three straight years but will double spending on infrastructure to jump-start economic growth.
> 
> *The Liberal fiscal plan would see "a modest short-term deficit" of less than $10 billion for each of the first three years  and then a balanced budget by the 2019-2020 fiscal year.*


----------



## Jarnhamar (17 Feb 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> No, just partisanship.



And it's a good thing too, otherwise you might have passed us on by  ;D


----------



## Fishbone Jones (17 Feb 2017)

> Justin Trudeau says a Liberal government won't balance the books for three straight years but will double spending on infrastructure to jump-start economic growth.
> 
> The Liberal fiscal plan would see "a modest short-term deficit" of less than $10 billion for each of the first three years  and then a balanced budget by the 2019-2020 fiscal year.



No other words needed. Unmitigated liars.


----------



## jollyjacktar (17 Feb 2017)

He sounds more and more just like dear old Dad when it comes to the military and commitments.    :not-again:



> Trudeau says Canada one of NATO's 'strongest actors' without committing more money
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-angela-merkel-germany-1.3987562


----------



## Loachman (17 Feb 2017)

recceguy said:
			
		

> No other words needed. Unmitigated liars.



"'a modest short-term deficit' of less than $10 billion for each of the first three years and then a balanced budget by the 2019-2020 fiscal year"?

We should be so lucky:

http://globalnews.ca/news/3000667/canada-expected-to-run-bigger-deficit-than-trudeau-budgeted-td-bank/

Canada’s federal deficit could be much higher than Justin Trudeau’s government projected, according to a new report from Toronto Dominion Bank.

TD Bank says it could be as high as $34 billion...

<snip>

When the Liberals unveiled the federal budget in March, they projected a $29.4-billion deficit in 2016-17, followed by a $29-billion shortfall the following year and almost $23 billion in 2018-19.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/decades-deficits-morneau-1.3923060

Decades of deficits could be ahead for Canada, federal analysis warns

Finance Department report says the federal debt could double to $1.5 trillion by 2050-51

Federal numbers released quietly by the Trudeau government late last month are painting a bleak picture of Canada's financial future - one filled with decades of deficits.

The report, published on the Finance Department website two days before Christmas, predicts that, barring any policy changes, the federal government could be on track to run annual shortfalls until at least 2050-51.

If such a scenario plays out, the document says the federal debt could climb past $1.55 trillion by that same year - more than double its current level.


----------



## Jarnhamar (17 Feb 2017)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Finance Department report says the federal debt could double to $1.5 trillion by 2050-51
> 
> Federal numbers released quietly by the Trudeau government late last month are painting a bleak picture of Canada's financial future - one filled with decades of deficits.


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Feb 2017)

This is slightly off topic, but please bear with me ...

We are having an important election in Hong Kong, too. One of the major differences between our election, here in HK, and the most recent one in Canada might be the quality of our candidates: imagine, if youcan, that the Clerk of the Privy Council and some who is a combination of the Deputy Minister of Finance and thr Secretary of the Treasury Board ~ absolutley outstanding people of high intellect, great expertize in government and finance and unimpeachable repute ~ were the candidates: they are, here. Imagine, also, if the whole world was watching your election with great interest ...

Anyway that's the case here but it is hard to stay focused because, you see, it's mid-February and the teens and 20_somethings_ have declared that spring is here ...


----------



## Jarnhamar (18 Feb 2017)

Slightly off topic too- I'm pretty disgusted with the Conservatives dishonest online campaign to smear the liberals about taking away the tax break/danger pay from Cf members in Kuwait. 

It sucks that our brothers and sisters there are losing that benefit,  and maybe any deployed soldier should be tax exempt, but the way it's being painted by the Conservatives and especially Rona Ambrose is dishonest and misleading. 

There's a lot of CF members who are chiming in and pointing out how it's dishonest and incorrect,  who are either being ignored completely or called out as liberal spies and the typical barrage of insults.    

The liberals aren't putting a "new tax on Cf members which is costing them and extra $9000 taking food out of their kids mouth" ,  which is what the Conservatives are pitching.   Conservatives should be better than that. 

*spelling


----------



## ballz (18 Feb 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Slightly off topic too- I'm pretty disgusted with the Conservatives dishonest online campaign to smear the liberals about taking away the tax break/danger pay from Cf members in Kuwait.
> 
> It sucks that our brothers and sisters altheas are losing that benefit,  and maybe any deployed soldier should be tax exemt, but the way it's being painted by the Conservatives and especially Rona Ambrose is dishonest and misleading.
> 
> ...



The sooner we accept that a party's interest in the CAF is limited to self-interests, the sooner we can be fulfilled with happiness. For the governing party we're just a liability and for the opposition we're just an opportunity, this historic fact is blind to colours.


----------



## jollyjacktar (18 Feb 2017)

I agree, we're pawns, nothing more.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (18 Feb 2017)

ballz said:
			
		

> The sooner we accept that a party's interest in the CAF is limited to self-interests, the sooner we can be fulfilled with happiness. For the governing party we're just a liability and for the opposition we're just an opportunity, this historic fact is blind to colours.



Is that like finally accepting the love bestowed upon us by Big Brother?  ;D


----------



## mariomike (18 Feb 2017)

ballz said:
			
		

> The sooner we accept that a party's interest in the CAF is limited to self-interests, the sooner we can be fulfilled with happiness. For the governing party we're just a liability and for the opposition we're just an opportunity, this historic fact is blind to colours.



O it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, go away";
    But it's "Thank you, Mister Atkins", when the band begins to play,
    The band begins to play, my boys, the band begins to play,
    O it's "Thank you, Mister Atkins", when the band begins to play.


----------



## Brad Sallows (18 Feb 2017)

>What's the big deal about the deficit?

Nothing, yet.  It was no big deal in the mid/late '70s earlier.  Circumstances can change.  If you have no deficit, then you have more fiscal freedom of manoeuvre to deal with events.

Trudeau undoubtedly has some accomplishments.  But with respect to CETA, TPP, and even Trump's desire to reopen NAFTA, all Trudeau has to do is not put his foot into any of them.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (18 Feb 2017)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> He sounds more and more just like dear old Dad when it comes to the military and commitments.    :not-again:



Or Dear Old Harper, who also over-promised, and then dramatically under-delivered


----------



## OldSolduer (18 Feb 2017)

ballz said:
			
		

> The sooner we accept that a party's interest in the CAF is limited to self-interests, the sooner we can be fulfilled with happiness. For the governing party we're just a liability and for the opposition we're just an opportunity, this historic fact is blind to colours.


There is NO political party willing to look out for the CAF. The public, while they love the CAF in times of need are an orphan to be "seen and not heard" in times when they are not needed. The CAF is vilified when a very few commit horrific acts but sure are the belle of the ball when someone needs a flood controlled or some snow shoveled. (Who can forget dunderhead Mayor Mel?). Face it, the public doesn't give a rat's butt about defence.
The CDS was bang on when he called the press out for their biased reporting.


----------



## mariomike (18 Feb 2017)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> (Who can forget dunderhead Mayor Mel?).



I worked for Mayor Lastman for five years. I liked him. As far as helping clear the snow, all I can say is that as a paramedic I was grateful to the soldiers. 

New York City calls the National Guard during snow emergencies. NYC gets sued for civilian deaths when they do not ask for outside help when required.

Metro has only reached out once.

I remember what Mayor Lastman said about Mayor Ford ( voted for him :facepalm: but did not work for him. )

“I'm not a genius, obviously, but he makes me look like one."   



			
				Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> The public, while they love the CAF in times of need are an orphan to be "seen and not heard" in times when they are not needed.



As far as the military is concerned, would you say Rudyard Kipling had it about right in "Tommy" one-hundred or so years ago?


----------



## Loachman (18 Feb 2017)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Or Dear Old Harper, who also over-promised, and then dramatically under-delivered



There is a key difference, though.

Liberals have always underfunded and neglected. They have never really pretended otherwise. That is one of the very few things about which they are honest.

Both Stephen Harper and, before him, Brian Mulroney underfunded and neglected, but acted like our best buddies and built up hope before, Lucy-like, pulling the football back as Charlie Brown began his kick.

The end result is always the same, save the sense of betrayal left by Conservatives.


----------



## ballz (18 Feb 2017)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Is that like finally accepting the love bestowed upon us by Big Brother?  ;D



Just much easier to be happy if you have no expectations that constantly lead to disappointment  :nod:


----------



## jollyjacktar (18 Feb 2017)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Or Dear Old Harper, who also over-promised, and then dramatically under-delivered



I'm with Loach on this.  Dear o'Dad, didn't promise shit and delivered same unless put up against the wall with a cigarette and blindfold as he was in his early days and wanting to pull out of NATO.

Both Harper and Mulroney made promises, fucked us over and left us with a bad case of blue balls.  I suppose being let down time and time again by someone who claimed to be your friend is the cruelest cut of all.  The Liberals never pretended to be your friend and you knew they really weren't.


----------



## Loachman (18 Feb 2017)

And the other thing that both Stephen Harper and Brian Mulroney did during their betrayal phases was to distract with frivolities - no money for ammunition, fuel, or other operational matters, but plenty for dress uniforms, rank insignia changes, re-namings, and all of the associated madness that those triggered.


----------



## Jarnhamar (18 Feb 2017)

Loachman said:
			
		

> And the other thing that both Stephen Harper and Brian Mulroney did during their betrayal phases was to distract with frivolities - no money for ammunition, fuel, or other operational matters, but plenty for dress uniforms, rank insignia changes, re-namings, and all of the associated madness that those triggered.



I'm not smart enough to know better but how much of the buttons and badges would have been Harper and how much our dress-up obsessed military?


----------



## jollyjacktar (18 Feb 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I'm not smart enough to know better but how much of the buttons and badges would have been Harper and how much our dress-up obsessed military?



OK, OK you caught me.  Ever since I arrived in Ottawa, I've secretly been trying to float the idea of making us all look like Sky Marshalls of the Mobile Infantry.


----------



## Loachman (18 Feb 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I'm not smart enough to know better but how much of the buttons and badges would have been Harper and how much our dress-up obsessed military?



That was government, goaded on by a couple of connected twits. There's a long, painful thread wherein that was hashed out.


----------



## Rifleman62 (18 Feb 2017)

> There's a long, painful thread wherein that was hashed out.





> That was government, goaded on by a couple of connected twits.


 Nothing has changed except there are more and more twits.


----------



## George Wallace (18 Feb 2017)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Nothing has changed except there are more and more twits.



More and more twits is not the precise terminology......More and more twits with some form of credentials, would be more like it.  That is not saying that those credentials really would have to hold any water if closely examined.

And we are back to the 18th Century Gentry buying officer positions in the British armed forces.... [:'(


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Feb 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> More and more twits is not the precise terminology......More and more twits with some form of credentials, would be more like it.  That is not saying that those credentials really would have to hold any water if closely examined.
> 
> And we are back to the 18th Century Gentry buying officer positions in the British armed forces.... [:'(



How different is that to hiring Private Security Companies?


----------



## The Bread Guy (18 Feb 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Slightly off topic too- I'm pretty disgusted with the Conservatives dishonest online campaign to smear the liberals about taking away the tax break/danger pay from Cf members in Kuwait.
> 
> It sucks that our brothers and sisters there are losing that benefit,  and maybe any deployed soldier should be tax exempt, but the way it's being painted by the Conservatives and especially Rona Ambrose is dishonest and misleading.


Political Spin 101 -- all parties do it.  Make the strongest possible case (even if you have to ignore some bits) for your side, make the worst possible case (even if you have to ignore some bits) for the other side.  Just like reading media with the question, "what are they not including?  why?" in mind, it's always good to apply the same filters to info-machine/political communications, no matter what colour jersey.


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Feb 2017)

Loachman said:
			
		

> There is a key difference, though.
> 
> Liberals have always underfunded and neglected. They have never really pretended otherwise. That is one of the very few things about which they are honest.
> 
> ...




Maybe it's an age thing, but you're wrong. After World War II it was Liberals, especially Louis St Laurent, who developed and implemented a real ~ our first and only ~ coherent, interest based grand strategy and designed, developed and paid for the "right sized," "right shaped" armed forces to support it. 

It was a Conservative, Diefenbaker, who began the nasty habit of misusing the military for partisan purposes ~ Pierre Trudeau just built on '_Dief The Chief_'s' model. Mike Pearson ushered in the fiasco of integration/unification (unification ~ joint forces was good, integration ~ "jolly green jumper" was nonsense) primarily in an effort to find ways to _*afford*_ the defences he knew Canada needed.

Anyway, in this debate Liberal ≠ bad and Conservative ≠ good; both ≈ only interested in selves.


----------



## Good2Golf (18 Feb 2017)

^ this.

By way of example, modern Conservatives have yet to buy a fighter jet.  It was actually Trudeau who bought the CF-18s.

#inconvenientCanadianpoliticalfacts

Regards
G2G


----------



## Loachman (18 Feb 2017)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Maybe it's an age thing



Yes, I suppose that it is. I was referring to my direct observations during my time in - my definition of "recent history". Perhaps I should have defined this earlier.



			
				Good2Golf said:
			
		

> By way of example, modern Conservatives have yet to buy a fighter jet.



How does one define "modern Conservative"? The Diefenbaker government bought the CF101s and CF104s. Liberals have yet to buy large jet transports.



			
				Good2Golf said:
			
		

> It was actually Trudeau who bought the CF-18s.



And the Leopard 1s, but not because they really wanted to.

My point still stands, I believe - both have performed equally, but only one pretends to really care, loves CADPAT AR photo backdrops, promises lots, and then reneges.


----------



## Good2Golf (19 Feb 2017)

Loachman said:
			
		

> How does one define "modern Conservative"? The Diefenbaker government bought the CF101s and CF104s. Liberals have yet to buy large jet transports.



I use post-unification as a 'modern' marker.




			
				Loachman said:
			
		

> And the Leopard 1s, but not because they really wanted to.



Oh, so the Liberals did buy major combatant systems, CF-18s, Leopards and Destroyers...but "not because they wanted to"...one could ask, "So what?  At least the CF receive those new major combat systems."  Your pseudo-point is moot.



			
				Loachman said:
			
		

> *I think m*y point still stands, I believe - both have performed equally, but only one pretends to really care, loves CADPAT AR photo backdrops, promises lots, and then reneges.



There, FTFY.  So "pretending to care" is better than "pragmatically investing?" ???

Regards
G2G


----------



## jmt18325 (20 Feb 2017)

From the Globe and Mail

Since Mr. Trump’s election, Mr. Mulroney and former Canadian ambassador to Washington Derek Burney have acted as informal advisers on how to handle the Republican-led Congress and the Trump White House and cabinet secretaries.

A source said the President’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, has said in private that the White House has found it easy and professional to work with Mr. Trudeau’s team of advisers that include principal secretary Gerald Butts, chief of staff Katie Telford and Canadian Ambassador to the United States David MacNaughton.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/mulroney-receives-warm-welcome-at-trumps-mar-a-lago/article34085505/

It seems like Trudeau is pretty on top of all of this.  Throw in an extra couple of billion for defence (something they've already hinted is coming) and Trump won't have all that much to complain about.


----------



## The Bread Guy (22 Feb 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> ... *Throw in an extra couple of billion for defence* (something they've already hinted is coming) and Trump won't have all that much to complain about.


If Team Blue didn't do the bit in yellow with a majority, Team Red's far less likely to.

In other political stuff, let the by-election campaigns begin!


> The Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, today announced that by-elections will be held on April 3, 2017, in the following four electoral districts:
> 
> Saint-Laurent, Quebec
> Markham—Thornhill, Ontario
> ...


And let's not forget the Ottawa-Vanier by-election also coming up 3 April.
op:


----------



## Remius (22 Feb 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> From the Globe and Mail
> 
> Since Mr. Trump’s election, Mr. Mulroney and former Canadian ambassador to Washington Derek Burney have acted as informal advisers on how to handle the Republican-led Congress and the Trump White House and cabinet secretaries.
> 
> ...



And I suspect this has the anti-Trudeau/lib pro Trump side a bit ruffled.  Some were hoping for some sort of smack down and really don't want them to get along.  Instead they get along.  Who knew?


----------



## Lightguns (22 Feb 2017)

Remius said:
			
		

> And I suspect this has the anti-Trudeau/lib pro Trump side a bit ruffled.  Some were hoping for some sort of smack down and really don't want them to get along.  Instead they get along.  Who knew?



Actually I think the Trollservatives on twitter were looking for the smack down.  My conservative friends (who are mostly centrists) figured that two trust babies living on narcissism developed for them by their fan base and fed to them by their silver spoons would find a lot of common ground.  Both are in it for themselves......


----------



## George Wallace (22 Feb 2017)

Are we sure this isn't a case of those "false news" or "alternative facts"?   [

Meanwhile some will gloat.   [


----------



## Scott (22 Feb 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Are we sure this isn't a case of those "false news" or "alternative facts"?   [
> 
> Meanwhile some will gloat.   [



Why shouldn't they? You've been doing plenty of gloating and/or whining since the fall of 2015. Many have been wrong about the PM and POTUS formation of a relationship, and I am sure there would have been gleeful posts here if it had have crashed and burned. Plenty of tut tutting and I told you so moments.


----------



## Journeyman (22 Feb 2017)

Remius said:
			
		

> Instead they get along.  Who knew?


 Mutual interest in hair products; it can bridge ideological gaps.


----------



## Remius (22 Feb 2017)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Mutual interest in hair products; it can bridge ideological gaps.



Bomb Syria with Vidal Sassoon. problem solved.


----------



## George Wallace (22 Feb 2017)

Scott said:
			
		

> Why shouldn't they? You've been doing plenty of gloating and/or whining since the fall of 2015. Many have been wrong about the PM and POTUS formation of a relationship, and I am sure there would have been gleeful posts here if it had have crashed and burned. Plenty of tut tutting and I told you so moments.



Where are your emojis?  Eh?


----------



## Jarnhamar (22 Feb 2017)

According to Ashley Judd  emojis are racist.


----------



## jmt18325 (22 Feb 2017)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> If Team Blue didn't do the bit in yellow with a majority, Team Red's far less likely to.



Team Blue did that.  The problem is that they took it all back.

The Liberals are doing whatever they can to appease Trump.  Getting to the 20% equipment expenditure with ~$1.5B per is a small price to pay for our trading relationship.


----------



## Scott (22 Feb 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Where are your emojis?  Eh?



Oh yeah. Forgot that. If you post in Radio Chatter, or, apparently, with emojis, then you don't really mean what you really mean. Ri-ight?


----------



## dapaterson (22 Feb 2017)

Scott said:
			
		

> Oh yeah. Forgot that. If you post in Radio Chatter, or, apparently, with emojis, then you don't really mean what you really mean. Ri-ight?



So, "You're an asshole" is insulting, while "You're an asshole  " is funny.


Got it.


----------



## Journeyman (22 Feb 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> According to Ashley Judd  emojis are racist.


And for my sins, I Googled it.   :brickwall:


----------



## Kirkhill (22 Feb 2017)

The reason why this Canadian is proud to be British.









> Forget Margaret Thatcher’s shoulder pads or Theresa May’s svelte dresses. Our Foreign Secretary offers a salutary lesson in power-dressing: act like you really, really do not care. On this score, Boris Johnson’s creative powers know no bounds. Artfully clad for jogging this week in a clinging polo shirt, squashed beany hat and baggy red boxer shorts straight out of a Carry On film, the foreign secretary has achieved a je-ne-sais-quoi that fashion experts can spend years pursuing. Move over, Sam Cam.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2017/02/22/toppling-statues-slave-traders-doesnt-redeem-britains-history/

Can't see any of your poncy Euro types going out for a run like that, now can you?  I like Boris.  [


----------



## The Bread Guy (23 Feb 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Team Blue did that.


Jog my memory, then - do you have a link showing how long Canada reached 2% GDP in defence spending during Team Blue's tenure?  World Bank says different ...


			
				Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Can't see any of your poncy Euro types going out for a run like that, now can you?  I like Boris.  [


BoJo certainly continues to be unique!


			
				Scott said:
			
		

> Oh yeah. Forgot that. If you post in Radio Chatter, or, apparently, with emojis, then you don't really mean what you really mean. Ri-ight?


#PlausibleDeniability  >


----------



## TCM621 (23 Feb 2017)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Jog my memory, then - do you have a link showing how long Canada reached 2% GDP in defence spending during Team Blue's tenure?  World Bank says different ...BoJo certainly continues to be unique!#PlausibleDeniability  >


They did throw a few billion our way during the Afghanistan years but we gave a lot of it back because we can't spend it. We peaked about 2009 at about 1.5. That data is telling because it has us right around 1990s levels and we had a lot of pretty new stuff in the 1990s. We still have most of the same ships and aircraft as we did back then. 

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## jmt18325 (23 Feb 2017)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Jog my memory, then - do you have a link showing how long Canada reached 2% GDP in defence spending during Team Blue's tenure?



I didn't claim that.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (23 Feb 2017)

You are right about the ships, tcm621, but it follows the standard pattern for the fleet since the inception of the IROQUOIS class, and believe it or not, if (and that is a big IF) the first SCSC does hit the water in 2020 as currently planned, the situation will not have gotten as bad as it had been by the time the HALIFAX's hit the fleet.

I have traced in the past, for my own purpose, the average age of the fleet major combat units (frigates and destroyers) year by year.

If we look at that average age in every four year blocks to shorten the list, starting in 1972 just before the IROQUOIS come into service, it looks like this:

Year:           Average Age:

1972            13 yrs
1976            13 1/2 yrs  (effect of the 4 IRO replacing the most aged (or damaged in one case) STL)
1980            18 yrs
1984            22 yrs
1988            26 yrs
1992            28 yrs (effect of the retirement of the 2 oldest STL so their crew can train up for HAL)
1996            13 yrs (HAL's mostly on line, but IRO's now 24 yrs old)
2000            12 yrs (all HAL's in the mix)
2004            16 yrs
2008            18 yrs (effect of the first IRO retirement)
2012            22 yrs
2016            23 yrs (effect of the next two IRO retirements)
2020            25 yrs (only the HAL's are left - this would be the status at receipt of first SCSC)

Assuming thereafter one SCSC in 2020, then 2 SCSC per year for seven years, with HAL's decommissioning one for one, the projection for the next two time periods would be:

2024            13 yrs
2028            4 1/2 yrs

You then start increasing the average by 4 yrs for each 4 year period, until new ships are brought in.

All this to say that, if we do start getting the new combatants by 2020 as promised, then the situation will not become as bad as it was at the beginning of the 90's, though getting close. Second point, since destroyers/frigates have a useful life of between 25 and 30 yrs, actually maintaining a fleet with an average age floating between 12 and 16 yrs, instead of playing yo-yo as we do, would be ideal. It would mean that the first SCSC replacement would have to start hitting the water in 2044, with a one unit per year build thereafter for 15 yrs, etc. etc. Or that you start earlier, say 2032, but with a new build every second year thereafter.


----------



## Halifax Tar (9 Mar 2017)

Shite like this makes it tough to be a conservative... 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/residential-school-system-well-intentioned-conservative-senator-1.4015115


----------



## FSTO (9 Mar 2017)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Shite like this makes it tough to be a conservative...
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/residential-school-system-well-intentioned-conservative-senator-1.4015115



The entire residential school system is a tragic mistake started by people who thought that they were solving the indian question. Were they racist? No doubt if you use today's standards, but back then it was a SOP. 
One thing that has bothered me from the start regarding residential school abuse is that was everyone involved? Did every single teacher and administrator rape each and every child in their care? I find that hard to believe, but then what do I know, I'm an older WASPish male.

Now I'm sure corporal punishment was pretty liberally used throughout the system because it was used pretty liberally on me during the years I went to school (66-79). Getting the strap, the yardstick rapped over your knuckles, thrown against the lockers, cuffed to the back of the head, yelled at, belittled for not knowing things, sent to the corner, etc etc happened to me and my classmates (99% of the time it was the boys) on a pretty regular basis. And I went to school during the "Liberal" Sixties!


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Mar 2017)

Residential Schools:

Eton
Harrow
Winchester
Rugby
Upper Canada College
Trinity College School
Lakefield


----------



## FSTO (9 Mar 2017)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Residential Schools:
> 
> Eton
> Harrow
> ...



Imagine the amount of rape, physical and mental abuse that went on in those places. Difference is that the parents of those boys had a choice. The indigenous parents didn't have much of the choice.


----------



## jollyjacktar (9 Mar 2017)

And the public school parents paid for the privilege and probably experienced it themselves too.


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Mar 2017)

FSTO said:
			
		

> Imagine the amount of rape, physical and mental abuse that went on in those places. Difference is that the parents of those boys had a choice. The indigenous parents didn't have much of the choice.



Agreed across the board.  But the state was acting in loco parentis.  It still sees fit so to act.


----------



## Halifax Tar (9 Mar 2017)

FSTO said:
			
		

> The entire residential school system is a tragic mistake started by people who thought that they were solving the indian question. Were they racist? No doubt if you use today's standards, but back then it was a SOP.
> One thing that has bothered me from the start regarding residential school abuse is that was everyone involved? Did every single teacher and administrator rape each and every child in their care? I find that hard to believe, but then what do I know, I'm an older WASPish male.
> 
> Now I'm sure corporal punishment was pretty liberally used throughout the system because it was used pretty liberally on me during the years I went to school (66-79). Getting the strap, the yardstick rapped over your knuckles, thrown against the lockers, cuffed to the back of the head, yelled at, belittled for not knowing things, sent to the corner, etc etc happened to me and my classmates (99% of the time it was the boys) on a pretty regular basis. And I went to school during the "Liberal" Sixties!



I am sure not all the people involved with those programs were as evil as has been reported, but it was a terrible thing to do to a culture either way.  And for a conservative senator to stand up in a public forum and say what she did shows just how out of touch some of my fellow conservatives really are.  And these people, if not muzzled, will continue to push us off into obscurity and irrelevance.


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 Mar 2017)

FSTO said:
			
		

> Imagine the amount of rape, physical and mental abuse that went on in those places. Difference is that the parents of those boys had a choice. The indigenous parents didn't have much of the any choice.


 :nod:


			
				Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Agreed across the board.  But the state was acting in loco parentis.  It still sees fit so to act.


For better, and worse -- then, and now.

Funny thing is said senator comes from a part of the world where she'd more than likely run into more than one or two First Nation folk on a regular basis.  :facepalm:

Meanwhile, _"The Conservative Party of Canada is distancing itself from remarks made this week by a Conservative senator who said negative reports of what happened at Canada’s Indian residential schools have overshadowed all of the “good things” that happened in the institutions ..."_


----------



## The Bread Guy (10 Mar 2017)

In other "great judgement in the Senate" news ...
_*"Ethics officer criticizes Senator Don Meredith over sexual relations with minor"*_
At least Team Blue was smart enough to kick this one out of caucus early on ... :facepalm:


----------



## The Bread Guy (11 Mar 2017)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> In other "great judgement in the Senate" news ...
> _*"Ethics officer criticizes Senator Don Meredith over sexual relations with minor"*_
> At least Team Blue was smart enough to kick this one out of caucus early on ... :facepalm:


And if you want to read the Senate Ethics Officer's report, it's right here.


----------



## jollyjacktar (11 Mar 2017)

Suddenly, Duffy doesn't seem like such a douchebag after all.  This guy does.


----------



## Brad Sallows (11 Mar 2017)

What gets missed in the heat produced by the history of residential schools is whether or not the schools were able to reliably deliver an education.  Those schools were founded with both good and bad motives.  They were founded in part - ironically - to remove children from abusive situations and ensure they got an education.  But they were also founded to enforce assimilation.

The worthwhile aspects do not outweigh the ill intentions and execution.  Nevertheless, it should still be permissible to talk about good as well as bad - of any matter.  Wronged people do not get to exercise a veto on what may or may not be discussed, and should be pushed back whenever they try to do so.

Politically, it's a foolish place to go, and it's unnecessary to go there.


----------



## George Wallace (11 Mar 2017)

As disgusting as this is, I have to wonder why the legal age of consent was dropped and why there is a tolerance for Child Brides developing in sympathy for a foreign culture(s)?


----------



## YZT580 (11 Mar 2017)

It is only the chattering classes who show sympathy for child brides.  Most people are disgusted but ignored.  Don't mistake Ottawa and the press for normal people.  That is what the dems in the U.S. did


----------



## a_majoor (11 Mar 2017)

While this is a US based example, it seems that the erosion of trust and "high trust" society is not just confined to the United States (as noted on a multitude of other threads, erosion of trust in governments and institutions is a pan Western thing, and most likely behind incidents like Brexit, the rise of nationalist parties like AfD and the election of President Trump). Rebuilding "high trust" societies is a very long term process, and at this point will require building entirely new institutions and social structures. Instapundit may have summed it up best with:


> NO, IT’S BECAUSE THEIR INSTITUTIONS HAVE BEEN TAKEN OVER BY CULTURAL ENEMIES



https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/03/03/americans-have-lost-faith-in-institutions-thats-not-because-of-trump-or-fake-news/?utm_term=.ae1cf29c22ee



> *Americans have lost faith in institutions. That’s not because of Trump or ‘fake news.’*
> Everything about modern life works against community and trust.
> By Bill Bishop
> March 3
> ...


----------



## Remius (11 Mar 2017)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> What gets missed in the heat produced by the history of residential schools is whether or not the schools were able to reliably deliver an education.  Those schools were founded with both good and bad motives.  They were founded in part - ironically - to remove children from abusive situations and ensure they got an education.  But they were also founded to enforce assimilation.
> 
> The worthwhile aspects do not outweigh the ill intentions and execution.  Nevertheless, it should still be permissible to talk about good as well as bad - of any matter.  Wronged people do not get to exercise a veto on what may or may not be discussed, and should be pushed back whenever they try to do so.
> 
> Politically, it's a foolish place to go, and it's unnecessary to go there.



No, brad, the overall goal was assimilation and cultural destruction.  It's not an also thing.  Education and removal from abusive situations were the excuses and justifications given to do this.  

The good can be discussed but it needs to be balanced with what actually happened and why the good needs to be placed in context.  An example would be to say that medical advances were made in leaps and bounds because of the holocaust.  Medical advances are indeed good but the cost and the acts to get there are not good nor should they be given any justification whatsoever. 

Victims most certainly have a right to tell people who don't have a clue to stfu.  In this case a white appointed politician lecturing everybody that they shouldn't just focus on the bad stuff and highlight the good stuff.  It was a foolish place to go and adds nothing to the discussion.


----------



## Jed (11 Mar 2017)

Remius said:
			
		

> No, brad, the overall goal was assimilation and cultural destruction.  It's not an also thing.  Education and removal from abusive situations were the excuses and justifications given to do this.
> 
> The good can be discussed but it needs to be balanced with what actually happened and why the good needs to be placed in context.  An example would be to say that medical advances were made in leaps and bounds because of the holocaust.  Medical advances are indeed good but the cost and the acts to get there are not good nor should they be given any justification whatsoever.
> 
> Victims most certainly have a right to tell people who don't have a clue to stfu.  In this case a white appointed politician lecturing everybody that they shouldn't just focus on the bad stuff and highlight the good stuff.  It was a foolish place to go and adds nothing to the discussion.



Remius, all you did there was say the same thing Brad said except you peppered it with a little more politically correct, liberal spin.


----------



## Remius (11 Mar 2017)

Jed said:
			
		

> Remius, all you did there was same the same thing Brad said except you peppered it with a little more politically correct, liberal spin.



Nope. I corrected the misconception that the residentially school system was in part to remove children from abusive situations.  It wasn't part of the plan.  It was a reason to justify the plan to assimilate.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (12 Mar 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> As disgusting as this is, I have to wonder why the legal age of consent was dropped and why there is a tolerance for Child Brides developing in sympathy for a foreign culture(s)?



The high age of consent that currently exists is a relatively modern phenomena. The reality is our body tells us when we are able to, the rest is peoples morals. Some modern nations have very low ages of consent and lack many of the problems related to this issue we currently face in our society (Japan being the prime example, with a age of consent of 13). 

It is a very difficult issue to tackle. From a moral standpoint most people agree with a higher age limit. From a practical standpoint we still have 15 year olds (and younger) screwing and getting pregnant anyways. Where do you draw the line? It also has other implications in particular with the rise of social media and online sharing, it has become significantly easier for child porn charges to be laid to minors, who use it to take and send photos and videos to their friends, and partners. Those aren't the predators lurking online trying to rape a 12 year old, those are kids who are making poor decisions and lacking the understanding of how poor the decisions are (and once they realize how poor they are can lead to things like suicide).

The real question you have to ask yourself is there really anything to be gained by having a higher age of consent? Say if it was 18 again, nothing is going to change (as people will keep screwing regardless) except more people will have their lives ruined (mainly youth 17 and younger) if someone decides to charge them with sexual assault (along with the added burden to the legal system, etc.).

In regards to child brides, I think it should be 18 to consent to marriage, though I accept the current laws in Canada on it (16 with parental permission). Anything younger is before the individuals involved have had time to really come to their own conclusions (i.e. the parents making the decision for them instead of them coming to their own conclusions).


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 Mar 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> As disgusting as this is, I have to wonder why the legal age of consent was dropped and why there is a tolerance for Child Brides developing in sympathy for a foreign culture(s)?


Quite the segue ....


----------



## jollyjacktar (12 Mar 2017)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Quite the segue ....



Which pulled us away from the discussion on the actions of the Chicken Hawk in the Senate.


----------



## Scott (12 Mar 2017)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Which pulled us away from the discussion on the actions of the Chicken Hawk in the Senate.



Likely because both recent own goals come from the Conservative squad.

If cannot spout hatred towards team red, deflect on issues concerning team blue.


----------



## ueo (12 Mar 2017)

Yes I experienced the shot to the head, the pointer across the knuckles and once the ultimate- the strap in the principal's office. Abuse, not really just an honest intent to reform  a recalcitrant youth. Didn't seem to have any effect as 40 + military service will attest. As to the sex side, never went there and consider it far on the worst end of the scale, but one must look at all orgs that have unscreened adults in charge of children and I can state, probably without fear of contradiction, that abuse by any definition has and will continue to occur in them all. At least all the other forms listed were overt and had a stigma attached.  Well in all but the tough guy/jock community where getting the strap was a plus to ones rep. We must try to guard against it and not allow what happened in a person's youth to be used as a defense for their actions as an adult. This is one of the few times, IMHO, that a person trumps the human rights of an abuser, regardless of all the opinions now becoming popular that the one trumps the majority.


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 Mar 2017)

Scott said:
			
		

> Likely because both recent own goals come from the Conservative squad.
> 
> If cannot spout hatred towards team red, deflect on issues concerning team blue.


Even if they're only _former_ members of Team Blue ...


----------



## Kirkhill (12 Mar 2017)

Remius said:
			
		

> Nope. I corrected the misconception that the residentially school system was in part *to remove children from abusive situations*.  It wasn't part of the plan.  It was a reason to justify the plan to assimilate.



I think there is a fundamental issue at stake here.  I doubt if any individual in the residential school system saw the parents of the children as abusive in the modern sense.

The question was whether it was morally correct to allow the native community to continue with a lifestyle which did not result in the same outcomes as were available to the settler community.  Yes.  Hunter-Gatherer communities were problematic for the settlers and their definitions of property.  Stipulated and agreed.  But equally many of the consequences of that lifestyle - uncertainty, disease, life expectancy, hunger were no more acceptable to the Victorians or even the Georgians, than they are to modern sensibilities.

We can argue/debate the methodology.  We can even argue/debate the purpose.  But it does nobody any service to ignore some facets merely because they do not support a popular narrative.   Both sides of the debate get to put their facts on the table.

And by the way, the Hunter Gatherers of Rupert's Land were not a major problem for the settlers.   When the HBC passed from the direct authority of the British Crown to that of the Canadian Crown and was granted the opportunity to continue doing business under new taxmasters  the British-Canadian government of the day effectively negotiated terms with the locals that permitted the settlers to have access to that land that was best suited to settler activity. 

The Bush Country continued to be a Hunter-Gatherer domain well into the 20th century.  It was possible to live and let live in the vast majority of Canada.  It is only recently - with the advent of modern resource development, that the settler-native dispute has moved into the bush.

An accommodation is overdue.


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 Mar 2017)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> ... The question was whether it was morally correct to allow the native community to continue with a lifestyle which did not result in the same outcomes as were available to the settler community.  Yes.  Hunter-Gatherer communities were problematic for the settlers and their definitions of property.  Stipulated and agreed.  But equally many of the consequences of that lifestyle - uncertainty, disease, life expectancy, hunger were no more acceptable to the Victorians or even the Georgians, than they are to modern sensibilities ...


In one way, it's like a lot of problems government tries to solve -- intent is one thing, execution can be quite another.

Also, if we're going to not ignore unpleasant truths, Canada allowing some Aboriginal kids to be used as controls for "how much better would others do if we fed them better?" research doesn't help cast Canada's intent in the most positive light.



			
				Chris Pook said:
			
		

> It is only recently - with the advent of modern resource development, that the settler-native dispute has moved into the bush.
> 
> An accommodation is overdue.


 :nod:  And complicated by the history, both cultural and legal.  All I can say is that if there were simple solutions, or if just money would solve things, it would have been taken care of.


----------



## YZT580 (12 Mar 2017)

Why are you trying to re-write history?  My family sold their property in Nottingham for only a few hundred pounds.  Today the property is in the tens of millions.  Should I be allowed to take the British government to court (who expropriated the property to build a rail yard in the mid 1800's)?  Much of these arguments involve the same issue.   There were negotiations, a price was established, both sides agreed, end of story.  The residential school thing was bad.  No doubt about it but the folks that ran it, for the most part, were actually trying to help.  In hindsight the government of the day should have done something different. My teachers used canes, pointers, yardsticks and the strap to enforce order: not very often though because for most of us the fear of punishment, first at school and then re-enforced at home, ensured obedience.  Bad techniques, maybe but that was the method of the day.   In hindsight the government of the day should have done something different.  Should I now be eligible for compensation?  It would be nice but it isn't likely nor would it be right.  Where there is abuse, that is criminal and the law should deal with it, but where teachers and leaders were merely adhering to the standards of the day there should be no compensation.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (13 Mar 2017)

YZT580 said:
			
		

> Why are you trying to re-write history?  My family sold their property in Nottingham for only a few hundred pounds.  Today the property is in the tens of millions.  Should I be allowed to take the British government to court (who expropriated the property to build a rail yard in the mid 1800's)?  Much of these arguments involve the same issue.   There were negotiations, a price was established, both sides agreed, end of story.  The residential school thing was bad.  No doubt about it but the folks that ran it, for the most part, were actually trying to help.  In hindsight the government of the day should have done something different. My teachers used canes, pointers, yardsticks and the strap to enforce order: not very often though because for most of us the fear of punishment, first at school and then re-enforced at home, ensured obedience.  Bad techniques, maybe but that was the method of the day.   In hindsight the government of the day should have done something different.  Should I now be eligible for compensation?  It would be nice but it isn't likely nor would it be right.  Where there is abuse, that is criminal and the law should deal with it, but where teachers and leaders were merely adhering to the standards of the day there should be no compensation.



You're going to put the whole modern Social Apology Industry out of business.  [


----------



## Halifax Tar (13 Mar 2017)

YZT580 said:
			
		

> Why are you trying to re-write history?  My family sold their property in Nottingham for only a few hundred pounds.  Today the property is in the tens of millions.  Should I be allowed to take the British government to court (who expropriated the property to build a rail yard in the mid 1800's)?  Much of these arguments involve the same issue.   There were negotiations, a price was established, both sides agreed, end of story.  The residential school thing was bad.  No doubt about it but the folks that ran it, for the most part, were actually trying to help.  In hindsight the government of the day should have done something different. My teachers used canes, pointers, yardsticks and the strap to enforce order: not very often though because for most of us the fear of punishment, first at school and then re-enforced at home, ensured obedience.  Bad techniques, maybe but that was the method of the day.   In hindsight the government of the day should have done something different.  Should I now be eligible for compensation?  It would be nice but it isn't likely nor would it be right.  Where there is abuse, that is criminal and the law should deal with it, but where teachers and leaders were merely adhering to the standards of the day there should be no compensation.



I think its disingenuous to compare your family being paid to leave land 200+ years ago and some corporal punishment you went through as a student; to what the Government of the day forced upon generations of people from a specific culture.  This wasn't just some spanks and the odd pedophile this was a systematic attempt to erase a culture from the landscape.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Indian_residential_school_system


----------



## The Bread Guy (13 Mar 2017)

YZT580 said:
			
		

> My family sold their property in Nottingham for only a few hundred pounds.  Today the property is in the tens of millions.  Should I be allowed to take the British government to court (who expropriated the property to build a rail yard in the mid 1800's)?  Much of these arguments involve the same issue.   There were negotiations, a price was established, both sides agreed, end of story ...


If you're comparing the land purchase to the Treaties, did your family's agreement include a clause to take care of you into perpetuity?  If it didn't, we're comparing apples and drumsticks.


			
				YZT580 said:
			
		

> ... My teachers used canes, pointers, yardsticks and the strap to enforce order: not very often though because for most of us the fear of punishment, first at school and then re-enforced at home, ensured obedience.  Bad techniques, maybe but that was the method of the day ...


And were you dragged against your will, and that of your parents', to go to school?  And told not to speak the language you spoke at home - on pain of punishment "of the day"?


			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> You're going to put the whole modern Social Apology Industry out of business.  [


Maybe, but even the government*** apologized for the system (also attached if link doesn't work for you) - from that document:


> ... The Government of Canada built an educational system in which very young children were often forcibly removed from their homes, often taken far from their communities.  Many were inadequately fed, clothed and housed.  All were deprived of the care and nurturing of their parents, grandparents and communities.  First Nations, Inuit and Métis languages and cultural practices were prohibited in these schools.  Tragically, some of these children died while attending residential schools and others never returned home.
> 
> The government now recognizes that the consequences of the Indian Residential Schools policy were profoundly negative and that this policy has had a lasting and damaging impact on Aboriginal culture, heritage and language.  While some former students have spoken positively about their experiences at residential schools, these stories are far overshadowed by tragic accounts of the emotional, physical and sexual abuse and neglect of helpless children, and their separation from powerless families and communities.
> 
> ...


*** - And this was done in 2008 -- _not_ during a Team Red mandate.


----------



## Old Sweat (13 Mar 2017)

I'm not trying to make excuses for the programme, but if one reads contemporary literature, it seems the consensus was that the native culture was doomed. The solution, which not recognized for what later generations would view it as, was to prepare the next generation to cope with the "white world." The above may have been kinder to the design of the residential schools programme than they deserve, but we were not the only ones trying it. The Americans also had something like it - see the Indian residential school at Carlisle, PA - and others may also have tried. Bottom line - it was a failed programme that was destructive to a way of life, and the surviving participants deserve compensation.


----------



## Jed (13 Mar 2017)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> If you're comparing the land purchase to the Treaties, did your family's agreement include a clause to take care of you into perpetuity?  If it didn't, we're comparing apples and drumsticks.And were you dragged against your will, and that of your parents', to go to school?  And told not to speak the language you spoke at home - on pain of punishment "of the day"?Maybe, but even the government*** apologized for the system (also attached if link doesn't work for you) - from that document:*** - And this was done in 2008 -- _not_ during a Team Red mandate.




Ok, just a question.  What other race or tribe of people in the history of the world were offered agreements that stated they would look after the displaced / conquered people cradle to grave feeding and care to the end of time?  I can't think of any off hand. Throughout history only slaves were given this type of due care and attention and we all know how that worked out.

Every human being comes into this world differently, No one is guaranteed lifelong security. The best you can hope for is the freedom to think and act on your own without oppression.


----------



## The Bread Guy (13 Mar 2017)

Jed said:
			
		

> Ok, just a question.  What other race or tribe of people in the history of the world were offered agreements that stated they would look after the displaced / conquered people cradle to grave feeding and care to the end of time?  ...


I can't think of any offhand, either.  That said, does this negate the Treaties already in place?


----------



## Halifax Tar (13 Mar 2017)

Jed said:
			
		

> Ok, just a question.  What other race or tribe of people in the history of the world were offered agreements that stated they would look after the displaced / conquered people cradle to grave feeding and care to the end of time?  I can't think of any off hand. Throughout history only slaves were given this type of due care and attention and we all know how that worked out.
> 
> Every human being comes into this world differently, No one is guaranteed lifelong security. _The best you can hope for is the freedom to think and act on your own without oppression.
> _



One could argue that the residential schools program was designed to remove by force the highlighted portion.


----------



## Jed (13 Mar 2017)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> I'm not trying to make excuses for the programme, but if one reads contemporary literature, it seems the consensus was that the native culture was doomed. The solution, which not recognized for what later generations would view it as, was to prepare the next generation to cope with the "white world." The above may have been kinder to the design of the residential schools programme than they deserve, but we were not the only ones trying it. The Americans also had something like it - see the Indian residential school at Carlisle, PA - and others may also have tried. Bottom line - it was a failed programme that was destructive to a way of life, and the surviving participants deserve compensation.



Agreed.  As my old man used to say 'life is not fair as much as we may want it to be'  The justified butt hurt can not go on forever. Determine what our collective compensation is and cut loose the never ending feed tube.  There will be no peace until we are all equal in the eyes of the beholder.


----------



## The Bread Guy (13 Mar 2017)

At one level, the Treaties and the residential school system could be seen to come from the same impulse:  one group thinking they can improve the lot of a minority, or "take care" of them.  And I can guess what some folks around these parts would have to say about, say, the current government coming up with a "let's take care of group x" scheme


----------



## Kirkhill (13 Mar 2017)

> And were you dragged against your will, and that of your parents', to go to school?  And told not to speak the language you spoke at home - on pain of punishment "of the day"?



Aye.  I wuz. I wuz aye bein telt that I wuznae speaking richt and that only Scots fowks spelt learnt the roads that I learnt it.  And d'ye ken whut?  When I wuz doon in London, mah school mates were telt exactly the same thing aboot speaking "common".

Admittedly my parents weren't objecting ower much.  They just got a good chuckle out of the efforts to speak "proper" English.


----------



## Kirkhill (13 Mar 2017)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> I can't think of any offhand, either.  That said, does this negate the Treaties already in place?



No.  It doesn't negate the treaties already in place.  Regardless of which side is uncomfortable with the situation and wants to renegotiate.


----------



## Kirkhill (13 Mar 2017)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> At one level, the Treaties and the residential school system could be seen to come from the same impulse:  one group thinking they can improve the lot of a minority, or "take care" of them.  And I can guess what some folks around these parts would have to say about, say, the current government coming up with a "let's take care of group x" scheme



Paternalism and equality of outcomes or Liberty and equality of opportunity.


----------



## The Bread Guy (13 Mar 2017)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Paternalism and equality of outcomes or Liberty and equality of opportunity.


 :nod:  Pick your poison ...


			
				Chris Pook said:
			
		

> No.  It doesn't negate the treaties already in place.  Regardless of which side is uncomfortable with the situation and wants to renegotiate.


Well put - and that's a two-sided coin, as well.


----------



## YZT580 (13 Mar 2017)

How many Mics and Macs here in Canada are only Canadians as a result of very similar actions by the land barons of Scotland and Ireland?  The history of the Orkneys is also very much one of forced moves and mandated language training.  Why, for a while even the kilt was flatly forbidden so native Americans do not have an exclusive complaint.  You cannot re-write the past and make it better and you are better off not to try.  What is happening and has happening for a long time is a few opportunists are cashing in by creating a public relations nightmare for government. 

The end result is potentially as damaging as the schools were.  People who are dependent upon the largess of others as many of these groups are suffer from poor self-esteem, have little personal motivation and end up with alcohol and drug dependencies.  Families suffer from abuse and neglect and the incidence of personal crime increases.  These are problems that our nanny attitude has created and throwing cash at them out of guilt is not the answer.  They truly cannot live in a white man's world because we pay them too much for them to have to.  And those are the key words.  HAVE TO.  Take away the cheques and the handouts and assist in establishing industry, markets for their products and pride in their accomplishments.  My two cents


----------



## Kirkhill (13 Mar 2017)

YZT580 said:
			
		

> How many Mics and Macs here in Canada are only Canadians as a result of very similar actions by the land barons of Scotland and Ireland?  The history of the Orkneys is also very much one of forced moves and mandated language training.  Why, for a while even the kilt was flatly forbidden so native Americans do not have an exclusive complaint.  You cannot re-write the past and make it better and you are better off not to try.  What is happening and has happening for a long time is a few opportunists are cashing in by creating a public relations nightmare for government.
> 
> The end result is potentially as damaging as the schools were.  People who are dependent upon the largess of others as many of these groups are suffer from poor self-esteem, have little personal motivation and end up with alcohol and drug dependencies.  Families suffer from abuse and neglect and the incidence of personal crime increases.  These are problems that our nanny attitude has created and throwing cash at them out of guilt is not the answer.  They truly cannot live in a white man's world because we pay them too much for them to have to.  And those are the key words.  HAVE TO.  Take away the cheques and the handouts and assist in establishing industry, markets for their products and pride in their accomplishments.  My two cents



The reason the American's have their Second Amendment is because the Highlanders under the Hanoverians and the Borderers under the Stewarts were both denied the right to bear arms unless they were pledged to the King.  This saw MacDonalds massacred in Glencoe and Grahams nailed to their burning doors at the hands of the Government during pacifications.

Stuff happens.  The way I see it it was an even match when the Grahams met the folks that ate the hearts of French missionaries.  It was a right good match.  But that game is over.


----------



## YZT580 (13 Mar 2017)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Stuff happens.  The way I see it it was an even match when the Grahams met the folks that ate the hearts of French missionaries.  It was a right good match.  But that game is over.



Your final words say it all.  The game is over.  Now let's enter the future.


----------



## Kat Stevens (13 Mar 2017)

I'm considering taking Rome to the international courts for restitution for the Roman occupation. Of particular note is the destruction of our religion by Suetonius in 52 AD and the forced Romanization of the indigenous peoples of Britain. The Welsh side of the family never did cave in to them, but one case at a time


----------



## mariomike (15 Mar 2017)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> If this has been posted elsewhere, Mods, please move or delete this, but ...
> 
> _*CBC News*_ is reporting that Pat Stogran is considering a run for the *NDP* leadership.
> 
> "*At the moment, he isn't a member of the NDP*," the article says ...  "*"It is a "huge handicap," Stogran said. "But I believe it's where I belong because their heart is the right place."*"



See also,

Pat Stogran considers NDP leadership bid  
http://milnet.ca/forums/threads/125376/post-1480230/topicseen.html


----------



## tomahawk6 (20 Mar 2017)

A large slice of the Canadian public want illegal border crossers deported.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/exclusive-almost-half-canadians-want-illegal-border-crossers-101048596.html

WINNIPEG, Manitoba/OTTAWA (Reuters) - Nearly half of Canadians want to deport people who are illegally crossing into Canada from the United States, and a similar number disapprove of how Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is handling the influx, according to a Reuters/Ipsos opinion poll released on Monday.

A significant minority, four out of 10 respondents, said the border crossers could make Canada "less safe," underlining the potential political risk for Trudeau's Liberal government.


----------



## jmt18325 (20 Mar 2017)

Those people don't understand Canadian or international law - not really surprising.


----------



## Kirkhill (20 Mar 2017)

God, jmt!  I remain in continuing awe of your generally amazing superiority.  

I genuflect.  I genuflect. I genuflect.   [


----------



## Flavus101 (20 Mar 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Those people don't understand Canadian or international law - not really surprising.



The interesting thing about law is that it can be changed. The law must balance between protecting the minority's rights while following the constitution (although I believe the constitution as a whole only covers Canadian citizens, with non-citizens being granted the rights laid out in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms) while ensuring that the majority's will is respected (as per democracy(.

Your absoluteness on every subject must be a real conversation starter at parties.


----------



## YZT580 (20 Mar 2017)

illegals are just that: illegal.  And as such, they are criminals who are openly defying Canadian law.  Some argument can be made for ensuring that they are not forced to return to a country where their lives are in jeopardy (that is called an extenuating circumstance) but for those whose only reason for being here is a fatter paycheck those rules don't, and should never apply. Instead they should be prosecuted under the law and sent back with the requirement to remit to the Canadian government the costs of housing, feeding and ensuring their safety until such time as they are escorted onto the first available aircraft.(for which they should also pay)


----------



## Flavus101 (20 Mar 2017)

YZT580 said:
			
		

> illegals are just that: illegal.  And as such, they are criminals who are openly defying Canadian law.  Some argument can be made for ensuring that they are not forced to return to a country where their lives are in jeopardy (that is called an extenuating circumstance) but for those whose only reason for being here is a fatter paycheck those rules don't, and should never apply. Instead they should be prosecuted under the law and sent back with the requirement to remit to the Canadian government the costs of housing, feeding and ensuring their safety until such time as they are escorted onto the first available aircraft.(for which they should also pay)



While I agree with most of what you are saying I do not believe that you will ever see a cent from most illegals. In general I think that most have already spent their savings on arriving to Canada, as such a program that seeks to collect compensation would simply be a waste of taxpayer money.


----------



## Halifax Tar (20 Mar 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Those people don't understand Canadian or international law - not really surprising.



Or they do and they disagree with it.  Thus they have expressed their democratic rights, of expression, as protected by Canadian law.


----------



## Journeyman (20 Mar 2017)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> "Some 48 percent said ... Canada should 'send these migrants back to the U.S.' Another 36 percent said Canada should 'accept these migrants'."


"The poll has a credibility interval, a measure of accuracy, of 4 percentage points."
I'll let you do the math yourself on what that does to your percentages, so that no one thinks I'm being condescending (that means I talk down to people).



> ....a similar number disapprove of how Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is handling the influx...


Yes, that's from BOTH SIDES:  "He is questioned about it every time he appears in parliament, from opponents on the left, who want more asylum-seekers to be allowed in, and critics on the right, who say the migrants pose a potential security risk."




> ....underlining the potential political risk for Trudeau's Liberal government.





> Trudeau faces no immediate threat, since the next elections are not until 2019.


Wow, contradictory alt-facts within the same article;  maybe one of your intellectual giants, Spicer or Conway, helped write this. 


While I'm still not a fan of PM JT, forgive me if a dubious Yahoo news article doesn't have me clamouring to build walls or Twatting about how "This Hour has 22 Minutes" is hurting supposed-politicians' feelings.
       :


----------



## The Bread Guy (20 Mar 2017)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> I'm considering taking Rome to the international courts for restitution for the Roman occupation.


If you've got a contract signed by a Roman leader saying they'd take care of your descendants as long as the Tiber flows and the sun shines, have at 'er  ;D


----------



## Kirkhill (20 Mar 2017)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> If you've got a contract signed by a Roman leader saying they'd take care of your descendants as long as the Tiber flows and the sun shines, have at 'er  ;D



Wrong angle.  Pain and suffering and failure to keep the Scots out.


----------



## tomahawk6 (20 Mar 2017)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Wrong angle.  Pain and suffering and failure to keep the Scots out.



Things have really changed,now the Scots want to stay home.


----------



## GAP (20 Mar 2017)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Things have really changed,now the Scots want to stay home.



I think they did then too......


----------



## jollyjacktar (20 Mar 2017)

Pic y, Pic y.


----------



## Kirkhill (20 Mar 2017)

Nothing left in Scotland but Irishmen with names like Connolly and Connery.

All the Scots left and became Prime Ministers in London (Cameron, Brown, Blair, Home...)  or set up opium shops in Hong Kong.


----------



## jmt18325 (21 Mar 2017)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Or they do and they disagree with it.  Thus they have expressed their democratic rights, of expression, as protected by Canadian law.



Of course - but there's nothing that can be done once they claim asylum.  We have to process their claim, no matter how they got here.  We signed the relevant treaties, after all.

Changing that is an entirely different discussion.


----------



## jmt18325 (21 Mar 2017)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> God, jmt!  I remain in continuing awe of your generally amazing superiority.
> 
> I genuflect.  I genuflect. I genuflect.   [



I'm definitely superior to no one.  Just the other day, right on this website, I misunderstood the meaning of statist.


----------



## jmt18325 (21 Mar 2017)

Flavus101 said:
			
		

> The interesting thing about law is that it can be changed. The law must balance between protecting the minority's rights while following the constitution (although I believe the constitution as a whole only covers Canadian citizens, with non-citizens being granted the rights laid out in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms) while ensuring that the majority's will is respected (as per democracy(.
> 
> Your absoluteness on every subject must be a real conversation starter at parties.



In real life, I'm much less absolute.  I don't disagree that the illegal border crossings are concerning (though they're being blown out of proportion).  I simply don't think that people generally understand the process.  Most people that I know don't even realize that those caught are arrested immediately.  Once they say the magic word, and if a criminal record is not found (generally not a problem in the case of those crossing) the must be released and their claim must be processed.

We should do away with the safe third country agreement.  Then people will stop sneaking in.  The Liberals won't budge on that, because they brought the agreement in.


----------



## Kirkhill (21 Mar 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I'm definitely superior to no one.  Just the other day, right on this website, I misunderstood the meaning of statist.



 :cheers:


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Mar 2017)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Nothing left in Scotland but Irishmen with names like Connolly and Connery.
> 
> All the Scots left and became Prime Ministers in London (Cameron, Brown, Blair, Home...)  or set up opium shops in Hong Kong.



They grow up on a cold, wet, always raining island. To make improvements, they move half way around the world.... To a cold, wet always raining island (Vancouver)  and become union executives.


----------



## The Bread Guy (27 Mar 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> ... That the Liberals continued their path (on Ukraine) in a situation that has remained largely the same should be a rare opportunity for them to show solidarity and applaud the government.


And in politics, it often seems that even if side x (be it Team Blue/Red/Orange/Beige/whatever)does what side y wants, it's either "too little, too late," "it's STILL not enough" or silence leading to criticism about the next thing y disagrees with.


_- mod edit to clarify quote with yellow add -_


----------



## Flavus101 (27 Mar 2017)

The Romans ran into this problem where the politicians simply bickered to bicker without any just cause.

We know how well that turned out...

Historically, countries (or societies of people in general) have an interesting cycle where they are more democratic for a bit, then more authoritarian, back to more democratic and the wheel just keeps on spinning.


----------



## jmt18325 (27 Mar 2017)

Flavus101 said:
			
		

> The Romans ran into this problem where the politicians simply bickered to bicker without any just cause.
> 
> We know how well that turned out...
> 
> Historically, countries (or societies of people in general) have an interesting cycle where they are more democratic for a bit, then more authoritarian, back to more democratic and the wheel just keeps on spinning.



In fairness, I think that our particular bickering issues is actually a design function of Westminster Parliamentary Democracy.


----------



## Flavus101 (27 Mar 2017)

I sometimes watch Question Period (I know, I really must have nothing to do  ) and you will find members of both sides continuously making a loud raucous that prevents the other side from speaking thus requiring the Speaker of the House to shush them like children. Or you have the pointless snide comments that are only made to try and improve the ego of the individual saying them.

I agree that there must be a back and forth, otherwise you will never be able to reach a compromise. I do not believe that our back and forth in it's current form is very useful nor does it provide anything of actual import the majority of the time. Perhaps removing the Friday sitting and the subsequent cut in pay (yes I know that the MP's will still "technically" be working but it is nice to dream) would be beneficial.


----------



## jmt18325 (28 Mar 2017)

Flavus101 said:
			
		

> I sometimes watch Question Period (I know, I really must have nothing to do  ) and you will find members of both sides continuously making a loud raucous that prevents the other side from speaking thus requiring the Speaker of the House to shush them like children. Or you have the pointless snide comments that are only made to try and improve the ego of the individual saying them.



For a time, the Liberals didn't under Trudeau, as they said they wanted to do Parliament better.  The media has reported that lately, in the last couple of months, that has been returning to the governing side of the bench as well (I can't remember where I read that in the last two weeks or so).


----------



## Jarnhamar (28 Mar 2017)

Flavus101 said:
			
		

> I sometimes watch Question Period (I know, I really must have nothing to do  ) and you will find members of both sides continuously making a loud raucous that prevents the other side from speaking thus requiring the Speaker of the House to shush them like children. Or you have the pointless snide comments that are only made to try and improve the ego of the individual saying them.
> 
> I agree that there must be a back and forth, otherwise you will never be able to reach a compromise. I do not believe that our back and forth in it's current form is very useful nor does it provide anything of actual import the majority of the time. Perhaps removing the Friday sitting and the subsequent cut in pay (yes I know that the MP's will still "technically" be working but it is nice to dream) would be beneficial.



Someone here wisely pointed out it's called Question period, not Answer period (or was that Question and Answer period?).  I've seen it a few times and thought it was a complete joke. It reminds me of reality TV where the point is to one-up each other and get cheers from your side.


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Mar 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Someone here wisely pointed out it's called Question period, not Answer period (or was that Question and Answer period?).  I've seen it a few times and thought it was a complete joke. It reminds me of reality TV where the point is to one-up each other and get cheers from your side.


And I hear that even though government folk write up decent, whazzup answers to possible questions that can come up (when there is a firm answer to be had, anyway) during Oral Questions (the official term), many Ministers aren't willing to go with the DS solution, with many going, as you say, for the political zinger instead.


----------



## Rifleman62 (30 Mar 2017)

Re: Canadian Army headed to mission in Africa ‘very soon’: top general
« Reply #799 on: March 25, 2017, 10:45:40 »

The last two sentences are the usual Trudeau jiberish.

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/03/25/un-peacekeeping-mission-possible-in-2017-trudeau-says.html

“I’ve been around the Liberal party an awfully long time, as you all know, and I’ve never seen a caucus as strongly united in our approach and our values,” Trudeau said on his way to the meeting, which was in its second day.

“One of the great strengths of the Liberal party is there is always a range of perspectives that allow us to represent the range of perspectives of Canadians,” he said[/color

Here's an example of "the great strengths of the Liberal party is there is always a range of perspectives that allow us to represent the range of perspectives of Canadians” 

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/liberal-party-s-exclusive-deal-with-data-company-benefits-trudeau-friend-1.3346830

Globe and Mail summary. More at link.

It’s a small world: a data analytics company owned by a good friend of Mr. Trudeau is benefiting from a major contract with the Liberal Party of Canada, CTV reports. The company, Data Sciences Inc., is owned by Tom Pitfield, who also chairs Canada 2020, a think tank that hosts events that often feature cabinet ministers. Mr. Pitfield’s wife, Anna Gainey, is the president of the Liberal Party, and two of Data Sciences’ employees sit on the party’s board of directors. Mr. Pitfield and Ms. Gainey joined the Trudeaus during their recent holiday in the Bahamas with the Aga Khan.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (30 Mar 2017)

I am certainly not known as a friend of the Liberals, but I think CTV is trying to build an appearance of scandal out of thin air, and you fell for it R62.  :nod:

The political parties in Canada are private organizations and, since the Conservative government of Mr. Harper stopped that nonsense, receive no public funding. As private entities, they are entitled to spend the money they raise whichever way they want without any constraints - except when and where that money is spent for the purpose of an election and the electoral rules come into play.

Therefore, there is absolutely nothing improper as far as the public is concerned with the Liberal party spending its money on hiring friends of their high level personnel. It's up to the Liberal party members to decide if they think it's appropriate behaviour from their leader or not and act accordingly within the party. This is so until there is evidence (not the case here) that somehow, public money is used to pay for the contract or that the contract is used as a sham to funnel public money into the party coffers, as was done during the Sponsorship scandal.

As of now, there is no apparent impropriety, and it is a pure internal matter for the Liberal party.


----------



## FSTO (30 Mar 2017)

Yesterday the DND Ombudsman was on CBC's Power and Politics once again expressing his frustration with the way the department conducts their business. One statement that caught my ear was him having to get DM approval for all travel and how that costs extra money. I whole heartily agree with this statement, we already had a working process that the government decided to put another layer of oversight for no good reason. A unit CO is given a budget, its their responsibility to spend it wisely and within the rules already in place. If they screw it up by incompetence or fraud then there is disciplinary methods to correct, there is no need for them to have higher authority to approve actions (and add in time) that are already within their arcs of fire.


----------



## Rifleman62 (30 Mar 2017)

Didn't fall far or at all. I agree with you Oldgateboatdriver. But it is the way the Liberals operate, either as a private organization or as a government. Friends of ....

Is the LPC etc private or public organization? Membership is open to the public and is not a closed entity like a corporation which is not traded publicly.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (30 Mar 2017)

"Private" vs "public" here is not used in the sense of whether the "public" can become members or not, but in the legal sense used from an enterprises point of view: It is not created and or under the controlling interest of any government, wether federal, provincial or municipal (other than with general laws, like everything else).

It is open to the public, but to have a say you must become a member and pay your dues. That doesn't make it "public" anymore than say, the Bank of Montreal. The bank is a private enterprise, not a public/crown corporation, even though, because it is publicly traded, any member of the public can acquire some of its share.


----------



## Jarnhamar (31 Mar 2017)

Anyone know how Bombardier is making out after the Liberals gave them millions of dollars?  Probably saved a lot of jobs eh? Maybe even created a bunch of new jobs?


----------



## PuckChaser (31 Mar 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Anyone know how Bombardier is making out after the Liberals gave them millions of dollars?  Probably saved a lot of jobs eh? Maybe even created a bunch of new jobs?



The execs each bought a new Rolls Royce: http://www.rcinet.ca/en/2017/03/30/bombardier-execs-get-big-bonuses-amid-massive-layoffs/


----------



## Jarnhamar (31 Mar 2017)

Sorry PuckChaser but that has to be Fake News. Bombardier was a struggling Canadian icon, our Liberal government gave them millions of dollars  ($372.5 million?) to bail them out out of financial hardship and secure jobs for Canadians!  I'm going to bet my Celine Dion CDs that the execs  took a pay cut on top of saving all those Canadian jobs, if not creating new ones.  :nod:


----------



## jollyjacktar (31 Mar 2017)

No, no, no.  "Alternative Facts", not fake news. :nod:


----------



## The Bread Guy (1 Apr 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Anyone know how Bombardier is making out after the Liberals gave them millions of dollars?  Probably saved a lot of jobs eh? Maybe even created a bunch of new jobs?


Better or worse than after getting $350m from *Team Blue*?  Discuss  ;D


----------



## Jarnhamar (1 Apr 2017)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Better or worse than after getting $350m from *Team Blue*?  Discuss  ;D







> The Harper government's announcement of *$350-million in loans for Montreal-based Bombardier* is an especially sweet commitment for the Conservatives: It may help boost their sagging fortunes in Quebec and doesn't cost them a penny of extra spending.
> 
> The loan money to help Bombardier build its new C Series jets was set aside in the 2005 federal budget and *announced by the former Liberal government* that spring.



Back over to team red  ;D


----------



## George Wallace (1 Apr 2017)

"Team Red"......Now is that term more of a Freudian Slip as to how their actually like to treat the Federal Budget, or are we just going to stick with their Party Colour?

 >   [   [


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Apr 2017)

> The people's flag is deepest red,
> It shrouded oft our martyred dead,
> And ere their limbs grew stiff and cold,
> Their hearts' blood dyed its ev'ry fold.
> ...



1889....


----------



## Jarnhamar (8 Apr 2017)




----------



## Scott (8 Apr 2017)

The whole PM Selfie thing got old for me a long time ago, too, but I can find loads of better shit to call him out on. Sadly, for Team Blue, the Rebel trying to become the media wing of the CPC only does damage to the next CPC leader, IMO.

Wait, in the interest of balance:






Oh, the _vanity_...


----------



## mariomike (8 Apr 2017)

Party politics aside, is there ever a bad time for a selfie? Say cheese!  

Rob posing at a streetcar fatality - St Clair Ave. West at Keele St.

Councillor Doug Ford "funeral selfies". Rob is laying in state at City Hall.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/03/29/doug-ford-selfies-rob-ford-funeral_n_9563896.html


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Apr 2017)

Hey mariomike!  Where's the edge of the universe?  [


----------



## PPCLI Guy (8 Apr 2017)

Yup - self-centred entitled liberals indeed


----------



## Jarnhamar (8 Apr 2017)

Scott said:
			
		

> The whole PM Selfie thing got old for me a long time ago, too, but I can find loads of better shit to call him out on.



Realize it's an easy (and old) joke and I expect a degree of narcissism from all politicians but Trudeau is beyond reason Imo.


----------



## mariomike (8 Apr 2017)

For anyone interested,

Ottawa’s reigning political selfie junkie is not who you think
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawas-reigning-political-selfie-junkie-is-not-who-you-think/


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Apr 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Back over to team red  ;D


1)  I wonder how far back it can go?


> ... "Bombardier established its strategy a long time ago, with the federal government as the milch cow," said one academic, who spoke on condition he not be named because of his ties to people with Bombardier connections.
> 
> *"It really started during the Mulroney era and has continued through the Chrétien regime."* ...


2)  Just like the New Veterans Charter, if only there had been a government in place, ideally a majority government, to do things differently, or to do the right thing -- you continue it without stopping or changing it, it's now yours.
Blue Team, up?   ;D

To be fair to both teams, I think columnist Chantal Hebert sums up Canada's relationship with Bombardier quite well ...


> It has long been taken for granted that no prime minister, no Quebec premier would ever let Bombardier go under on his or her watch ...


When it comes to Bombardier, as others smarter than me have said, Liberal, Tory, same old story ...


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Apr 2017)

> A "basket" of goods and services
> ...that cost: $8.70 in 1983
> ...would cost: $19.87 in 2017



http://www.bankofcanada.ca/rates/related/inflation-calculator/



> The aerospace industry in Canada has exploded to $20.3-billion today from $8.7-billion in sales in 1983.





> The number of Canadians employed in the industry has jumped to 91,500 over the same period from 53,000. Bombardier is a big part of that.



http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/bombardier-ties-with-ottawa-run-deep/article25429432/

I wonder if the 8.7 to 20.3 is adjusted for inflation?  If not then the industry is not booming but has marked time while becoming 42% less productive.


----------



## Joey867 (9 Apr 2017)

I personally think that the government should stop wasting its time buying public entities and successful natural resources. It should save money to buy Bombardier, finance&restructure it for a 50 yr contract so it'll be a long time until this happens again. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ModlrMike (9 Apr 2017)

So Donald Trump makes a crude remark about women and he's the devil incarnate, but Wab Kinew can sell records rife with misogyny and homophobia, but everything's OK because he apologized, and he's a socialist. 

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, or

Why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye.


----------



## George Wallace (9 Apr 2017)

Joey867 said:
			
		

> I personally think that the government should stop wasting its time buying public entities and successful natural resources. It should save money to buy Bombardier, finance&restructure it for a 50 yr contract so it'll be a long time until this happens again.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



How about; if a company can't show itself of NOT being profitable for a period of three or more decades, it NOT get Public Bailouts and die a natural death ??


----------



## Retired AF Guy (9 Apr 2017)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> ............... but *Wab Kinew* can sell records rife with misogyny and homophobia, but everything's OK because he apologized, and he's a socialist.



Who???


----------



## FSTO (9 Apr 2017)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Who???



NDP MLA in Manitoba. He is a candidate for leadership of the NDP in that province.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (9 Apr 2017)

FSTO said:
			
		

> NDP MLA in Manitoba. He is a candidate for leadership of the NDP in that province.



Also used to work for the CBC.

Go figure.


----------



## Joey867 (9 Apr 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> How about; if a company can't show itself of NOT being profitable for a period of three or more decades, it NOT get Public Bailouts and die a natural death ??


Good point. That would be common sense. 30 years definitely sounds like a fair amount of time for bombardier


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (12 Apr 2017)

All right: I just have to let some serious steam off now:

I've had it with that S.O.B. Prime Minister who thinks he OWNS the friggin Parliament for his personal and family enjoyment.

We have a new honorific citizen, Malalla. A well deserved honour. But the PM's wife is NOT, underline NOT a member of Parliament and has absolutely no business whatsoever being on the floor of the Commons with ther husband. She can be in the gallery, in prominent place,  but the floor is for Parliamentarians (which includes the senators) and the officials of Parliament only.

Who does she think she is ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

If she wants to go there: stand for office and get elected or get the hell out.

P.S.: I am quite disappointed in the person who does "own" the Commons, the president, for not sending a page over to the PM just before the beginning of the proceedings to gently prod him on the fact that it would now be appropriate for his spouse to repair to the gallery.


/RANT OFF.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (12 Apr 2017)

Exactly what I thought when I saw her down there.


----------



## jollyjacktar (12 Apr 2017)

Careful now, you'll bring some clouds into those sunny skies,  I mean ways.  Maybe some tears from some too.   :nod:


----------



## Loachman (14 Apr 2017)

Bombard's Body Language: Justin Trudeau On North Korea https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvG1uzfwHbk

She's done a couple of assessments of PM Selfie's appearances before, and I've posted the links. I find them accurate and painfully humorous.


----------



## jmt18325 (14 Apr 2017)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> All right: I just have to let some serious steam off now:
> 
> I've had it with that S.O.B. Prime Minister who thinks he OWNS the friggin Parliament for his personal and family enjoyment.
> 
> ...



Perhaps you haven't ever watched an address to parliament? Perhaps your outrage is a little late? 

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/simerg.com/2014/03/01/in-a-dynamic-and-stirring-address-to-members-of-the-canadian-parliament-his-highness-the-aga-khan-shares-his-faith-perspectives-on-the-imamat-collaboration-with-canada-the-muslim-world-community-t/amp/

The Supreme Court Justices and many invited guests are also there.  The Justices and Senators also sit in the commons chamber on the floor (well, in chairs).  The chamber is not in session, and is used as an auditorium for the address.  To put it bluntly, you know not of what you speak.


----------



## Remius (14 Apr 2017)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> All right: I just have to let some serious steam off now:
> 
> I've had it with that S.O.B. Prime Minister who thinks he OWNS the friggin Parliament for his personal and family enjoyment.
> 
> ...



Good rant but a bit (actually very) off.  This is neither unprecedented nor is it innapropriate.   While I agree that both are media hogs that are very photogenic, your assessment and disappointed in who you think owns the Commons is misplaced and way off base.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (14 Apr 2017)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> All right: I just have to let some serious steam off now:
> 
> I've had it with that S.O.B. Prime Minister who thinks he OWNS the friggin Parliament for his personal and family enjoyment.
> 
> ...



Shocking!


----------



## McG (14 Apr 2017)

Don't let facts get in the way of good old partisan outrage.


----------



## dapaterson (14 Apr 2017)

It's only outrageous when the other side does it.


----------



## Blair Gilmore (20 Apr 2017)

I'm not a particular fan of Trudeau's government but doing away with prohibition of a common plant is long overdue. The anti-drug warriors are fighting a losing battle and are firmly entrenched after a century of propaganda, alarmist hyperbole and political obstinance. Also, I believe Kellie Leitch's stand against the weed will hurt her chances of becoming the Conservative leader.

In honour of 420, for your reading pleasure, here are my full thoughts on the matter of marijuana and prohibition:

http://www.happydiver.space/?p=380


----------



## TCM621 (20 Apr 2017)

Blair Gilmore said:
			
		

> I'm not a particular fan of Trudeau's government but doing away with prohibition of a common plant is long overdue. The anti-drug warriors are fighting a losing battle and are firmly entrenched after a century of propaganda, alarmist hyperbole and political obstinance. Also, I believe Kellie Leitch's stand against the weed will hurt her chances of becoming the Conservative leader.
> 
> In honour of 420, for your reading pleasure, here are my full thoughts on the matter of marijuana and prohibition:
> 
> http://www.happydiver.space/?p=380


The plant aspect is completely irrelevant. Lots of plants are dangerous but I do think the money and effort spent of policing marijuana use is a waste. I don't believe it is as harmless as the pro pot movement believes but it is definitely no worse than alcohol which most of the population is capable of using in a responsible manner. 

I have some issues with the legislation itself such as the fact that it seems to want to be tough on drugs while at the same time legalizing one. I would have preferred to simply make it legal for anyone over the age of 19 to purchase and revisit it in 5 years to study the effects and consequences. 

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## Remius (24 Apr 2017)

In provincial news:  Ontario Liberals announcing pilot for basic guaranteed income.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/wynne-announcement-hamilton-1.4082476

Lovely.  I suppose if your Province is flush with money this could be a good thing but given the enormous debt load and effed up policies on all fronts what could go wrong? 

One thing I can already see causing problems is child support payments and childcare benefits as well. 

Pure electioneering on their part.  And people will fall for it.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (24 Apr 2017)

I don't care about the pot issue, about the same danger as alcohol and cigarettes, I find it ironic that we are legalizing pot, while criminalizing smoking....

I suspect pot growers will rue the day everything legal, because then they enter into the hell that is municipal bylaws and hear "Oh your washroom is .5m to close to your food prep area and has to be moved"  [lol:


----------



## The Bread Guy (24 Apr 2017)

Colin P said:
			
		

> ... I suspect pot growers will rue the day everything legal, because then they enter into the hell that is municipal bylaws and hear "Oh your washroom is .5m to close to your food prep area and has to be moved"  [lol:


It's all fun and games until "the rules" kick in  :nod:


			
				PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Shocking!





			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> It's only outrageous when the other side does it.


----------



## ModlrMike (24 Apr 2017)

Remius said:
			
		

> In provincial news:  Ontario Liberals announcing pilot for basic guaranteed income.



If it works as well as energy pricing did, I can't wait to see how it turns out.


----------



## George Wallace (4 May 2017)

I wonder when the "Blame Harper" BS will stop?

And speaking of "alternative facts"; what about this:

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.



> Opinion / Columnists
> Furey: Trudeau tells world media alternative facts about Canada’s 'headscarf bans'
> 
> By Anthony Furey, Postmedia Network
> ...



More on LINK.

Seems to be a lot of "Alternate News/Facts" coming out of this Government lately.


----------



## Kirkhill (5 May 2017)

Charles Moore in today's Telegraph says it all for me.

Why I am a Tory: "Being unintellectual – even, on occasions, plain stupid – the Conservatives don’t carry that dreadful weight of needing to prove you are doctrinally correct which bedevils life on the Left. They find it easier to confront reality."   Now if only the Canadian party could come to the same understanding.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/05/not-theresa-may-great-party-keeps-renewing/



> No one has ever fully explained the most persistent phenomenon in European democratic political history – the success of the Conservative Party. Its very name implies it is behind the times. To some, it reeks of the few, not the many. Yet in the century in which the many have been allowed to vote at all, they have chosen a wholly or predominantly Conservative government two thirds of the time. Friday’s local election results confirm the general view that they will do so again on June 8. In the world crisis of the elites, only the Tories have managed to change sides and stay on top at the same time.
> 
> Why? Although I have no neat answer, I suggest it is partly because the Conservatives have fewer prejudices than their rivals. This sounds a weird thing to say – the Tories are always supposed to be more racist, sexist, stuffy etc than the others. Indeed, their present leader once warned them against becoming the “nasty party”. Yet it is, in practice, true.
> 
> ...



The Tories have been riding with a loose rein for a long, long while.   In the modern era their success could arguably be said as originating with the time Disraeli beat Gladstone to the punch and gave the vote to the working man - causing poor old Gladstone to go apoplectic and seek out more prostitutes to save.

As to Moore's advice to Theresa:  she should listen.   Maggie wasn't safe.  Nor John Major.  Nor many others before and after.  But that will be after the election and probably after 2019.


----------



## George Wallace (14 May 2017)

For anyone who watches Question Period in the House of Commons, this is very appropriate:






If one wanted to look like an idiot, not answering a simple question eighteen times in a row, is the way to go.


----------



## Scott (15 May 2017)

Rona Ambrose leaving Federal politics.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/rona-ambrose-conservative-mp-1.4116233



> Interim Conservative Leader Rona Ambrose is leaving federal politics, CBC News has confirmed.
> 
> The Edmonton MP will make the announcement Tuesday in Ottawa, sources tell CBC News. Ambrose informed the Conservative Party of her decision on Friday. The news was first reported Monday by iPolitics.
> 
> ...


----------



## Rocky Mountains (15 May 2017)

Scott said:
			
		

> Rona Ambrose leaving Federal politics.



Great news!  Perhaps she'll be replaced by a conservative.


----------



## Kirkhill (15 May 2017)

Scott said:
			
		

> Rona Ambrose leaving Federal politics.
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/rona-ambrose-conservative-mp-1.4116233



I wish her well.  I thought she would have made an excellent Prime Minister.


----------



## ballz (15 May 2017)

This is a big loss. She would have been a strong team member and right-hand woman for whoever leads the party. All Canadians owe her a thank you for the job she has done as interim leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.


----------



## Altair (16 May 2017)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> Great news!  Perhaps she'll be replaced by a conservative.


More than likely a libertarian.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (18 May 2017)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> Great news!  Perhaps she'll be replaced by a conservative.



In general Canadians don't want anyone to far to the right or the left, the voting public is a bit like a drunk staggering down the road attempting to follow the centreline, they may veer a bit right and bit left, but have no desire to fall into the ditch on either side. Except for BC.......

It's quite possible we see a NDP-Green coalition government, at least for a short time, that will energize them at the federal level no doubt.


----------



## Kirkhill (19 May 2017)

Colin P said:
			
		

> In general Canadians don't want anyone to far to the right or the left, the voting public is a bit like a drunk staggering down the road attempting to follow the centreline, they may veer a bit right and bit left, but have no desire to fall into the ditch on either side. Except for BC.......
> 
> It's quite possible we see a NDP-Green coalition government, at least for a short time, that will energize them at the federal level no doubt.



Mayhap it is time for Alberta to secure the Yellowhead.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (19 May 2017)

then you be like Afghanistan, no ports and surrounded by hostile neighbours, but you can call yourself "Albertstan"  ;D


----------



## SeaKingTacco (19 May 2017)

I grew up in Alberta.

At what point does a significant enough portion of the Alberta electorate decide that they are done being Confederation's whipping boy for every environmental ill in Canada and decide that they have more in common with Montana and North Dakota than they do with BC or Ontario?

This is not a "science fiction" type question. There is anger smouldering in Alberta. It would not take very much to ignite that anger into something Ottawa would have a great deal of difficulty quelling.


----------



## Kirkhill (19 May 2017)

Colin P said:
			
		

> then you be like Afghanistan, no ports and surrounded by hostile neighbours, but you can call yourself "Albertstan"  ;D



I'm afraid you misapprehend me.   [






Which direction to Danzig?  [


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (19 May 2017)

Well, as usual SKT, Quebec has already done all the work for everyone else: If Alberta wants to leave, the Supreme Court has traced the process and the Clarity Act of Mr. Dion has set the stage for defining what the federal government considers sufficient proof of intent before starting negotiation ... Oh! and all other provinces have a say in Alberta's departure - after all, all the other provinces claimed so high and loud when it was Quebec who threatened to leave.  ;D ;D ;D

On a more serious note, I think the anger in Alberta now has a lot more to do with the low price of oil on the international market causing the industry to shut down left right and centre than Alberta being the "environmental whipping boy"  of every ill in Canada. First of all, every single province and the central government are the "whipping boys" of the environmental movements in Canada and have been for a long time and second, if Alberta thinks that would disappear if they joined with Montana and the Dakotas, they obviously are unaware of the power of environmental movements and the regulation of the EPA in place there - they could be in for a rude awakening.

Remember, just because the US did not sign on certain international environmental agreements doesn't mean they have been idle. They in fact have probably done more on the environment front than Canada has, even under past Liberal governments, while claiming (in Canada's case) loudly to be in favour of the Agreements we wilfully signed.

Just sayin' pardner.

  :cowboy:


----------



## Kirkhill (19 May 2017)

OGBD 

What you ain't getting is that industry is shutting down left and right in part because of low prices - but the prices aren't that low historically speaking - but because the Federal Government has stated categorically that their intention is to shut down the industry.  The time line doesn't matter.  There is no future.  It is pulling out because the local government has put a limit on development.  Their is no future.  It is pulling out because "our fellow Canadians" won't allow us to ship our product to market, either east or west.  And in the east "our fellow Canadians" would rather buy our competitors' products.

And to top it all off, they still want us to send cash.

(Stopping to breathe before I say something I will regret.)

Cheers.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (19 May 2017)

OGBD-

Imagine for a second that Ottawa decided tomorrow there was no future in hydroelectricity and that all dams would be removed from all rivers in 20 years.

Québec's reaction would be, what, precisely?

Chris said it better I could.


----------



## Journeyman (19 May 2017)

As the "populist wave" cheerleaders on the site love to repeat, the actual facts are apparently irrelevant;  when anything disagreed with is simply 'fake news,' why bother trying to put forth a logical argument for or against Alberta's anger?

Hell, in one fell swoop, the Americans got a President who is more crooked than Richard Nixon and even stupider than George Bush (#43).  I imagine Albertans can come up with a politician that no one objects to being a compulsive liar, who will put together the campaign promises to ride that bitch all the way to the prom.  Facts -- and the inescapable reality that our policies and economies are intertwined -- be damned.

       :not-again:


----------



## Kirkhill (19 May 2017)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> As the "populist wave" cheerleaders on the site love to repeat, the actual facts are apparently irrelevant;  when anything disagreed with is simply 'fake news,' why bother trying to put forth a logical argument for or against Alberta's anger?
> 
> Hell, in one fell swoop, the Americans got a President who is more crooked than Richard Nixon and even stupider than George Bush (#43).  I imagine Albertans can come up with a politician that no one objects to being a compulsive liar, who will put together the campaign promises to ride that bitch all the way to the prom.  Facts -- and the inescapable reality that our policies and economies are intertwined -- be damned.
> 
> :not-again:



As someone who was raised to read the book myself, rather have it read to me from the pulpit, I find myself less troubled by the lack of a revealed truth.


----------



## jollyjacktar (19 May 2017)

Also having grown up in Southern Alberta I remember the National Energy Program of nice hair senior.  I remember how hard it was for a long time to find a decent job in those days.  There were those people back then who proposed the Western Canada Concept.  Separatists.  I disliked them then as much as I hated Rene Levesque and his ilk. Still do.  I have been away since 94, but I can appreciate how those feelings might arise in the West once again.  I was very close to being hired back into the patch in 2014/15, that went poof and won't come back.  Yup, I can imagine the anger, especially seeing Bombardier get sacks of cash while Alberta gets the finger.


----------



## RocketRichard (19 May 2017)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Also having grown up in Southern Alberta I remember the National Energy Program of nice hair senior.  I remember how hard it was for a long time to find a decent job in those days.  There were those people back then who proposed the Western Canada Concept.  Separatists.  I disliked them then as much as I hated Rene Levesque and his ilk. Still do.  I have been away since 94, but I can appreciate how those feelings might arise in the West once again.  I was very close to being hired back into the patch in 2014/15, that went poof and won't come back.  Yup, I can imagine the anger, especially seeing Bombardier get sacks of cash while Alberta gets the finger.


No anger here from this Albertan/Saskatchewanian. Wasn't angry during Harper's reign either. Just keep on keeping on. Now Trump on the other hand...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ModlrMike (30 May 2017)

A test for Mr Trudeau?

NDP, Green alliance to focus on banning big money, electoral reform and stopping Kinder Morgan

Now, he does have the whole softwood lumber issue to use as leverage, but I don't think he can swing that club without looking like a complete barbarian.


----------



## jmt18325 (30 May 2017)

He said he'd get their approval, but, if push comes to shove, it isn't really needed.


----------



## Kirkhill (30 May 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> He said he'd get their approval, but, if push comes to shove, it isn't really needed.




But, but...... Consensus? Moral Suasion? Social Licence? Community Permission?  

I admit, my mental agility is lacking, these days.


----------



## jmt18325 (30 May 2017)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> But, but...... Consensus? Moral Suasion? Social Licence? Community Permission?
> 
> I admit, my mental agility is lacking, these days.



I'm just saying, it's possible without their agreement.


----------



## Kirkhill (30 May 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I'm just saying, it's possible without their agreement.



Absolutely it is.


----------



## Loachman (30 May 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I'm just saying, it's possible without their agreement.



Which is likely to cost him a few votes, and not just in that province - and that's a Good Thing.


----------



## dimsum (30 May 2017)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Which is likely to cost him a few votes, and not just in that province - and that's a Good Thing.



You know what else is a good thing?  The fact that people don't go out in public (unless making a statement) wearing the shirt that PET has on that book cover.  The 70s were a weird time for fashion/style.


----------



## dapaterson (30 May 2017)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> You know what else is a good thing?  The fact that people don't go out in public (unless making a statement) wearing the shirt that PET has on that book cover.



You say that, and yet you claim to be maritime aircrew...

Have you never met a pilot or a MARS officer?


----------



## dimsum (30 May 2017)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> You say that, and yet you claim to be maritime aircrew...
> 
> Have you never met a pilot or a MARS officer?



Well, there was that guy that subscribed to the "Joker school of fashion"...


----------



## Loachman (30 May 2017)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> You know what else is a good thing?  The fact that people don't go out in public (unless making a statement) wearing the shirt that PET has on that book cover.  The 70s were a weird time for fashion/style.



I would never wear _*that*_ shirt.

It's just not https://www.jeffalpaugh.com/ (and I do wear those; some people at work complain when I wear boring standard shirts).


----------



## Colin Parkinson (31 May 2017)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> But, but...... Consensus? Moral Suasion? Social Licence? Community Permission?
> 
> I admit, my mental agility is lacking, these days.



That reminds me, must stock up on popcorn, JT having to battle the NDP/Greens over oil tankers and pipelines, loving it!


----------



## Kirkhill (31 May 2017)

> THURSDAY, APRIL 27, 2017 02:03 PM EDT | UPDATED: THURSDAY, APRIL 27, 2017 02:07 PM EDT
> 
> A Forum Research poll released Thursday found Trudeau’s approval rating has fallen to 42% — a significant drop from last November when 58% of respondents gave the prime minister the thumbs up.



http://www.torontosun.com/2017/04/27/pm-trudeaus-approval-rating-tumbles



> President Trump Job Approval
> Gallup
> Approve 41 Disapprove 53
> Disapprove +12
> ...



http://www.realclearpolitics.com/



> 43 per cent approve of Ms May and 34 per cent disapprove.



http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-more-popular-than-the-tory-party-conservatives-jeremy-corbyn-labour-poll-orb-tim-farron-a7735091.html

op:


----------



## ModlrMike (31 May 2017)

Sort of looks like Trump and Trudeau have the same approval rating.  >


----------



## jollyjacktar (31 May 2017)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Sort of looks like Trump and Trudeau have the same approval rating.  >



Where's jmt18325 when you need him?


----------



## a_majoor (31 May 2017)

Although it is an old book now, Joel Garreau did point out that place like Alberta did have more in common with the Dakotas than with the rest of Canada in "The Nine Nations of North America". 

Robert Kaplan had a somewhat more granular approach in his book "An Empire Wilderness", but I think it is correct that changes in demographics, technologies and communications have made many of the old assumptions about how we draw maps and incorporate like minded people into political units obsolete.

How people _act_ on these changes is an entirely different discussion.


----------



## jmt18325 (31 May 2017)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Where's jmt18325 when you need him?



I'm right here - pretty sure that ( A ) we're talking about very different systems (multiple parties vs two) and ( B ) that Trudeau and Trump are in very different points in their governing cycles.

Trudeau's is normal:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-trudeau-approval-history-1.3950007

Trump's isn't:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/donald-trump-lowest-approval-ratings-us-president-100-days-44-per-cent-cnn-poll-a7705611.html


----------



## Rifleman62 (13 Jun 2017)

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/true-north/2017/jun/12/justin-trudeau-deploys-the-politics-of-hype-jeremy-corbyn-offers-politics-of-hope?CMP=share_btn_tw

*Justin Trudeau deploys the politics of hype. Jeremy Corbyn offers politics of hope* @Martin_Lukacs - Monday 12 June 2017

_Canada’s PM is a counterfeit progressive who champions war-planes, pipelines and privatization - look across the pond for __economic and environmental justice_

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has cynically continued many of his Conservative predecessor’s policies, while UK Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn now stands within reach of government with a redistributive agenda.

Their depiction in the international media couldn’t be more different.

You know Justin Trudeau from the Buzzfeed photo-spread or the BBC viral video: the feminist Prime Minister of Canada who hugs refugees, pandas, and his yoga-mat. He looks like he canoed straight from the lake to the stage of the nearest TED Talk — an inclusive, nature-loving do-gooder who must assuredly be loved by his people.

Then there’s what the columns of trans-Atlantic punditry told you about Jeremy Corbyn: the rumpled, charmless leader of UK’s Labour party whose supporters are fringe lunatics and his stances out-of-date utopianism. If he dared run an election with his political program, he would just as assuredly be rejected by the electorate.

But last week Corbyn pulled off the biggest political upset in modern British history. The Labour party, rather than undergoing a widely-advertised demise, is within striking distance of forming government. Millions, it turns out, are ready to embrace radical policies that take on vested interests, put services back into public hands, and spend massively on education, clean energy and healthcare.

Now that Corbyn has upended the rules that govern electoral life in the west, it will help us see Trudeau in proper perspective: as a smooth-talking centrist who has put the most coiffed gloss yet on the bankrupt and besieged neoliberalism of the age.

Trudeau’s coronation as a champion of everything fair and decent, after all, has much to do with shrewd and calculated public relations. I call it the Trudeau two-step.

First, he makes a sweeping proclamation pitched abroad — a bold pledge to tackle austerity or climate change, or to assure the rights of refugees or Indigenous peoples. The fawning international coverage bolsters his domestic credibility.

What follows next are not policies to ambitiously fulfill these pledges: it is ploys to quietly evacuate them of any meaning. The success of this maneuver – as well as its sheer cynicism – has been astonishing.

In this manner, Trudeau has basically continued, and in some cases exceeded, the economic agenda of Conservative Stephen Harper: approved mega fossil fuel projects, sought parliamentary power grabs, cut-back healthcare funding and attacked public pensions, kept up the dispossession of Indigenous peoples, undermined the prospect of universal childcare, maintained tax loopholes for the richest, and detained and deported thousands of migrants.

Out of breath? He has also broken an electoral reform promise, initiated a privatization scheme that is a massive corporate handout, left un-repealed a Tory political spy bill, launched air strikes in Iraq and Syria despite pledging a withdrawal, and inked the largest-ever weapons deal with the brutal, misogynistic Saudi Arabian regime.

Not exactly what those who voted for “real change” were expecting? Before you answer, here’s something titillating to distract and disarm you: Justin and Barack Obama rekindling their progressive bromance at an uber-cool Montreal diner. Jeremy Corbyn has shown us the meaning of a politics of genuine hope: what Trudeau has deployed has only ever been a politics of hype.

Trudeau’s latest progressive posturing is over foreign policy. Last week his government announced, to wide-spread acclaim, a brave course for their military that is independent of the reviled US administration. Except they will boost wasteful military spending by more than $60bn, a shocking seventy percent budgetary increase, and are already entertaining new NATO missions — exactly as Donald Trump has demanded. The doublespeak seems to have escaped the naval-gazing pundits: this is utter deference masquerading as defiance.

Jeremy Corbyn has shown what real courage looks like: he called for Trump’s visit to the UK to be canceled; and he has been a consistent critic of the UK’s disastrous, illegal wars of intervention in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya — many of which Canada directly participated in and Trudeau supported.

In the aftermath of the recent terrorist attacks in London, Corbyn dared to connect foreign wars to the inevitable blowback on civilians at home. Such truths are considered heresies as much in the political and media bubble on Ottawa’s Parliament Hill as in London’s Westminster. They are common sense to majorities in both countries.

But the gap between Justin and Jeremy, between symbolism and substance, is perhaps greatest on the environmental front. Labour’s platform laid out an industrial revolution that matches the scale of the climate crisis: an investment of £250bn over ten years to create renewable energy and green jobs, insulate millions of homes, and lower energy bills as well as carbon emissions. The energy system would be pried back from private vultures to public, decentralized control. Fracking would be banned. Trudeau’s method, on the other hand, has been to style himself a proud climate champion, while brazenly selling Canada’s enormous deposits of oil and gas to any willing buyer.

Justin Trudeau is a counterfeit, while Jeremy Corbyn is the progressive. Their way of doing politics is the difference between real change™ and transformation: not an empty spectacle orchestrated by elite technocrats beholden to bankers and oil barons, but an electoral program, pushed for and shaped by a mass movement, that would concretely improve the lives of millions of people.

The election of Trudeau, despite the illusory facade, shows that in Canada as much as in the UK there is a huge appetite for a genuinely activist government. Just as young people in droves voted for Bernie Sanders and Corbyn, they turned to Trudeau. As his shin wears off, they should not merely be disappointed or angry: they should be fighting for a real, radical alternative.

In Canada, the closest parallel to Corbyn’s positive program, as well as its media vilification, has been the Leap Manifesto. Canada’s elite opinion-makers wheezed that this broad coalition’s agenda – public ownership of key sectors, taxing corporations and the wealthy, and respecting Indigenous rights as a way to combat climate change - was electoral hemlock, beyond the shade of reasonable opinion. Polls showed the opposite: that a majority of people support it. Now Corbyn’s success proves beyond a doubt that, in these volatile political times, it can form the basis for a winning electoral program.

For that to happen, this political vision will have to be accompanied by face-to-face grassroots organizing on a massive scale, which is what propelled Corbyn to PM-in-waiting. Whether that’s the Leap’s new organizing initiatives, the New Democratic Party drawing bold lessons from its UK cousin, or a flowering of campaigns like the successful fight for a $15 minimum wage, the broader left must seize the moment: it must activate and connect and embolden, as the movement has in England, tens of thousands of people.

Nothing else will fully and truly puncture Trudeau’s progressive image. Even if the international press never catches on, people in Canada are surely ready.


----------



## Good2Golf (16 Jun 2017)

If the Guardian is the best cheering squad Corbyn can afford, he needs to take out a loan.  Having the two old guys from the Muppet Show harrumphing from the wings about how Corbyn is nothing short of brilliant if not rather plain, is pretty much Tier 2 stuff...if not a solid Tier 3 performance...

I gotta say, this piece actually makes me appreciate a little more than I did, what Team Red(-ish) is working on for a plan. :nod:

Regards
G2G


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 Jun 2017)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> ... Team Red(-ish) ...


I like ...


----------



## jollyjacktar (17 Jun 2017)

At least they got it right about Trudeau being a counterfeit.  They did fail to mention the real reason the youth voted for comrade Corbyn was because they're remoaners and hope to turn back Brexit.


----------



## Lex Justitia (21 Jun 2017)

I think the Martin Lukacs' piece for the Guardian makes the case that Trudeau much more centrist than many believe; he's much like Emmanuel Macron. It makes sense too; apparently the Liberal Party is moderate compared to NDP. I don't think anyone outside of Canada really thought Trudeau was the 'champion of progressive;' perhaps that was the reason why that opinion piece appeared in the Guardian--to demonstrate to progressive Europeans that Trudeau isn't the progressive they conceived him to be.


----------



## George Wallace (26 Jun 2017)

Does he intentionally go out of his way to do this?

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.



> World Views
> Justin Trudeau took part in Toronto Pride while wearing socks that say ‘Eid Mubarak’
> The Washington Post
> By Adam Taylor
> ...



I guess so.

More from the Washington Post on LINK


----------



## jollyjacktar (26 Jun 2017)

Wow, those are fugly socks.


----------



## Jarnhamar (27 Jun 2017)

Love it.  If Harper, blessed be his name, ever wore eid socks the left would be screaming murder and rage that he was disrespecting Islam since he has the socks on his feet and he's walking all over them.  But it's Justin so obviously respectful.


----------



## a_majoor (27 Jun 2017)

Lex Justitia said:
			
		

> I think the Martin Lukacs' piece for the Guardian makes the case that Trudeau much more centrist than many believe; he's much like Emmanuel Macron. It makes sense too; apparently the Liberal Party is moderate compared to NDP. I don't think anyone outside of Canada really thought Trudeau was the 'champion of progressive;' perhaps that was the reason why that opinion piece appeared in the Guardian--to demonstrate to progressive Europeans that Trudeau isn't the progressive they conceived him to be.



The definitions of many things vary according to culture, our "Conservatives" would be pretty liberal or at best centrists in the United States, and even the term "Liberal" has a different meaning in British Columbia when compared to the Rest of Canada. So it isn't surprising that Europeans would find our idea of "Progressive" not in accord to their version......


----------



## George Wallace (27 Jun 2017)

Well....He is keeping one industry alive and well........The "outrageous sock" manufacturers.    :-\


[Sorry.....Left out an "r".]


----------



## Jarnhamar (27 Jun 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Well....He is keeping one industry alive and well........The "outrageous sock" manufacturers.    :-\
> 
> 
> [Sorry.....Left out an "r".]



You bought some didn't you.

I can't help but wonder how Halal socks are made.


----------



## George Wallace (27 Jun 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> You bought some didn't you.



Grey wool with blue stripe.   [Xp


----------



## The Bread Guy (27 Jun 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Grey wool with blue stripe.   [Xp


And the stripes on b-b-b-both feet b-b-b-b-better match.

Oh, wait ...


----------



## George Wallace (27 Jun 2017)

[Xp


----------



## Remius (29 Jun 2017)

Meh, I could care less about his socks or his hair or his selfies. 

I'm more concerned for the way he is making senior appointments (appointing partisans to non-partisan posts) and how he is becoming worse that the CPC was at eroding the democratic process with time allocation and slipping in hidden legislation.


----------



## Loachman (29 Jun 2017)

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/andrew-coyne-trudeaus-petulant-tone-deaf-performance-a-remarkable-milestone/wcm/12ac58a7-fcad-4c26-9a99-239d62cb38a2

Andrew Coyne: Trudeau's petulant, tone-deaf performance a remarkable milestone

Until this week I don’t think any of us quite fathomed just how cynical Justin Trudeau could be. That he had broken several important election promises was well known; that his government was every bit as controlling, and as programmed, as its predecessor was every week becoming more apparent.

But Tuesday’s petulant, tone-deaf performance was still a remarkable milestone. As an exercise in executive blame-shifting, it may be without parallel. In the course of a single press conference, the prime minister managed to blame the opposition for his own decisions: to run deficits three times as large as promised for ten times as many years; to launch the Senate on its present collision course with the Commons; and to renege altogether on electoral reform.

The deficit, first. The prime minister may have promised to run deficits of no more than $10 billion for no more than two years, and to return to a balanced budget by the fourth. He may have instead delivered deficits of nearly $30 billion, with no end in sight. He may command a majority government, in a growing economy. But that should not be taken to mean he is somehow responsible for any of what has happened on his fiscal watch. Rather, it is all the Conservatives’ doing.

“If you tally up the promises we made [in the Liberal election platform], it was about $10 billion worth of new spending,” the putative prime minister explained. But — alas! — once elected they found they had been hoodwinked. “We just went from a floor where the budget was balanced, because supposedly the Conservatives had balanced the budget, to what was the reality of our budget of being at about $18 billion in deficit the end of that first year,” he added.

This is admittedly a familiar Liberal refrain, but it doesn’t get any truer with the retelling. That the Conservatives did indeed leave them a balanced budget for 2015-16 is not disputed by any serious analyst. The Liberals were only able to drag the final number into the red by some truly heroic back-dating of their own spending: a surplus of $7.5 billion through the first 11 months of the year became a deficit of — wait for it — $0.9 billion after the twelfth.

It is true that revenues came in less in the following fiscal year than the Tories had projected. But to blame the resulting $23-billion deficit - or the $29-billion deficit in the current fiscal year, or the $27-billion deficit in the next - on this is a stretch, to say the least. Compare: Budget 2015, the Conservatives’ last budget, forecast revenues for fiscal 2017 at $302-billion. Actual figure: $292-billion, a shortfall of $10-billion. Spending, meanwhile, came in at $291-billion, almost $17-billion over the original projection. So let us be clear on what, or who, was responsible for the deficit ballooning as it has.

On the Senate, whose transformation (in its own eyes at least) from a partisan patronage house to one filled with “independent, merit-based” appointees has coincided with a marked increase in belligerence, one that on several occasions has brought it perilously close to vetoing the elected House of Commons, the prime minister again accepted no responsibility. It may have been his decision to kick all of the Liberal senators out of caucus, or to experiment with a new, allegedly non-partisan appointment process. But the fault for whatever followed lay exclusively with the Conservatives.

“The fact that we are stymied a bit by a block of partisan Conservatives who vote against the government every chance they get,” he explained, “simply means there is more work to do to create a more independent and thoughtfully reflective Senate.” You understand, when the Conservative senators vote against the government - 70.5 per cent of the time, according to tabulations by the CBC’s Eric Grenier - they are merely being partisan. But when the prime minister’s own appointees vote with the government 94.5 per cent of the time, why, that just shows how independent and thoughtfully reflective they are.

But the most scandalous part of Trudeau’s performance was his response on why he had broken his promise on electoral reform. To refresh your memory: the Liberals promised the 2015 election would be “the last federal election conducted under the first-past-the-post voting system.” They did not specify what system they would replace it with. Rather, they would “convene an all-party Parliamentary committee to review a wide variety of reforms,” including ranked ballots and proportional representation.

And, indeed, all through the months of committee hearings that followed the prime minister and his minions professed to be keeping “an open mind” about reform. So how could Trudeau be blamed if, as he now confesses, the whole process was a sham and a fraud: that he had only ever been open to ranked ballots and had no intention of accepting any other proposal? Clearly, it was their fault, like the public’s before them, for believing him. Or at any rate, it was their fault for taking a different view from his.

After all, he said, “I have been consistent and crystal clear from the beginning of my political career” regarding his preference for a ranked ballot, if you don’t count the period from a few months before he was elected to about 15 months after. “Unfortunately, it became very clear that [while] we had a preference to give people a ranked ballot … nobody else agreed.” No, indeed. Not the opposition members of the committee. Not nearly 90 per cent of the experts and others who appeared before it. Not even the Liberal members of the committee.

As Trudeau tells it, while he was fully prepared to accept his own proposal, “there was no openness to compromise in the other parties.” Pity the prime minister: everybody is out of step but him.


----------



## Remius (29 Jun 2017)

Good article. 

I saw his press conference and frankly it was a bit cringe worthy.  Electoral reform and the Senate issue are problems of his own making.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (29 Jun 2017)

Meanwhile the NDP and Greens in BC intend on voting in non-confidence of the Liberal budget, meaning either we will will have a NDP/Green coalition government or a new election forthwith.


----------



## McG (29 Jun 2017)

Loachman said:
			
		

> http://nationalpost.com/opinion/andrew-coyne-trudeaus-petulant-tone-deaf-performance-a-remarkable-milestone/wcm/12ac58a7-fcad-4c26-9a99-239d62cb38a2
> 
> Andrew Coyne: Trudeau's petulant, tone-deaf performance a remarkable milestone


The PM is not going into summer on a high note.  I read this and even a similar out of CBC.



> *A very social Trudeau ducks the accountability of 'elective dictatorship': Andrew MacDougall*
> Prime minister blames others for campaign promises not kept
> Andrew MacDougall
> CBC News
> ...


http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/trudeau-accountability-macdougall-1.4181324


----------



## McG (4 Jul 2017)

Remius said:
			
		

> ... the Senate issue are problems of his own making.


Yep.  And it would seem _experts_ are not in agreement on his opinion over what the Senate can/cannot do with government initiated budget bills.  I personally prefer to think he is wrong on this topic, and I am disappointed the Senate did not stand its ground on the proposal to split the budget bill into two parts.  The Liberal election platform included opposition to omnibus bills slopped on top of budget bills; it would have been nice to see the Senate hold them accountable to that promise. 


> *PM's claim Senate can't amend budget bills contains 'some baloney'*
> Joan Bryden, The Canadian Press
> CTV News
> Published Thursday, June 29, 2017 9:10AM EDT
> ...


http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/pm-s-claim-senate-can-t-amend-budget-bills-contains-some-baloney-1.3481685


----------



## Kat Stevens (4 Jul 2017)

On behalf of all my brother siblings in socialism in the People's Democratic Republic of Albertastan, I would like to welcome the newly created British Columbian Soviet Republic to the glorious future as part of the Western Canadian Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.


----------



## Lightguns (4 Jul 2017)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> On behalf of all my brother siblings in socialism in the People's Democratic Republic of Albertastan, I would like to welcome the newly created British Columbian Soviet Republic to the glorious future as part of the Western Canadian Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.



Pfft, I am in New Brunswick, you all are just fresh meat.........


----------



## PuckChaser (4 Jul 2017)

Remember how we all laughed at the US and their government shutdown over budget bills? Our PM has almost created the exact same gongshow. The newly appointed senators are even banding together to decry the constant cabinet minister lobbying outside the Senate chambers.


----------



## Lightguns (5 Jul 2017)

It seems we are heading back to the early nineties.....

http://www.businessinsider.com/canada-financial-crisis-warning-signs-2017-6


----------



## McG (6 Jul 2017)

Remius said:
			
		

> A recent article that I happen to agree with and explain my sentiments on this particular issue.
> 
> http://nationalpost.com/opinion/john-robson-canadians-feel-for-aboriginals-but-our-patience-for-too-many-insults-has-limits/wcm/0ceac263-d2b2-4619-a8af-1ac4f9fa60ee
> 
> ...


The National Post had a few articles along that theme of minority politics/relations and national identity.  I assume the catalyst, for these opinion pieces, was all the media coverage given elements of the aboriginal community using the media to celebrate their intent to "resist Canada 150" and a number of university student councils/unions that passed motions following in the same step.  I think Rex Murphy got it right - the country is on a divisive path of identity politics, and our leaders should instead be offering a narrative that is more unifying.



> *Celebrating ‘diversity’ will only divide us, but celebrating Canada's unity keeps us strong*
> Identity politics aligns with diversity, and it is emphatically not our strength. Identity politics is a flight from commonality and unity
> Rex Murphy
> National Post
> ...


http://nationalpost.com/opinion/rex-murphy-celebrating-diversity-will-only-divide-us-but-celebrating-canadas-unity-keeps-us-strong/wcm/a314b7b4-414e-4638-809d-59be8465bb6f

... and there was also this:


> *The dangers of Canada shaming on the day of our birthday*
> Canada Day celebrations were almost as cloying the CBC's self-congratulatory zeal — but they were equally muted by a shaming of national pride over the country's colonial past
> Christie Blatchford
> National Post
> ...


----------



## George Wallace (8 Jul 2017)

Number One with a Bullet:

http://sharedhit.com/10-most-corrupt-politicians-in-the-world-number-1-will-shock-you/10/


----------



## Scott (8 Jul 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Number One with a Bullet:
> 
> http://sharedhit.com/10-most-corrupt-politicians-in-the-world-number-1-will-shock-you/10/



Click bait as a source?

Really?


----------



## George Wallace (8 Jul 2017)

Scott said:
			
		

> Click bait as a source?
> 
> Really?



It is the Internet after all..... [


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (8 Jul 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> It is the Internet after all..... [


----------



## George Wallace (8 Jul 2017)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

>



I think it got lost in translation.....  [


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 Jul 2017)

Scott said:
			
		

> Click bait as a source?
> 
> Really?


The magic of the internet:  you can always find ANYTHING you want to say there!


----------



## Scott (9 Jul 2017)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> The magic of the internet:  you can always find ANYTHING you want to say there!



Don't make me meme you!


----------



## Blair Gilmore (9 Jul 2017)

I was fortunate to meet three top Canadian political movers and shakers this past week, Andrew Scheer, the CDS, and LGen (Ret'd) Romeo Dallaire. It is always good to meet people like this in person to gain the full measure of the person. A couple of quick facts, Scheer is a tall man, army CDS men are all short, and Mr. Dallaire still has some fire in the belly. If you're interested in my full impressions of these accomplished Canadians, you can read about it below:

Apologies but the moderators would rather the full post instead of a link outside of this forum. Let me know if you would prefer the full text here or if you would rather a link.

Men to Aspire To

I was fortunate this week to meet three men whom I would confer celebrity status to. What is depressing is in all likelihood very few Canadians would be unable to identify them and what they are known for. How about you, could you name the Leader of the Official Opposition, the CDS and the former senator best known for his work to rid the world of child soldiers?

I drove an hour to meet Andrew Scheer at a Conservative BBQ out in Brookfield, NS last Monday. He was in my top three for my balloting choices for the new leader and I wanted to see what kind of man he was in person. Well, he’s a tall fellow. For some reason that doesn’t come across when you see him on TV during House of Commons question periods. He’s definitely a family man who has a passel of kids, five, all about 12 and younger. I had a chance to say hello to his wife and had a few words with the older son, who I found to be quite intelligent and able to hold a conversation. Mr. Scheer did the obligatory speech for the crowd but kept it short and light. When I shook his hand, I had to rib him about his Roughriders losing to my Bombers during the inaugural game at the new Regina stadium. All in all, he seems like a decent prairie boy and I am happy he is the new Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada.

Through my Royal United Services Institute of NS connections, I was able to attend the Chief of Defence Staff’s unplugged talk about the new Canada Defence Policy. General Jonathan Vance has an impressive pedigree starting from joining back in the 80’s, to commanding troops in Afghanistan, to making it as the top soldier in the Canadian Armed Forces. He is not a tall man but neither were his army predecessors Gen Rick Hillier or Gen Walt Natynczyk. I have met a few CDS’s over the years, the first one at CFB Summerside, PEI. I got to carry Gen John de Chastelain’s briefcase for a short period of time while he was visiting the air base. Gen Hillier was attending an Officer’s Mess function at 19 Wing Comox in support of a Boomer’s Legacy event. He definitely held rock star status. As for Gen Natynczkk, I was the OPI for a large mess function in his honour. He had been up for a flight with the Snowbirds and was a little green around the gills from the experience. It is always good to hear from these movers and shakers of the military as their vision by definition shapes the future of the military. Gen Vance is a consummate public speaker and was firm in his belief that contrary to the skeptics, the Defence Policy will hold the CAF in good stead for the next twenty years. I also liked the fact that he had little patience for a retired Major who was spouting nonsense over the recent ‘Proud Boys’ incident. I liked what I heard from the CDS and I feel the CAF is in good hands.

The last man that I was honoured to meet in person for the third time in my life, was LGen (Ret’d) Roméo Dallaire. It was close to a decade ago when I first met him giving a talk about Rwanda and child soldiers at the Syd Williams Theatre in Courtenay, BC. He took the time to greet as many people as he could to sign copies of his ‘Shake Hands with the Devil’ or to listen to your comments. It was obvious to me that he had the ghosts of a million Rwandans on his conscience. I met him again when he and a group of fellow senators came through Venture, the RCN training school in Esquimalt, BC for MARS officers, for a tour. Now, a few years later, I jumped at the chance to meet him again as he was giving a talk about his Dalhousie University program, Veteran Trainers for the Eradication of Child Soldiers (VTECS). Again, it must be a thing with army officers, he is not a large or tall man. Simultaneously, he comes across as frail and tough as nails. You can tell that he memorized his talking points long ago and they come off his tongue as old, familiar friends. He is also a man who doesn’t brook any guff and adroitly told a questioning twerp to ‘F’ himself after accusing him of war crimes. It has become popular for the supporters of the Rwandan perpetrators of the genocide to twist the massacre to shift blame to the retired general. This conspiracy theory has been thoroughly debunked along with the blame that the general was responsible for the deaths of ten Belgian peacekeepers at the start of the genocide. It is disheartening that along with the ravages of his PTSD, the man must put up with these unfounded accusations. As for his PTSD, according to his last book, ‘Waiting for First Light’, it seems as if death may be his only final release. I was quite impressed with the book and felt it was the best of his three works to date. I made a point to handwrite a thank you note and was able to deliver it to him at the end of the presentation. There was recognition in his face when we shook hands, even though our past meetings were very brief. I would have to say that he is a hero of mine and it has been a pleasure to make his acquaintance.

I have been a student of leaders of men for many decades. Hence, I have no interest in the show boaters or narcissistic selfie takers. It is a good week when you can meet powerful men in person to see what they are made of.


----------



## a_majoor (9 Jul 2017)

I notice that the apolitical friends I have outside of the army are all furious about the payout to Onar Khadar. If this sort of anger is sustained (or stoked by the opposition), then the Liberals could be facing some real problems in the election.


----------



## jollyjacktar (9 Jul 2017)

That election,  sadly, is a ways off.  Will this still be a hot button topic for folks (myself excluded) come then?  I will be expressing my displeasure at the ballot box without question but I'm not sure about the general public.


----------



## a_majoor (9 Jul 2017)

While I agree about the time frame, there may also be an accumulation of outrage combining events like this, the "Refugees" (I witnessed another outpouring of anger over that from people as varied as a Bangladeshi taxi driver in Kingston to my own wife) and the possibility of some terrorist events taking place in Canada (like the would be jihadi who was killed in Strathroy in August 2016, and event I'm sensitive to because his apparent target was the Galleria Mall in London, ON where my son was at the time).

Remember Donald Trump became President because he read the growing frustration of American working and middle class people over issues like security, jobs and immigration and could articulate these issues in forms which translated well into Social Media and could be given directly to millions of potential voters (MAGA, ripping up unfair trade deals, building a wall). If enough of Canada's middle and working class are feeling frustrations about Liberal mismanagement (and especially if they are feeling the consequences in the form of lowered income, reduced purchasing power, diminished opportunities and feeling insecure against terrorism), then this approach will have dividends for the opposition, if they are willing to tailor their approach and not "just" try to play Trump lite.


----------



## ModlrMike (9 Jul 2017)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> I notice that the apolitical friends I have outside of the army are all furious about the payout to Omar Khadar. If this sort of anger is sustained (or stoked by the opposition), then the Liberals could be facing some real problems in the election.





			
				jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> That election,  sadly, is a ways off.  Will this still be a hot button topic for folks (myself excluded) come then?  I will be expressing my displeasure at the ballot box without question but I'm not sure about the general public.



It may not matter in the end. I wager within the first week of the writ being dropped, the self described enlightened faction will throw out the "R" word and set the tone for the entire campaign.


----------



## mariomike (9 Jul 2017)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> (like the would be jihadi who was killed in Strathroy in August 2016, and event I'm sensitive to because his apparent target was the Galleria Mall in London, ON where my son was at the time).



Do you have a source for that?

If you do, I will add it to this discussion,

RCMP prevent attack - 10 Aug 2016  
http://army.ca/forums/threads/123793.25
7 pages.

Aaron Driver "intended target"
https://www.google.ca/search?q=%22aaron+driver%22+%22intended+target%22&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-CA:IE-Address&ie=&oe=&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&gfe_rd=cr&ei=dX1iWYOuFYiR8QfvjoCQCg&gws_rd=ssl


----------



## jollyjacktar (9 Jul 2017)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> the possibility of some terrorist events taking place in Canada (like the would be jihadi who was killed in Strathroy in August 2016
> 
> Remember Donald Trump



The wannabe was home grown though, not an import and I can't lay him at the PMs feet.  I truly hope we don't have a serious incident here but should that happen I believe it will depend upon the circumstances and response to it that will be judged at the ballot box.   

It also will depend upon what the POTUS   does and world events between now and then.  The country may want more Donald here  by a Team Blue win but then it might be a poisonous idea too.  For my thinking right now there's too many imponderables from here to there.  If a week is a long time in politics, the stretch to 2019 is an eternity.


----------



## a_majoor (10 Jul 2017)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Do you have a source for that?
> 
> If you do, I will add it to this discussion,
> 
> ...



http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/rcmp-says-it-received-credible-information-on-potential-terrorist-threat-public-not-in-danger/wcm/cf21979b-58a2-4718-affb-f304384d020c

Citi Plaza is the "official" name. I certainly ope that we don't see another incident like this, but as I learned years ago in economics, people follow incentives, and if you incentives behaviour, you get more of it. Getting them million dollars for committing an act many of us went to Afghanistan to stop (or kill the animals who did that sort of thing) is a pretty powerful message to send.....


----------



## mariomike (10 Jul 2017)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/rcmp-says-it-received-credible-information-on-potential-terrorist-threat-public-not-in-danger/wcm/cf21979b-58a2-4718-affb-f304384d020c
> 
> Citi Plaza is the "official" name.



Thank-you for your source. It's dated National Post 11 Aug 2016:

"Toronto Transit Commission spokesman Brad Ross said Thursday the service had been “made aware of a terror threat investigation yesterday morning, but it had no specifics attached to it, including city or location. We took the opportunity, however, to remind our workforce that if they see something, say something and to be vigilant at all times. That is standard operating procedure at the TTC.

Metrolinx, which operates the Go Transit system, said it was also told of a general threat “which was not specific to our agency or a location as far as I understand. In response, we raised our level of vigilance and worked closely with national, provincial and local security and police services on our response,” spokeswoman Anne Marie Aikins said."

National Post 20 Aug 2016

"The target of his alleged attack has still not been determined, he added. While Driver had told the taxi driver to take him to Citi Plaza in London, Ont., there is no indication that was the target and Cabana noted there was a train station near the mall.

“Was he going there to hop on the train? We don’t know yet so we’re doing the forensics on the computer, hoping that we’re going to find something there but so far we have nothing,” he said."
RCMP Deputy Commissioner Mike Cabana 

http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/aaron-drivers-more-powerful-bombs-never-detonated-rcmp-says-revealing-new-details-of-tense-confrontation/wcm/034c5249-744c-4092-8021-c2befc768bd9


----------



## Loachman (15 Jul 2017)

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/mark-mcconaghy-trudeaus-failure-to-commemorate-liu-xiaobo-proof-that-economic-self-interest-canadas-only-goal-with-china/wcm/53826f03-2d5d-444c-b891-daca44286270

Mark McConaghy: Trudeau's naked economic self-interest dishonours a hero of Chinese democracy

Canadian leaders do these Chinese citizens a tremendous disservice by refusing to publicly critique the web of repression they live through everyday. Such advocacy must begin with the prime minister

Special to National Post 
July 14, 2017
8:35 PM EDT

On the same evening that Canadian Governor General David Johnston met with Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing, Chinese democracy activist Liu Xiaobo died under guard in a hospital in Shenyang. As Johnston expressed his appreciation for President Xi “making time for us,” Liu passed away in silence, his body wracked by a cancer that was revealed to the public only after it was largely beyond treatment. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau didn’t acknowledge or commemorate Liu’s death in any way, not even on Twitter. This was in keeping with his silence regarding Liu’s case over the last few weeks, even as China’s refusal to allow Liu to seek medical treatment abroad became known to the world.

Though Minister of Foreign Affairs Chrystia Freeland would later release a statement commemorating Liu, it also avoided directly criticizing China. Instead, Freeland notes passively that Liu “spent many years imprisoned for peacefully exercising his right to speak freely, was denied the opportunity to travel to receive his 2010 Nobel Peace Prize, and more recently, in his final days, was denied the medical treatment he requested.” Trudeau’s failure to deliver a statement, coupled with this bland comment from the foreign affairs minister, compounded the sense that Ottawa is loath to say anything that will upset leaders in Beijing - a reticence no doubt related to the next round of exploratory discussions set to begin in two weeks regarding a potential free trade deal between the two countries.

Trudeau's failure to deliver a statement about Liu compounded the sense that Ottawa is loath to say anything that will upset leaders in Beijing

The Liberals’ failure to critique their counterparts in Beijing shows that it is naked economic self-interest, rather than any larger commitment to a shared democratic future, which defines this government’s handling of the China file. Were it not so, Trudeau would have commemorated Liu, a veteran of the 1989 democracy movement, who fought tirelessly for human rights and political reform in China. In 2008, Liu bravely spearheaded the Charter 08 campaign, a movement for genuine systemic reform in the country. The Chinese regime only confirmed the power of the Charter when they chose to suppress all traces of it, jailing Liu on the charge of “inciting subversion of state power.” His case has had a tremendous “chilling effect” on China’s intellectuals, as they have largely accepted the regime’s demand that no open critique of China’s one-party system appear in their work.

The Trudeau administration may believe that they are doing both China and Canada a service by refusing to comment on such issues. After all, as the Beijing government often says, are these not China’s domestic affairs, ones that foreign nations have no right to intervene in? Yet to accept Beijing’s logic on such matters flies in the face of a central Canadian value: the free exchange of ideas across cultures.

More importantly, it does nothing to empower those young people in China who are searching for a means of transitioning their country away from authoritarian governance. Such young people have fewer and fewer outlets for global interaction. On the same week that Liu died it was reported that the Chinese government plans to block all Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) throughout the country, starting in early 2018. VPNs allow internet users to securely access private networks and share data through public networks. If the government does block them, vital digital lifelines to international news and global cultural trends will be severed. 

It is little surprise, then, that with their digital ecosystem dominated by state media, the question of Liu’s legacy remains a fraught one for China’s netizens. When the news of Liu’s death broke, many Chinese wrote indirect expressions of condolence on the popular social media site Weibo, calling him a Doushi (a warrior). Yet others claimed that Liu was not worth remembering. They argued he was a false Junzi (the Confucian term for a cultivated man) who had sought fame by undermining the party and the state. While Liu has been praised for his courage in Taiwan and Hong Kong, in the Mainland, the battle over his legacy has only just begun.

Canadian leaders do these young people a tremendous disservice by refusing to publicly critique the web of repression they live through everyday. Such advocacy must begin with the prime minister, who remains the only Canadian leader with a global platform large enough to have a sustained impact. As tens of thousands of young Chinese move to Canada to study and live, and with millions more on campuses across the Mainland eager to engage with Canada, the ethical imperative to articulate what Canada can mean for China in the realm of ideas and values is more urgent than ever.

In an era in which one tweet can cross oceans instantly, Canada’s leader must remind young Chinese citizens that they are not alone, and that different models of social governance are not only possible but essential. Such a message is the only fitting tribute Justin Trudeau can give to Liu Xiaobo and his life’s work.

Mark McConaghy is a visiting post-doctoral scholar at Academia Sinica’s Institute for Chinese Literature and Philosophy in Taipei, Taiwan. He completed his PhD studies in modern Chinese cultural history in the Department of East Asian Studies at the University of Toronto.


----------



## Loachman (15 Jul 2017)

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/national-post-view-as-trudeaus-symbolic-gestures-flop-aboriginals-continue-to-suffer/wcm/d829428c-33c2-49c0-a7c3-2fa2b7cdf2f3

National Post View: As Trudeau's symbolic gestures flop, Aboriginals continue to suffer

There are dozens of reports containing hundreds of recommendations gathering dust on shelves, while the MMIW inquiry haplessly spins its wheels and descends into bickering 

National Post View 
July 14, 2017
8:33 PM EDT

It has become apparent that the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls is at risk of going off the rails. Established last September to investigate systemic causes of violence against Canadian Indigenous women and girls, the inquiry’s image has been hurt by a series of high-profile personnel departures, public condemnations by vocal Aboriginal critics (including Justice Minister Jody-Wilson Raybould’s father), and little to no progress in commencing hearings. As a recent article by the National Post’s Maura Forrest made clear, many now view the inquiry as completely illegitimate and dysfunctional.

“It lacks leadership. I think (Chief Commissioner) Marion Buller, she’s a lovely person, but she doesn’t have the skills, the management skills,” one source told Forrest. Forrest further noted, “disagreements between commissioners and employees have spawned factions, power struggles and inertia within the inquiry. ‘It’s high school, it really is. … It’s dysfunctional, and it’s not because they don’t care. They do care, they just don’t know how to do it.’”

Unfortunately, the inquiry's dysfunction was always foreseeable. It was also avoidable

The National Post warned from the beginning that an inquiry was no way to address the serious problem of violence against Aboriginals, and Indigenous women in particular. We have all known all along that too many Indigenous women and men live in conditions that make them especially vulnerable to violence.

The need for law enforcement to better protect these vulnerable people is abundantly clear. In October 2016, the RCMP oversight agency known as the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission completed a two-year investigation into the conduct of officers in northern British Columbia. The commission was established to understand how the RCMP had failed to protect Indigenous women and girls in that region, and has developed recommendations for addressing systemic problems in its procedures and practices.

And in 2014, the RCMP released its own report, entitled Missing and Murdered Aboriginal Women: A National Operational Overview, which covers many of the issues the inquiry was established to address.

The inquiry was not really expected to unearth new causes or solutions

Meanwhile, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission spoke directly to the social causes behind the particular vulnerability of Aboriginals, offering 94 recommendations to help remedy the legacy of Canada’s residential schools, which contributed to so much social breakdown on so many reserves.

So the MMIW inquiry was not really expected to unearth new causes or solutions. Rather, its primary function was to provide an outlet for the families of victims to voice their pain and anger, and achieve some measure of healing.

But when this is the goal, it cannot be a surprise that it is impossible to satisfy all parties. Justice can mean many different things to different people. Aggrieved families will each have different views on who ought to be consulted and on what terms. Thus, it is entirely unsurprising to see so many people expressing dissatisfaction with how the inquiry is being run.

In this respect, the inquiry highlights the danger of the largely symbolic, if well-intentioned, gestures of which this government is so fond. Such actions often end up being costly, while opening up more divisions than they close.

Take, for example, the government’s recent efforts to promote Indigenous inclusion and recognition in its Canada 150 celebrations. The government’s seemingly hasty decision to turn the former United States Embassy building into an Indigenous centre was dismissed by many Aboriginal leaders on the grounds that the building was “not a culturally appropriate space.” Now, some groups are calling for a building that will not be a mere “hand-me-down,” to use the words of the Indigenous Task Force of the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada.

Earlier in its mandate, the government also reneged on its promise to enact the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples - presumably after it became apparent that it would be utterly unworkable to incorporate the UNDRIP into Canadian law. The Liberals could have avoided disappointing a lot of people if they had never made this grand, symbolic promise in the first place.

Given that the Liberal government won so much easy credit for offering little more than gestures on this file, it seems just that they’re now struggling to catch a single break. Perhaps, having been chastened by these flops, it will now see value in taking tangible action.

It could be done, and immediately. As we noted in a 2015 editorial, “58 reports (have already) contained plenty of very common-sense recommendations: Improved data-gathering …; better access to transportation, shelters and safe housing; and improved relations with police. … (B)oth aboriginal and non-aboriginal leaders have spoken of the need for comprehensive improvement in aboriginal Canadians’ lives: better and less crowded housing, education improvement, fighting addictions, job opportunities.”

Two years later, we’re no further ahead and this government isn’t meaningfully helping. There are dozens of reports containing hundreds of recommendations gathering dust on shelves in Ottawa, while the planned inquiry haplessly spins its wheels and descends into pointless bickering. If we want to protect and improve lives, enough with the gestures. Start fixing the problems.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (17 Jul 2017)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> That election,  sadly, is a ways off.  Will this still be a hot button topic for folks (myself excluded) come then?  I will be expressing my displeasure at the ballot box without question but I'm not sure about the general public.



I think it will, it's is a easy story to retell and can be added to some other event closer to the election, if word gets out that any of the money goes to anything that might look like hardline Muslim group, then there will be hell to pay. If there is a major terrorist attack in Canada, this will be on people's minds.


----------



## jmt18325 (17 Jul 2017)

Colin P said:
			
		

> I think it will, it's is a easy story to retell and can be added to some other event closer to the election, if word gets out that any of the money goes to anything that might look like hardline Muslim group, then there will be hell to pay. If there is a major terrorist attack in Canada, this will be on people's minds.



Most of it will go to his lawyers, who have been unpaid to this point.  There's also a slightly greater than 50% chance that Khadr's conviction will be overturned in US court (probably a greater chance than that actually).  If it is, the narrative changes significantly.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (17 Jul 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Most of it will go to his lawyers, who have been unpaid to this point.  There's also a slightly greater than 50% chance that Khadr's conviction will be overturned in US court (probably a greater chance than that actually).  If it is, the narrative changes significantly.



I am nearly 100% certain that the Feds paid him $10.5 million, PLUS his legal fees.

Please correct me if I am wrong.


----------



## jmt18325 (17 Jul 2017)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I am nearly 100% certain that the Feds paid him $10.5 million, PLUS his legal fees.
> 
> Please correct me if I am wrong.



I don't think so.  They had to pay costs for each of the judgements in his favour, but I didn't see anything about his continuing legal fees.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (17 Jul 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Most of it will go to his lawyers, who have been unpaid to this point.  There's also a slightly greater than 50% chance that Khadr's conviction will be overturned in US court (probably a greater chance than that actually).  If it is, the narrative changes significantly.



His Lawyers earned it, they did a great job painting him as some sort of innocent kid. I am convinced that we interrupted a fruitful career in AQ that was mapped out for him and that he was eagerly hoping for.


----------



## jollyjacktar (17 Jul 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I don't think so.  They had to pay costs for each of the judgements in his favour, but I didn't see anything about his continuing legal fees.



For once, I hope you're right.  If so, all's the more reason for the Feds to have dragged this out in court to the bitter end, as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## jmt18325 (17 Jul 2017)

Colin P said:
			
		

> His Lawyers earned it, they did a great job painting him as some sort of innocent kid. I am convinced that we interrupted a fruitful career in AQ that was mapped out for him and that he was eagerly hoping for.



Of that, I have no doubt you're right.  His family was his main influence, and we all know where that was going.  He was a kid though, dragged away from his home at 9 to go do god knows what.


----------



## jmt18325 (17 Jul 2017)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> For once, I hope you're right.  If so, all's the more reason for the Feds to have dragged this out in court to the bitter end, as far as I'm concerned.



In that case, they would have had to pay costs, when they inevitably lost.  Don't take what I said as gospel though.  Just because I didn't hear it, doesn't mean that it didn't happen.


----------



## gryphonv (17 Jul 2017)

Colin P said:
			
		

> I think it will, it's is a easy story to retell and can be added to some other event closer to the election, if word gets out that any of the money goes to anything that might look like hardline Muslim group, then there will be hell to pay. If there is a major terrorist attack in Canada, this will be on people's minds.



As much as this is a hot button issue. This is what I dislike the most about Canadian Politics. It's more about being punishing an outgoing party then taking in the platform of the incoming party

Don't get me wrong, I hope this is remembered when the next election happens, but as much as I disagree with Justin Trudeau, I still don't like it when someone votes for a party for the sole reason they are not another party. This seems to play out over and over in our politics.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (17 Jul 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Of that, I have no doubt you're right.  His family was his main influence, and we all know where that was going.  He was a kid though, dragged away from his home at 9 to go do god knows what.



dragged? or did he follow as kids do. I don't buy the "influenced crap" He knew what he was doing and likely had a pretty good idea that his ties to Canada ended when he started making and planting bombs. I am surrounded by kids 8-12 right now and already they have a good sense of right and wrong, better than some adults.


----------



## jollyjacktar (17 Jul 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> In that case, they would have had to pay costs, when they inevitably lost.  Don't take what I said as gospel though.  Just because I didn't hear it, doesn't mean that it didn't happen.



I will be more surprised to learn that they in fact let Khadr pay his own costs than I would be to find they wussed out and paid that too.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (17 Jul 2017)

I cannot find the article I thought I read saying the Feds paid his legal bills, too.

Every other article I googled indicated that the 10.5 million included his legal fees.

I was wrong.


----------



## gryphonv (17 Jul 2017)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I cannot find the article I thought I read saying the Feds paid his legal bills, too.
> 
> Every other article I googled indicated that the 10.5 million included his legal fees.
> 
> I was wrong.



Still even if its 30-40% of the settlement ,which is not unheard of, Khadr still walks with more than 6m.

In the end Business is good for that Lawyer, he's representing the 5 who are suing CSIS now.


----------



## Good2Golf (17 Jul 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Of that, I have no doubt you're right.  His family was his main influence, and we all know where that was going.  He was a kid though, dragged away from his home at 9 to go do god knows what.



What? Build IEDs.

Regards
G2G


----------



## a_majoor (24 Jul 2017)

The government should have fought it out in court, since the legal principle seems to have been Khadar's rights were violated. I'm not a lawyer and would appreciate feedback from one, but my sense is that taking up arms against Canada and her allies as Khadar and indeed his entire family did negates any rights or claims they have against Canada. That being the case, he (and by extension any people who take up arms against the nation) no longer have any "rights" or claims on Canada, nor do we have any obligations to them (outside of any LOAC considerations).

I was also interested in Trudeau's demand that opposition MP's stop talking about the issue (especially in the US), since this makes sweeping the entire issue under the rug that much harder.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (24 Jul 2017)

Well the Loyal Jiga (spelling?) took place earlier that year, so he was fighting the lawful government of the land and the US. Not sure if Canadian troops were on the soil. My read of the SCC decision was they were duty bound to request extradition but any compensation if at all was up to the government. At the end of the day saying "Sorry for interviewing you while sleep deprived and sharing that information with our allies" and then state, we will consider charges under the ATA if you pursue the matter.


----------



## jollyjacktar (24 Jul 2017)

Colin P said:
			
		

> At the end of the day saying "Sorry for interviewing you while sleep deprived and sharing that information with our allies" and then state, we will consider charges under the ATA if you pursue the matter.



That would take balls, of which they possess none it seems.


----------



## Loachman (24 Jul 2017)

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/graeme-gordon-liberals-let-terrorists-keep-their-citizenship-yet-revoke-citizenship-for-lesser-offences/wcm/20b91bd2-4978-41d8-ae0d-ced39b2f9a86

Graeme Gordon: Liberals let terrorists keep their citizenship, yet revoke citizenship for lesser offences

The Liberals are revoking citizenships obtained under false pretences. But revocation in these cases may have less to do with the fact of the lie, than the nature of the act the lie tried to conceal.

July 17, 2017 8:42 AM EDT

Last Updated July 17, 2017 8:48 AM EDT

Although the Liberals’ shocking payout to Omar Khadr has eclipsed all other stories this month, the government’s recent passage of Bill C-6 is actually far more consequential. Unlike the Khadr settlement - which provides a generous monetary payment to a single Canadian in unique circumstances - Bill C-6 will reward any number of convicted terrorists with something invaluable: the right to retain their Canadian citizenship.

Specifically, Bill C-6 repeals parts of the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act, which was brought in under Harper’s Conservatives in 2014, and which allowed the government to revoke the citizenship of dual-national Canadians if they were convicted of acts of terrorism or treason. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau had promised to repeal this legislation during the election campaign, famously asserting that “A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian.”

Yet, the Liberals clearly don’t stand by this statement in all circumstances. While the government can now no longer strip the citizenship of individuals who want to randomly slaughter innocent civilians (and has even retroactively restored the citizenship of the Toronto 18 ringleader), it remains empowered under the Citizenship Act to revoke the citizenship of individuals who have become citizens through fraud or misrepresentation. According to a February 2017 article in this paper, the government has moved to revoke the citizenship of an average of 17 people per month on these grounds, whereas the Harper government revoked the citizenship of a total of 65 individuals between 2007 and 2014.

Trudeau famously said that 'A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian.' Yet, they clearly don't stand by this statement in all circumstances

Trudeau has justified revocation for fraud or misrepresentation on the grounds that citizenship was obtained under false pretences. “When people have lied on their applications,” he said, “those applications get rescinded, even years later.” And certainly, there are cases where revocation on this basis may be justified. But as the government’s own actions suggest, revocation in these cases may have less to do with the fact of the lie, than the nature of the act that the lie tried to conceal.

For example, Canadian authorities are currently fighting to revoke the citizenship of Jorge Vinicio Sosa Orantes, a man who is believed to have played a horrific role in the 1982 Guatemalan military’s massacre of its citizens (Orantes is said to have used a sledgehammer, gun and grenade against fellow Guatemalans). Canada’s immigration authorities are seeking to revoke Orantes’ citizenship on the grounds that he concealed this pertinent information about his past in his citizenship application.

But evidently, it is the underlying crime that Orantes is believed to have committed that the authorities take serious issue with - more than the mere fact that he concealed it. Otherwise, the authorities would take a consistently harsh approach to all acts of immigrant fraud or misrepresentation - which we know the government does not do. For evidence of this, one need look no further than the case of former Minister of Democratic Institutions Maryam Monsef, who was born in Iran - and not Afghanistan - as her parent had claimed in Monsef’s immigration papers. In late 2016, Monsef confirmed that immigration authorities were not taking steps to revoke her citizenship.

If the government is going to not revoke the citizenship of individuals whose fraud or misrepresentation is relatively trivial, it should be required to be consistent about it. Currently, it’s not clear that it is. A young woman of Egyptian origins, for instance, is reportedly facing revocation years after becoming a Canadian because her parents provided false (but relatively trivial) information on her application when she was a child. Her circumstances sound an awful lot like Monsef’s.

And if the government is willing to revoke the citizenship of very bad men or women—such as Orantes—it is nonsensical that the government would not also be willing to revoke the citizenship of individuals who are found guilty of terrorism or treason. These are society’s worst crimes.

If the government is going to revoke citizenship for trivial fraud or misrepresentation, it should be consistent about it

Consider the case of the June 21 attack by Canadian citizen and Tunisian native Amor Ftouhi on Lt. Jeff Neville at the Bishop International Airport in Flint, Mich. Ftouhi snuck up behind Neville, stabbed him in the neck with a 12-inch knife while yelling “Allahu akbar!,” and was only prevented from killing him thanks to the heroic intervention of a maintenance worker. It’s impossible to justify a man like Ftouhi being allowed to remain in the country, while a woman whose parents committed minor fraud is removed.

Or at least it’s impossible to justify if you do not entertain bleeding heart notions about terrorists. Following the Boston Bombing attack in 2013, Trudeau tried to justify the attackers’ actions in an interview with CBC’s Peter Mansbridge, noting, “But there’s no question that this happened because there is someone who feels completely excluded, completely at war with innocence, at war with a society, and our approach has to be … where do those tensions come from?” It later turned out that the Tsarnaev brothers were young, middle-class men with bright futures ahead of them.

Canadians should ask why the Liberals are willing to treat a terrorist’s citizenship as sacrosanct, yet also willing to strip individuals of their citizenship for a range of infractions, both serious and trivial. This double standard cannot be logically explained. Dual nationals who commit society’s worst offences should not be permitted to remain Canadian.


----------



## McG (24 Jul 2017)

Colin P said:
			
		

> My read of the SCC decision was they were duty bound to request extradition ...


Did you mean to say we were not duty bound to request repatriation?

My understanding is that we ran afoul only, as you covered, ...


			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> ... for interviewing [him] while sleep deprived and sharing that information with our allies ...


----------



## Loachman (24 Jul 2017)

There is a thread for Khadr stuff. This thread should be for more general discussion.


----------



## jmt18325 (25 Jul 2017)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The government should have fought it out in court,



They did just that, more than once.  They lost each time.


----------



## jmt18325 (25 Jul 2017)

Loachman said:
			
		

> http://nationalpost.com/opinion/graeme-gordon-liberals-let-terrorists-keep-their-citizenship-yet-revoke-citizenship-for-lesser-offences/wcm/20b91bd2-4978-41d8-ae0d-ced39b2f9a86
> 
> Graeme Gordon: Liberals let terrorists keep their citizenship, yet revoke citizenship for lesser offences



The flaw in this logic - if they obtained citizenship under false pretenses, they were never actually legal citizens.


----------



## jollyjacktar (25 Jul 2017)

Loachman said:
			
		

> There is a thread for Khadr stuff. This thread should be for more general discussion.


----------



## Loachman (25 Jul 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> The flaw in this logic - if they obtained citizenship under false pretenses, they were never actually legal citizens.



If they were inclined towards terrorism, or had no intent to abide by our laws, then they did indeed obtain citizenship under false pretences.

They either falsely swore their oath of allegiance or broke it.


----------



## Kirkhill (25 Jul 2017)

Loachman said:
			
		

> If they were inclined towards terrorism, or had no intent to abide by our laws, then they did indeed obtain citizenship under false pretences.
> 
> *They either falsely swore their oath of allegiance or broke it*.



Oaths ain't what they used to be....



> TORONTO — A Toronto man has recanted what he calls the "royalty part" of the mandatory Oath of Allegiance to the Queen after becoming a Canadian citizen this morning.
> 
> Dror Bar-Natan, a 49-year-old math professor from Israel, was one of three permanent residents who challenged the constitutionality of making citizenship conditional on the pledge to the Queen, her heirs and successors.
> 
> ...



http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/11/30/dror-bar-natan-queen_n_8682786.html

I remember wondering at the time what the ruling did for the crime of perjury - given that oaths are apparently only symbolic.


But that's the modern world.  Or should I say the post-modern world.


----------



## GAP (25 Jul 2017)

hmmmm.....uh, why do we need people like this?


----------



## Halifax Tar (25 Jul 2017)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Oaths ain't what they used to be....
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/11/30/dror-bar-natan-queen_n_8682786.html
> 
> ...



Shouldn't that void his citizenship ?


----------



## jmt18325 (25 Jul 2017)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Shouldn't that void his citizenship ?




You would think, but, the courts say no...


----------



## jollyjacktar (25 Jul 2017)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Oaths ain't what they used to be....
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/11/30/dror-bar-natan-queen_n_8682786.html
> 
> ...



As I cannot, in all good conscience, swear on a bible to give testimony in court I have always optioned to affirm that the evidence I am about to provide etc etc etc.  It's just as legally binding on me as it would be if I swore on a bible and I would have paid the same price if I had committed perjury.


----------



## gryphonv (25 Jul 2017)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> As I cannot, in all good conscience, swear on a bible to give testimony in court I have always optioned to affirm that the evidence I am about to provide etc etc etc.  It's just as legally binding on me as it would be if I swore on a bible and I would have paid the same price if I had committed perjury.



One thing is for sure, although there wasn't much public outcry when the Israeli challenged the vow after he took it. I'm sure if it was another person from a different religion, there would of been a lot more public outcry.


----------



## jollyjacktar (25 Jul 2017)

Times have changed and maybe it's time for the citizenship oath to have options to meet with these new times.  You want people to swear allegiance to the state and mean it.  Perhaps they need to have an alternative that will satisfy the purpose an oath is desired to meet while at the same time being worth the words sworn to to begin with, just like in court.


----------



## ModlrMike (25 Jul 2017)

Here is where people mistake the difference between the Queen (Elizabeth Windsor if you will), with the Queen (the embodiment of the Crown representing all of us). When we swear allegiance to the Queen in the context of the citizenship oath, we're really talking about swearing allegiance to the Nation, and to each other as represented by the Crown.

However, the bigger question is why would you come from somewhere else, and at the moment you become Canadian, make an issue of the oath? To my mind, if you don't want to swear to the oath as currently written, then that's your choice. Just as it's our choice to deny you citizenship.


----------



## Jarnhamar (25 Jul 2017)

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/07/24/liberals-new-citizenship-test-scraps-barbaric-practices-warni_a_23045221/



> OTTAWA — Respecting treaties with Indigenous Peoples, paying taxes and filling out the census are listed as mandatory obligations of Canadian citizenship in a draft version of a new study guide for the citizenship exam.
> 
> The working copy obtained by The Canadian Press suggests the federal government has completely overhauled the book used by prospective Canadians to prepare for the test.
> 
> ...



I'm glad we removed speaking about honour killings, FGM and crimes. That's just racist. We're highlighting the real important stuff; taxes, census and archaic and broken indigenous treaties.

All I need is a law punishing the critisim of Islam and I'll be happier than our prime minister in front of a camera.


----------



## Kirkhill (25 Jul 2017)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Times have changed and maybe it's time for the citizenship oath to have options to meet with these new times.  You want people to swear allegiance to the state and mean it.  Perhaps they need to have an alternative that will satisfy the purpose an oath is desired to meet while at the same time being worth the words sworn to to begin with, just like in court.



Sorry Jack.

One oath.  For everybody. And mean it.

Not 32,000,000 individual statements describing 32,000,000 separate agreements with the Crown.  

And an oath is an oath is an oath.  

It is a promise made on the most precious thing you can think of..... that used to be, for some people, their soul and the promise of meeting their ancestors in the after life.  That doesn't seem to work for some folks these days.  I have no idea what those folks value.

And then there is the crowd that get special dispensation to lie to infidels.

As I said.  Oaths ain't what they used to was.



> they tell the lies I am wanted to,
> They are used to the lies I tell;
> And we do not need interpreters
> When we go to buy or sell.


----------



## jollyjacktar (25 Jul 2017)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Sorry Jack.
> 
> One oath.  For everybody. And mean it.
> 
> ...



The thing is Chris, I'm an actual infidel.  I don't hold the beliefs of my having a soul or meeting my ancestors when I shuffle of this mortal coil, to borrow from the Bard.  My swearing to God, would be false and therefore not ethical.  Just because I don't share the belief in a higher power as other Canadians who do doesn't make me unethical or untrustworthy.  You just need to have me make my oath in another manner that is as binding and trusted.  The end result is still the same and honestly that is the desired goal, is it not?  

I would be happier about someone swearing an oath in a manner that holds the same weight to them as an oath would mean to you.  I want your word as your bond, not just empty words that have no meaning to you as a measure of your integrity.  

Just as torture is not actually effective in learning intelligence from your subject.  He's going to say anything to get the bad man to stop, even if it's total bullshit.  The man may think he's ahead of the game and might even really enjoy playing the game with his new friend, but is it of value?  

So OK, you're not keen on a citizen not making this oath.  What to do then for those Republicans out there or other non-Monarchists?  Tell them to swear or the deal is off?  If they recant like this Israeli,  instantly take the citizenship back?   If the Government doesn't have the balls to strip it from terrorists,  that won't happen for oath breakers, you can bet.  At the very least, I could see no end of litigation against said Crown.  At $10.5M terrorist hush money type of bonanza will be a common event, I'd wager.

As much as an oath option rots you, as K money burns my ass.  Maybe we both need to get with the times as with all the snowflakes and SJWs out there, the times, they are a changing.


----------



## a_majoor (25 Jul 2017)

This goes to the much deeper issue of culture and national values. The firestorm President Trump ignited with his speech defending Western values in Poland is another example, much of the commentariat expressed horror that the President was singling out Western values as being the source of our strength and cultural, military and economic power.

This is also discussed quite extensively by Samuel Huntington in "The Clash of Civilizations" and "Who are we?".

If we as a culture or a nation can't even agree on what "seals the deal" in an oath, then how will we be able to navigate more complex and subtle issues. Even contracts and contract law could become broken (one of Huntington's points is that "Civilizations" often have totally different understandings and definitions of concepts like Rule of Law, Human Rights and so on). Without a unifying "culture", Canada could become effectively ungovernable or essentially split into separate polities under a single geographic location.


----------



## jollyjacktar (26 Jul 2017)

Nazi's with Canadian citizenship are a no-no but terrorists are a fat payout and  "a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian"...   :

Former Nazi stripped of citizenship for the 4th time


----------



## gryphonv (26 Jul 2017)

"There is one condition in which citizenship can be revoked, and that is when it was acquired based on fraud, misinformation and not representing clearly who one was,” Trudeau said while visiting Waterloo.

“And that is at the core of this case I’m sure . . . Canadians are rightly proud, not just of our citizenship, but of the values that are articulated by that citizenship, and we have to make sure that we’re doing everything to defend the principles and values that it mean to be Canadian.”

How convinent for him to tout this when it is in his favor.


----------



## jmt18325 (26 Jul 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I'm glad we removed speaking about honour killings, FGM and crimes. That's just racist. We're highlighting the real important stuff; taxes, census and archaic and broken indigenous treaties.



As broken as they may be, those treaties are constitutional documents.  There's little chance of changing them.  There's also little desire on the part of one if the interested parties.


----------



## Kirkhill (26 Jul 2017)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> The thing is Chris, I'm an actual infidel.  I don't hold the beliefs of my having a soul or meeting my ancestors when I shuffle of this mortal coil, to borrow from the Bard.  My swearing to God, would be false and therefore not ethical.  Just because I don't share the belief in a higher power as other Canadians who do doesn't make me unethical or untrustworthy.  You just need to have me make my oath in another manner that is as binding and trusted.  The end result is still the same and honestly that is the desired goal, is it not?
> 
> I would be happier about someone swearing an oath in a manner that holds the same weight to them as an oath would mean to you.  I want your word as your bond, not just empty words that have no meaning to you as a measure of your integrity.
> 
> ...



Jack, the oath option doesn't "rot" me.

I respect the fact that you respect the oath enough to take the words seriously.

In my opinion the oath, or any oath, was not just a matter of the individual promising to obey the terms of the oath being sworn but it was also a matter of that individual putting up surety for his or her actions and agreeing to be judged for his or her actions.

The surety being given was the individual's soul and the judge a higher power that had the ability to deprive the individual of the benefits of their soul and the promise of meeting their ancestors.

Whether the soul, or the supreme being, exists is entirely beside the point.  The oath was effective when the oath takers believed, and believe, they exist.

What do modern "oath takers" value as highly?

I don't know the answer to that.  And I don't know that there is an answer.  Swearing on "my mother's eyes" or "my first born" comes close but doesn't really cut it any more than Shylock's "pound of flesh".  Nobody really expects to be held to those agreements.

I remember being quite taken with the chants of the Iraqi's under Saddam - something along the line of "we pledge to you our blood and our soul".  That, for a believer, is quite the undertaking - not just this life but the afterlife. And in a society of men beating their backs bloody for their beliefs I'm inclined to think that those oath takers were fully cognizant of the implications of their words and the consequences if their judge determined that they and Saddam were in the wrong.

I do know that I don't respect anybody who enters into an agreement fully intending to breach the agreement before the ink is dry.  That person is demonstrably untrustworthy.  

With respect to the individual that took the oath not intending to honour it I am strongly of the opinion he should never have been allowed to take the oath and never been admitted in the society of Canadians.  

My children, born and raised in Canada and thus here without choice, have the right to set the terms of the society in which they live.  They are within their rights to ditch the crown and elect a president if that is their wish and they can convince their fellow Canadians to agree with them.

But me, and the individual referred to above, and all the other immigrants to this country, we should have no such rights.  We are guests in this country and of Canadians.  It is not our right to adjust the house rules.  Our only right is to agree to abide by the house rules or relocate.

I disagree entirely with first generation immigrants, myself included, setting the laws for Canada.


----------



## gryphonv (26 Jul 2017)

:facepalm:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/justin-trudeau-canadian-prime-minister-free-worlds-best-hope-w494098


----------



## Loachman (26 Jul 2017)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> My children, born and raised in Canada and thus here without choice, have the right to set the terms of the society in which they live.  They are within their rights to ditch the crown and elect a president if that is their wish and they can convince their fellow Canadians to agree with them.
> 
> But me, and the individual referred to above, and all the other immigrants to this country, we should have no such rights.  We are guests in this country and of Canadians.  It is not our right to adjust the house rules.  Our only right is to agree to abide by the house rules or relocate.
> 
> I disagree entirely with first generation immigrants, myself included, setting the laws for Canada.



Why?

My status as a citizen is no different from that of anybody who was born here. Forty-three years of military service should also count as something. I've got a stake in this place, at least as much as anybody else, many of whom have no clue about the value of this Country.

And one does not have to swear an oath. Those with no religious beliefs can make a solemn affirmation, which has the same legal standing.

Americans swear allegiance to their flag. I can sort of understand that, but it is an inanimate object.

We have a living symbol that embodies us all. I prefer that. Most of those who object do not understand our system of government and our history.

They still have a choice - follow our customs and rules for citizenship or do not achieve that status. They can still live here, but cannot vote or obtain a Canadian passport. Renounce an oath or solemn affirmation, then relinquish their citizenship as well. If they commit a terrorist act, then, as far as I am concerned, they fibbed on their application and did not take the oath seriously, and don't deserve that citizenship, or residence, once their sentence is up.


----------



## Loachman (26 Jul 2017)

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2017/07/26/payette-scramble-highlights-a-serious-trudeau-flaw.html

Payette scramble highlights a serious Trudeau flaw

Every political office struggles with scandal. What should be worrying for Trudeau is that his highest profile struggles have been in response to known bad news. They weren’t bolts from the blue.

By Andrew MacDougall

Wed., July 26, 2017

What will it take to beat Justin Trudeau?

That’s the question bubbling through Conservative and NDP minds as the Liberals, despite the Omar Khadr mess, continue to rate 43 per cent in the polls. It must feel like, to paraphrase Donald Trump, Trudeau could shoot someone on Yonge St. and not lose voters.

Despite his apparent Teflon coating, Trudeau does have an Achilles heel. Or at least his office does: its ability to navigate scandal.

The prolonged fumble over future Governor General Julie Payette’s expunged second degree assault charge and involvement in a fatal traffic accident is just the latest example of the Prime Minister’s Office giving a bad story legs.

Had Team Trudeau confirmed the obvious with Payette - that a background check had been done and that it did turn up these incidents, and that they were comfortable enough with the explanations given to proceed anyway - the story would have come and gone in a day.

Lessons are clearly not being learned.

Earlier this month the Prime Minister’s Office took five long days to figure out its story on the Omar Khadr settlement, putting them, for the first time in their mandate, massively offside with public opinion. They still haven’t confirmed the precise amount paid out to Khadr, or why that amount is appropriate.

The PMO took a similar amount of time to come up with their lines on the prime minister’s ritzy Christmas vacation to the Aga Khan’s private island. And last summer’s response to the brouhaha over the six-figure moving expenses for key PMO aides was no better.

Now, every political office struggles with scandal. What should be worrying for Trudeau is the struggles listed above have been in response to known bad news. They weren’t bolts from the blue.

The moving expenses were submitted in response to a Parliamentary question with a known tabling date. The prime minister’s vacation was obviously planned. The Khadr settlement didn’t pop out of thin air. Nor did the appointment of Payette.

Equally troubling is the political importance of the people implicated in these scandals: the prime minister himself; his two top aides; and Her Majesty’s representative in Canada.

These are five-alarm fires. And yet, in each instance, the prime minister and his office struggled to put out a coherent story and get their arms around its poor reception.

If Justin Trudeau and his team put as much effort into defence as they do their offence they would govern Canada for the rest of the century. Perhaps the thinking is they will always be able to outscore their opponents.

There is certainly no one I’d want more to build a political image in the 21st century than Team Trudeau. They are digital ninjas, the swamis of selfies, and magical with memes.

But every government, no matter how successful, eventually grapples with an existential crisis. An “unknown unknown” that strikes out of the blue. And unless the Prime Minister’s Office shapes up it won’t be able to get out from under it when it finally arrives.

I’m not familiar with the intimate details of how this PMO operates, but it seems the issues management team (defence) is out of sync with their colleagues in communications (offence).

In the normal run of business this isn’t a problem. The communications team’s focus is on putting the prime minister out to frame the government’s positive messages, while the issues management team keeps an eye on the niggling daily fires that need putting out.

It’s when these two worlds collide that serious trouble lurks. Something, whether it’s a process or the personalities involved, is preventing the government from responding effectively.

If Justin Trudeau wants to keep his exalted position in the polls he’ll need to devote some of his summer holiday to sorting this problem out.

Andrew MacDougall is a London-based columnist and commentator. He was director of communications for prime minister Stephen Harper.


----------



## Jarnhamar (26 Jul 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> As broken as they may be, those treaties are constitutional documents.  There's little chance of changing them.


Why not? There's provisions to change them in part V of the Constitution Act of 1982.



> There's also little desire on the part of one if the interested parties.


Ya I can't imagine why.  Lets just keep dumping millions of dollars into those black holes and pretend we're helping and not making a select few rich.


----------



## The Bread Guy (26 Jul 2017)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> ... I disagree entirely with first generation immigrants, myself included, setting the laws for Canada.


That's a bit hard core, CP.  If this were the case, First Nations would be setting the pace over the rest of the "settlers".  

Also, if this it true, you shouldn't be able to vote, either - what stronger tool is there, after all, than the vote to help guide laws?  And methinks you think about the impact of your vote more than many.  

How democratic is a system where not every citizen can affect what's happening in their country?


			
				Loachman said:
			
		

> ... My status as a citizen is no different from that of anybody who was born here ... I've got a stake in this place, at least as much as anybody else, many of whom have no clue about the value of this Country ...


 :nod:


----------



## Halifax Tar (27 Jul 2017)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> That's a bit hard core, CP.  If this were the case, First Nations would be setting the pace over the rest of the "settlers".
> 
> Also, if this it true, you shouldn't be able to vote, either - what stronger tool is there, after all, than the vote to help guide laws?  And methinks you think about the impact of your vote more than many.
> 
> How democratic is a system where not every citizen can affect what's happening in their country? :nod:



How so ?  There is no first nations person who's been in Canada any longer than any other Canadian ?


----------



## Jarnhamar (27 Jul 2017)

Are we talking about enforcing first Nations style law pre-settling of Canada? 
Or give the law making  over to  someone like Teresa Spence present day?


----------



## Kirkhill (27 Jul 2017)

Why Loachman?  

I guess my short form answer is: on conservative principles - to manage the rate of change.  And to prevent rapid changes of the polity resulting from politicians bussing in supporters from other nations to support the agenda of the politicians.  There is widespread belief that Labour in the UK had an explicit policy based on that concept.  And it is arguable that similar policies have been followed elsewhere.

I can see how it might be taken as a hard core position Tony but I stand by it.

And Halifax Tar has the right of it - I am not arguing that one race or one people have rights in perpetuity.  I am arguing for change at a measured pace and at a pace that respects the sensibilities of the hosts that have invited strangers into their home.

Should I have the right to vote, as an immigrant?  Or should I be restricted to the privileges of a landed immigrant for life?  It is an arguable position.   I know of people that spent their lives in this country as landed immigrants - living here, making money, paying taxes, enjoying social benefits and the freedom to complain - and never became citizens.  That change in status didn't appear to disadvantage them greatly.

I am grateful that Canada and Canadians have offered me membership in their society - but it is still their society.  It is their gift to give.  It is my privilege.  It is their prerogative to set the terms under which the gift is given.

Just as it is my prerogative to decide who I invite into my house and on what terms.  Visitors, guests, are entitled to nothing other than civility and hospitality.

On the other hand, people born here, they have no choice in how they got here.  Anybody born here, regardless of origin, should be a full and equal member of the society and should have an equal say in setting the terms of their relationships with other Canadians.

And ultimately, I believe, that this would clarify and improve the relations between immigrants and the host society.  It would give notice to the immigrants that they should limit their expectations and agree to conform to the norms of the society they are being invited to join.

Is there room for Canadians to be more generous?  Offering accelerated acceptance and privileges in return for service to Canada?  Certainly.  But that, like citizenship itself, is in the gift of Canadians.  We can't expect it.


----------



## The Bread Guy (27 Jul 2017)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> How so ?  There is no first nations person who's been in Canada any longer than any other Canadian ?


I wasn't clear -- I meant that if you accept that only people born here, but not those who moved here, should be able to change the system, the First Nations were here before any "newer" Canadians, so they'd set the rules.


			
				Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Are we talking about enforcing first Nations style law pre-settling of Canada?
> Or give the law making  over to  someone like Teresa Spence present day?


Strangely enough, I'd bet there's even debate in Indigenous circles re:  whose "rules" are acceptable - not to mention likely different approaches for different Indigenous cultures ...


----------



## Halifax Tar (28 Jul 2017)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> I wasn't clear -- I meant that if you accept that only people born here, but not those who moved here, should be able to change the system, the First Nations were here before any "newer" Canadians, so they'd set the rules.
> 
> Strangely enough, I'd bet there's even debate in Indigenous circles re:  whose "rules" are acceptable - not to mention likely different approaches for different Indigenous cultures ...



I still don't understand you point.  I was born in Napanee, Ont, Canada, Feb 2, 1979.  My family has been in the Erinsville - Verona Ont area since the Irish potato famine. 

Am I suddenly not as much a Canadian because I am not of first nations blood and heritage ?  Never mind the fact my family has been here since before confederation.

I say again, there is no first nations person who has been a Canadian any longer than anyone else.


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Jul 2017)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> ... I say again, there is no first nations person who has been a Canadian any longer than anyone else.


I was responding to this ...


			
				Chris Pook said:
			
		

> ... I disagree entirely with first generation immigrants, myself included, setting the laws for Canada.


... saying that if this was the case (and I don't think it is), First Nations could have a better case for making changes than any other "settlers", which I also don't agree with.  If you're a citizen, you have a stake in the game, so should have a voice in said game, period.


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Jul 2017)

A couple of points:

I am talking about individuals - not groups.  

The distinction that I would make is between those born within the boundaries of Canada - and thus by accident of birth, and through no fault or choice of their own, Canadians - and those who voluntary choose to become part of Canada.

I am also talking about the terms of citizenship.

I don't disagree that all citizens should be equal.  I am suggesting that citizenship should be harder to acquire.  Conversely I think that landed immigrant status should be broadly accepted and not just a three year hiatus on the way to automatic citizenship.  The landed immigrant status meets the needs of economic migrants.  Citizenship meets the needs of Canada.


----------



## Loachman (28 Jul 2017)

So you inherit your family home, in which you were born.

Subsequently, you enter into a conjugal relationship sanctioned by both Church and State.

Your bride is now a member of your family and resides with you in your family home.

She has, however, no say in how it is run.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (28 Jul 2017)

That is exactly the case in our household, my wife is a PR and likely to remain one as Malaysia does not allow dual citizenship and their healthcare is better and cheaper than ours.


----------



## Brad Sallows (28 Jul 2017)

>first generation immigrants

Simply means "not born here".  Even if we distinguish between birth citizens and non-birth citizens, length of residence in Canada of ancestors is (should be) irrelevant to status of citizenship and rights/responsibilities/privileges, whether N-1 or N-1,000 generations.


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Jul 2017)

Loachman said:
			
		

> So you inherit your family home, in which you were born.
> 
> Subsequently, you enter into a conjugal relationship sanctioned by both Church and State.
> 
> ...



The relationship between you and your bride is entirely up to yourselves and what you choose to negotiate between you.    If she doesn't like the terms of the agreement she is under no obligation to marry you.  Equally she should have no expectation of entitlements except as the law permits - and the law is changeable.

Now, in my case, my wife has negotiated favourable terms:  What's mine is ours and what's hers is hers.  And the house is run on her terms.


----------



## Jed (28 Jul 2017)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> The relationship between you and your bride is entirely up to yourselves and what you choose to negotiate between you.    If she doesn't like the terms of the agreement she is under no obligation to marry you.  Equally she should have no expectation of entitlements except as the law permits - and the law is changeable.
> 
> Now, in my case, my wife has negotiated favourable terms:  What's mine is ours and what's hers is hers.  And the house is run on her terms.



Now that is an agreement that I have also come to accept.  ;D


----------



## The Bread Guy (1 Aug 2017)

From the "NDP isn't hard-enough left for some" file ...


> Canada’s pseudo left groups are seeking to provide the pro-big business, pro-war New Democratic Party (NDP) with some desperately needed “left” cover.
> 
> With working-class anger mounting against austerity and ever widening social inequality, as shown in the recent 175,000-strong Quebec construction workers’ strike, groups like Fightback, Socialist Action, and the International Socialists (IS) have seized on the NDP’s ongoing leadership campaign to propagate the fatal illusion that this right-wing, capitalist party can be transformed into a fighting “working class” organization.
> 
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (1 Aug 2017)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> ... Controlling the dialogue and limiting political choice is the most effective way they can see to keep the herd inside the boundaries.


Well summed - and maybe applicable to other groups, too.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (1 Aug 2017)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The pseudo left has realized one thing after looking at the election of Donald Trump, the Brexit and the multitude of nationalist movements springing up across Europe: the "working class" is not at all interested in the issues the pseudo left is pushing, and if workers get to choose, they will choose a Donald Trump over a silk stocking socialist like Stephen Lewis any day.
> 
> Controlling the dialogue and limiting political choice is the most effective way they can see to keep the herd inside the boundaries.



All of the nationalists in Europe lost- LePen significantly. Trump has some of the lowest approval ratings in the history of the presidency and lost the popular vote (yes, I know he won the college and it doesn't matter, but it matters in your argument). 

I disagree with your analysis- the evidence doesn't back it.


----------



## a_majoor (1 Aug 2017)

The argument about nationalist parties should be looked at in totality. Nationalist parties are in power in Poland and Hungary, and have made steady gains in the polls in Western European nations as well. The _Front National_, Dutch "Party for Freedom" German _AfD_ and Italian "Five Stars" movement hardly existed a decade ago, and even five years ago were curiosities, rather than strong contenders and coming in second or third in elections. The only reason they are not fully in command is the PR electoral systems in Europe allow coalitions to be formed expressly against them by politicians (most of whom share little common interests with each other otherwise).

President Trump's supposed low popularity ratings are derived from the same polling companies which showed Hillary Clinton wining in a landslide, and to further muddy the "popular vote" argument, the pro Hillary popular vote was concentrated in a handful of US counties, as you can see in an granular electoral map.

The meta argument isn't that politicians have control over the apparatus of governments for now in Europe, or that there are pockets of voters who did not vote for President Trump, but rather that the political "Left" is flailing about trying to get working class voters (their supposed constituency) to vote for them despite decades of catering to issues and groups which working class people either have no interest in or despise. Populists like Trump or Nationalists like the European parties are appealing to working class voters because they cater to the wants and needs of these people, and the political left (and even the traditional right) is collapsing because a new breed of politicians is assembling a new electoral coalition using different ideas, tools and methodologies than the old parties.


----------



## Kirkhill (2 Aug 2017)

Put me in the proud nationalist camp.  

I also happen to be centrist economically and lean towards the libertarian end of the authority spectrum.

The Labour Party in Britain is split between National Socialists and followers of the Internationale.

The Conservative Party is split between National Capitalists and Globalist followers of the EU.

6 Billion people, all with different shades of opinion.


----------



## Jarnhamar (2 Aug 2017)

Conservatives are obnoxious when it comes to asking for money.

I became a party member and donated some cash without realizing the amount of harassment I'd get. I didn't know my email address would be whored out across the party and get emails asking for donations from everyone.  I lost count of how many of these I'd get. I'll usually switch between unsubscribing and hitting reply and asking them questions such as why was my home address given out to the NFA, what's being done to sanction the guilty people responsible and what assurances I'll have in the future that my personal information is secure.

Never heard anything back from those emails.  I got a call a little while ago from a party donation harasser asking me to donate. I tried to engage them in a conversation about the same stuff. Why was my information given out? She expertly lowered her voice, changed her demeanor and blamed a sort of rogue party member, assured me they were being dealt with and how much money will I be donating?I started asking other firearm related questions. Why does the RCMP still have access to the deleted long gun registry? What will be done about thousands of Canadians being criminals now for owning 10/22 mags etc..   Good questions! If you'll only just donate money we can fix all that for you. Finally she realized she wasn't getting anywhere, gave me a 1800 number and hung up. I called the number, left a voice mail for someone to call me back (twice) to answer my questions but never got a call back.

The most recent email I got asking for donations I replied and said " I'd really like to donate money! How can I do this?'. Within a day I had a voicemail from them trying to get in touch with me and 3 more over the next couple days.  I'm up to 5 missed calls in under a week lol

I'm sure I'm being a cry baby and naive. I just wish the conservatives would _pretend_ to give a shit about my concerns a little more.


----------



## The Bread Guy (2 Aug 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> ... I became a party member and donated some cash without realizing the amount of harassment I'd get. I didn't know my email address would be whored out across the party and get emails asking for donations from everyone ...


To be fair to Team Blue, I suspect Team Red & Team Orange share their lists a lot more broadly than some members want.  I don't donate, but I'm on mailing lists for all three, and once the emails start, they don't stop - and they don't make it easy to unsubscribe (like trying to cancel your cable subscription).  That said ...


> ... She expertly lowered her voice, changed her demeanor and blamed a sort of rogue party member ...


If that really was the case, I hope someone jumped on it.


			
				Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> ... I'm sure I'm being a cry baby and naive ...


Hardly - expecting your privacy to be respected isn't out of line at all.


----------



## a_majoor (2 Aug 2017)

I made the mistake of coming out for a pre election speech by Patrick Brown, and am now on a multitude of mailing lists as well. What makes this even more annoying is based on the speech and a few conversations I have been able to have with PCPO people, they are like to go down in flames _again_ since they don't seem to have any other answers than "Liberal Lite". Hardly an inspiring message or preparation for an election, especially given the massive and negative changes in Ontario since 2002, and certainly not a reason for me to support them.

While "Trump lite" isn't going to cut it either, the PCPO (and indeed the Conservatives) need to look at the lessons of the recent past and _effectively_ message the people who have been disadvantaged and seen their opportunities and standards of living diminish since 2002 in Ontario. Like the leftists in the article referenced upthread, the Liberals (both provincial and Federal) are advocating for things which most working class people have no interest in or actively oppose, while ignoring the real issues that affect them.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (2 Aug 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Conservatives are obnoxious when it comes to asking for money.
> 
> I became a party member and donated some cash without realizing the amount of harassment I'd get. I didn't know my email address would be whored out across the party and get emails asking for donations from everyone.  I lost count of how many of these I'd get. I'll usually switch between unsubscribing and hitting reply and asking them questions such as why was my home address given out to the NFA, what's being done to sanction the guilty people responsible and what assurances I'll have in the future that my personal information is secure.
> 
> ...



I am on both the CPC and Libs mailing list, I don't get calls from the Libs but their e-mails are pretty much a carbon copy of the other. When the CPC was in my trained seal MP never bothered responding to my concerns about the closing of the Kits CCG base, until I stuffed the letter into a donation envelope. From now on I am saving those envelopes as they are useful.


----------



## Scott (2 Aug 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Conservatives are obnoxious when it comes to asking for money.
> 
> I became a party member and donated some cash without realizing the amount of harassment I'd get. I didn't know my email address would be whored out across the party and get emails asking for donations from everyone.  I lost count of how many of these I'd get. I'll usually switch between unsubscribing and hitting reply and asking them questions such as why was my home address given out to the NFA, what's being done to sanction the guilty people responsible and what assurances I'll have in the future that my personal information is secure.
> 
> ...



Heck yes  :nod:

Had I know registering to vote in the leadership would gain me gazoodles of spam, I likely wouldn't have bothered. 

I reply to the odd one as well - never got a damn thing back. Funny that.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Aug 2017)

Scott said:
			
		

> Heck yes  :nod:
> 
> Had I know registering to vote in the leadership would gain me gazoodles of spam, I likely wouldn't have bothered.
> 
> I reply to the odd one as well - never got a damn thing back. Funny that.



You'll receive the same from whatever party you decide to join. This is far from a CPC anomaly.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (2 Aug 2017)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> I made the mistake of coming out for a pre election speech by Patrick Brown, and am now on a multitude of mailing lists as well. What makes this even more annoying is based on the speech and a few conversations I have been able to have with PCPO people, they are like to go down in flames _again_ since they don't seem to have any other answers than "Liberal Lite". Hardly an inspiring message or preparation for an election, especially given the massive and negative changes in Ontario since 2002, and certainly not a reason for me to support them.



Its possible that the PCs are keeping their plans secret to prevent the Liberals from stealing the good ones/or planning a counter-argument.


----------



## Jarnhamar (2 Aug 2017)

recceguy said:
			
		

> You'll receive the same from whatever party you decide to join. This is far from a CPC anomaly.


Very true I'm sure. Just disappointed.


----------



## Good2Golf (3 Aug 2017)

Trump-related/centric posts have been moved to the U.S. Politics 2017 thread.  

Let's retain the Canadian focus of this thread.

Thank you for your cooperation.

*
Milnet.ca Staff*


----------



## Scott (3 Aug 2017)

recceguy said:
			
		

> You'll receive the same from whatever party you decide to join. This is far from a CPC anomaly.



Oh I'm sure of that. I just don't happen to hold membership with anyone but the CPC right now, so they're the focus of this.


----------



## Lumber (3 Aug 2017)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Trump-related/centric posts have been moved to the U.S. Politics 2017 thread.
> 
> Let's retain the Canadian focus of this thread.
> 
> ...



Ugh.. but our post count doesn't go up when we post in Radio Chatter!

Humbug....


----------



## Colin Parkinson (3 Aug 2017)

A lot of the people that work for the parties all are trained in the same schools by the same teachers, so they all approach the issues the same way with the same tools. After awhile the parties start to sound more and more like each other, meanwhile the average voter is finding that they don't really fit into any one particular political box and have interests that might fall across 2 or more political parties.


----------



## The Bread Guy (3 Aug 2017)

Colin P said:
			
		

> ... the average voter is finding that they don't really fit into any one particular political box and have interests that might fall across 2 or more political parties.


And that's where hyper-partisanism in all directions makes it hard to find some of those "meet somewhere in the middle" solutions and positions.

A (generally) conservative municipal politician that I have some respect for once told me that's why he liked civic politics:  you can take positions on different issues as needed and as they fit the shades of grey that are many people's political positions.


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Aug 2017)

Kinda torn 50-50 whether to put this here or in the Khadr thread, but sided with this thread because of the _politics_ involved -- this could apply to _any_ opposition politician doing a media dissing campaign against _anything_ the current Canadian government is doing ...


> Most Canadians oppose the decision of some Conservative MPs to appear in the U.S. media criticizing the federal Liberals’ $10.5-million payout to Omar Khadr, according to a new Nanos survey.
> 
> Conservative MPs have been expressing outrage over Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s decision to approve the multimillion-dollar payment, which settled Mr. Khadr’s $20-million civil lawsuit against the government over violations of his rights as a Canadian citizen.
> 
> ...


----------



## jollyjacktar (4 Aug 2017)

But to my eyes, seeing as most of the Canadian MSM were all behind this payment, would the Cons have got the same air time here at home?  CBC and others couldn't hand out the Kleenex fast enough to dry his new millionaire tears or those in his camp.


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Aug 2017)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> But to my eyes, seeing as most of the Canadian MSM were all behind this payment, would the Cons have got the same air time here at home?  CBC and others couldn't hand out the Kleenex fast enough to dry his new millionaire tears or those in his camp.


Got lots of time on Rebel Media, I'm guessing ...

Also, if there's nothing wrong with these opposition politicians headed out of country to complain about Canadian policies, there shouldn't be anything wrong with others doing so in the future, right? #GoodForTheGoose


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 Aug 2017)

Trudeau slams Harper and the CPC in almost every speech he gives outside of Canada. He's a hypocrite.

Besides, the US has skin in the Khadr game and were entitled to know how Trudeau stabbed them in the back.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (4 Aug 2017)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> But to my eyes, seeing as most of the Canadian MSM were all behind this payment, would the Cons have got the same air time here at home?  CBC and others couldn't hand out the Kleenex fast enough to dry his new millionaire tears or those in his camp.



It had nothing to do with kleenex. Rights were violated, but that's another thread.

Regardless,  Kent taking a page out was amateur. First, he's Peter Kent, ie- a nobody, nevertheless anyone who should be going to US media. Second, it looks amateur that were appologizing to the country that held and tortured one of our own citizens.


----------



## jollyjacktar (4 Aug 2017)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Got lots of time on Rebel Media, I'm guessing ...
> 
> Also, if there's nothing wrong with these opposition politicians headed out of country to complain about Canadian policies, there shouldn't be anything wrong with others doing so in the future, right? #GoodForTheGoose



In my books, absolutely.


----------



## jollyjacktar (4 Aug 2017)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> It had nothing to do with kleenex. Rights were violated, but that's another thread.
> 
> Regardless,  Kent taking a page out was amateur. First, he's Peter Kent, ie- a nobody, nevertheless anyone who should be going to US media. Second, it looks amateur that were appologizing to the country that held and tortured one of our own citizens.



I shall agree to disagree and give you a box of Kleenex to share with Omar and the other SJWs out there if you wish.


----------



## Remius (4 Aug 2017)

I would guess that it was viewed as airing one's dirty laundry in public.  Maybe if they had gone to other news outlets other than Fox then maybe it wouldn't have seemed that way as much.  Most Canadians are not fans of fox.  

If the CPC can't get any traction using the Kadhr issue, one has to wonder what they will get traction with.


----------



## George Wallace (4 Aug 2017)

Will he or won't he?  That is the question.

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.



> WARMINGTON: Dad of dead soldier wants sit-down with PM
> Joe Warmington, Postmedia Network
> Aug 4, 2017, Last Updated: 4:24 PM ET
> 
> ...




More on LIONK.

Will Trudeau sit down with him?  I doubt it.  

How many others are in the same boat as Fred McKay?


----------



## jollyjacktar (4 Aug 2017)

That says it all.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (4 Aug 2017)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Trudeau slams Harper and the CPC in almost every speech he gives outside of Canada. He's a hypocrite.



I just searched and could not find a single instance where "Trudeau slammed Harper in speeches made outside of Canada".  

The Google search "trudeau slams harper" seems to show the obverse:

https://www.google.com/search?q=trudeau+slams+harper&tbs=qdr:y&ei=5wqFWdSMGIu-jwSv2rnIBA&start=0&sa=N&biw=1366&bih=638

I even checked this source, which is all of the speeches made by all PMs since 1995:  

http://capitalreport.ca/canadian-prime-ministers-speech-database-1995-2017/

Maybe I missed something?  Or you meant this:

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/09/20/prime-minister-justin-trudeau-to-deliver-first-un-address.html

Just wondering what your source is.


----------



## PuckChaser (4 Aug 2017)

Use "blames", less harsh than "slams" but you'll find every single problem discovered by PMJT is the fault of the Harper Conservatives.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=trudeau+blames+tories


----------



## PPCLI Guy (4 Aug 2017)

Changing the parameters does not answer the question.  Here are the parameters:



> Trudeau slams Harper and the CPC in almost every speech he gives outside of Canada. He's a hypocrite.



Believe it or not, I care not a whit for all of this.  I just expect people to be able to back up their assertions.  It was the way that I was raised, and the way that I raised my son.  Say whatever you want - just be able to defend it.  

As an aside, a challenge to the veracity of a statement is not a personal attack.


----------



## jmt18325 (4 Aug 2017)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Trudeau slams Harper and the CPC in almost every speech he gives outside of Canada. He's a hypocrite



Examples?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Aug 2017)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Use "blames", less harsh than "slams" but you'll find every single problem discovered by PMJT is the fault of the Harper Conservatives.
> 
> http://lmgtfy.com/?q=trudeau+blames+tories



Yes. Poor choice of words for flyshit pickers. He BLAMES Harper and the CPC on a regular basis outside the country, I guess I should've said, for all those that are synonymy challenged.

It was reported on fairly extensively when he took over. I can't help it if peoples' googlefoo sucks on a kindergarten level. Start with Davos, that's an easy one. My key words returned almost a full page right off the bat and I didn't bother with the dozens of other pages that showed up.

I stated previously, I'm not spending my time researching any politician to appease anyone else's curiosity.

Don't like my style? Don't read my opinions, or put me on ignore. Neither bothers me.


----------



## Lumber (5 Aug 2017)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Don't like my style? Don't read my opinions, or put me on ignore. Neither bothers me.



Why would we put you on ignore? Censoring those whose opinions we disagree with is what the SJWs/Cultural Marxists do. We're better them that.


----------



## McG (5 Aug 2017)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I stated previously, I'm not spending my time researching any politician to appease anyone else's curiosity.
> 
> Don't like my style? Don't read my opinions, or put me on ignore. Neither bothers me.


You seem either to confuse opinion with fact, or to misrepresent your opinion and hyperbole as both being fact.  ... Maybe it is all the above.

Regardless, when you present something that is the premise upon which your opinion is formed, that premise is open to examination.  If that premise is hyperbole then, in a fact based discussion, it is not "fly shit picking" to observe that what you have presented is wrong.  If your premise is wrong and you doggedly defend it in the face of factual evidence to the contrary, then be prepared for others to dismiss or question the opinion that you base on that premise.

If others are prepared to provide references & evidence to support their premises or refute your premises, then you can choose to counter with your own research or do nothing (but then don't get emotional if others dismiss/challenge your conclusion because it is the one unsubstantiated with evidence).

And, you are entitled to your own opinion but ...

When it comes to factuals, you really cannot hide behind a shield of "entitled to my opinion" to deflect discussion.  If I present hyperbole, out-right lies, or other misrepresentation of facts then I cannot get butt hurt and mutter about my right to my opinion when evidence demonstrates the quantifiable elements of my statements to be wrong.  

Too much hyperbole in the premises of an opinion, coupled with dogged defence of the hyperbole when challenged with conflicting evidence while refusing to present one's own supporting evidence ... well, that can cast the appearance of arguing from a point of ignorance.

Generally, I would recommend that if your argument needs hyperbole (or other distortion of fact) to prove a point then your argument is not very strong.  While hyperbole can be helpful at times and just fun to toss out at others, when you get called on it, you are probably best to concede the fact and rephrase your argument without the misrepresentation. 

To the point, this statement is false: "Trudeau slams Harper and the CPC in almost every speech he gives outside of Canada. He's a hypocrite"

But concede the hyperbole and you can still make your point: "I seem to recall it was reported on fairly extensively, when he took over office,  that PM Trudeau blamed PM Harper for Canada's problems when giving a speech outside of Canada. He's a hypocrite"


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Aug 2017)

There's a useful article by Kady O'Malley in *iPolitics* that concludes with this paragraph:

     "The prime minister would definitely do well to keep those breathlessly hagiographical headlines in perspective – and, for heaven’s sakes, just stop gloating
     over that boxing match already. But the rest of us might want to do the same with our reflexive eye-roll when he’s depicted as anything more than a pretty-boy
     dilettante who lucked into the job based on his family name."

Now I know some of you will have reflexive eye-rolls when Ms O'Malley, a CBC reporter, is cited but she's right, _in my opinion_: 

1. Team Trudeau (the PMO, which now has tentacles inside the PCO) remains locked in campaign mode; they scored such a big, unexpected win that they didn't have to worry about governing in 2016, they could just bask in the glory of it all, but they didn't accomplish much, legislatively, in 2017, either and people are starting to notice. Now, 2018 is time to start campaigning again but one should want to run on a record. Currently the Trudeau record is underwhelming; and

2. Teams Blue and Orange need to get over the "just not ready" and "being PM is not an entry level job" notions: Canadians didn't buy it. Canadians _*like*_ Justin Trudeau, despite the Khard fiasco they still trust him more than they do Andrew Scheer and whoever will lead the NDP.

Both sides All sides need policies that will make sense to enough Canadians ... tactically the Conservatives need to keep hammering out-of-control, never ending deficits; it's a long, hard slog to make that case but Canadians are, generally, a thrifty, frugal people ~ who love free stuff ~ and they can be frightened into fiscal responsibility. The NDP needs to hammer at the broken promise of electoral reform (that caused (I have read) as many as 1 million normally NDP voters to shift to the Liberals, many, mainly, on that issue) and to stress that Trudeau's "middle class" appears to exclude hourly wage earners. The Liberals need to cobble together a coherent "vision" of the Canada they want ... Canadians will not settle for "I'm not Stephen Harper" in 2019.


----------



## George Wallace (5 Aug 2017)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> 2. Teams Blue and Orange need to get over the "just not ready" and "being PM is not an entry level job" notions: Canadians didn't buy it.



I would think that many Canadians are catching on to this and starting to believe it.



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Canadians _*like*_ Justin Trudeau, despite the Khard fiasco they still trust him more than they do Andrew Scheer and whoever will lead the NDP.



Scheer is still the "new kid on the block" and we will have to wait until Parliament reconvenes to see how he will do.  What I saw prior to them going on break were clips of a fairly well versed and quick witted person with a good sense of humour, whom I think will appeal to the populace once he has more exposure.


----------



## Scott (5 Aug 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I would think that many Canadians are catching on to this and starting to believe it.



Then you completely missed Edward's point completely, and the fact that overall support for PMJT actually went up in the last Ipsos poll.

I would not vote for the CPC with Scheer at the helm. Not right now anyway.


----------



## George Wallace (5 Aug 2017)

Scott said:
			
		

> Then you completely missed Edward's point completely, and the fact that overall support for PMJT actually went up in the last Ipsos poll.
> 
> I would not vote for the CPC with Scheer at the helm. Not right now anyway.



I have lost all faith in IPSOS REID polls.  So many of them have been so far off, I question their actual reliability to be an accurate pulse on the nation.

LOL, Scott.    That is a rather broad statement to make, as Scheer has just been voted in as the leader off the CPC, and has had little time to actually face off in Parliament, Leader to Leader.


----------



## Scott (5 Aug 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I have lost all faith in IPSOS REID polls.  So many of them have been so far off, I question their actual reliability to be an accurate pulse on the nation.



Fair dues. 

However, I'm willing to make one of those WAGs that if the numbers were the exact opposite your tolerance of them would differ :nod:



> LOL, Scott.    That is a rather broad statement to make, as Scheer has just been voted in as the leader off the CPC, and has had little time to actually face off in Parliament, Leader to Leader.



You can dismiss that view all you wish. You'll note that I pretty much left it open with the whole, "not right now anyway", in case you missed it the first time. 

Besides, there were plenty of broad statements made about other leaders before they got to face off, as you say, Leader to Leader. Nobody was admonished for those, hmm?


----------



## Remius (5 Aug 2017)

In the same vein, Scheer hasn't done much to introduce himself to Canadians.  I realize that it is the summer break but he should have done more to get Canadians to know him.  I seem to have heard more from other members of the party than I have from him.  Not a good start in my mind.


----------



## PuckChaser (5 Aug 2017)

Remius said:
			
		

> In the same vein, Scheer hasn't done much to introduce himself to Canadians.  I realize that it is the summer break but he should have done more to get Canadians to know him.  I seem to have heard more from other members of the party than I have from him.  Not a good start in my mind.



He doesn't need to jump in full campaign mode. There's still 2 years till an election, and the NDP doesn't even have a leader yet. He can sit and let the Liberals toss their attacks at him, while the party prepares a strategy for next fall (1 year out from the election).

Keep in mind, the worst thing that can happen to the Liberals is a Jack Layton-esque centrist in the NDP leader's seat. All of those Quebec and Atlantic seats will not be safe, and with the Tories enjoying a small boost after 4 years out of office, we very well could see a Liberal minority at best.


----------



## Remius (5 Aug 2017)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> He doesn't need to jump in full campaign mode. There's still 2 years till an election, and the NDP doesn't even have a leader yet. He can sit and let the Liberals toss their attacks at him, while the party prepares a strategy for next fall (1 year out from the election).
> 
> Keep in mind, the worst thing that can happen to the Liberals is a Jack Layton-esque centrist in the NDP leader's seat. All of those Quebec and Atlantic seats will not be safe, and with the Tories enjoying a small boost after 4 years out of office, we very well could see a Liberal minority at best.



Agreed about campaign mode.  What I am talking about is getting Canadians to get to know him.  He's still a complete unknown to most.  Not something you want come the actual campaign.  That isn't the time for introductions.  Maybe that will change but it seems like it may be an uphill battle to get recognized later rather than sooner when they had some momentum.

To be honest I'm not seeing any centrist Layton like candidate in the NDP leadership race right now.  That may change if one moves that way but so far I don't see it.


----------



## PuckChaser (5 Aug 2017)

The NDP's base has pushed hard to get more hard left socialists in the leadership race, after what they can see is a failure of centrist policies to win. It didn't help that the Liberals campaigned on a far more left-leaning policy base than they've implemented thus far. That's a lot of votes in play bouncing around between those 2 parties. I don't see the socialists supporting the Liberals again, especially if they don't see their policy ideas being implemented as campaigned on.

As for Scheer, he's started making whistle-stop tours around Canada but is really probably going to aim for the fall session of Parliament for Canadians to hear what the media thinks of him and his policy stances. I say the media because lets be honest, no one watches Question Period to form their own conclusions.


----------



## suffolkowner (5 Aug 2017)

To me the best chance for the Conservatives is a resurgent NDP whether Singh is the person to lead that charge, time will tell. I personally feel that the Conservatives would have been better off with Bernier or O'toole.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (6 Aug 2017)

MCG said:
			
		

> You seem either to confuse opinion with fact, or to misrepresent your opinion and hyperbole as both being fact.  ... Maybe it is all the above.
> 
> Regardless, when you present something that is the premise upon which your opinion is formed, that premise is open to examination.  If that premise is hyperbole then, in a fact based discussion, it is not "fly shit picking" to observe that what you have presented is wrong.  If your premise is wrong and you doggedly defend it in the face of factual evidence to the contrary, then be prepared for others to dismiss or question the opinion that you base on that premise.
> 
> ...



Like I said......................


----------



## Rifleman62 (6 Aug 2017)

Another video on Sat ni Global National News of the PM kayaking, just happening to bump into a new bride & groom and stopping for a selfie.

Reflexive eye-roll.


----------



## Jarnhamar (6 Aug 2017)

Andrew Scheer proclaimed he's a femminist to Chatelaine magazine  :rofl:

I have a feeling he's in the market to buy a Kayak too.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (8 Aug 2017)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> There's a useful article by Kady O'Malley in *iPolitics* that concludes with this paragraph:
> 
> "The prime minister would definitely do well to keep those breathlessly hagiographical headlines in perspective – and, for heaven’s sakes, just stop gloating
> over that boxing match already. But the rest of us might want to do the same with our reflexive eye-roll when he’s depicted as anything more than a pretty-boy
> ...



funny enough in our department they are funding an initiative to remove derelict boats, this year just over $350,000 is available, but that jumps to millions for the next 2 years, just in time for an election......


----------



## jollyjacktar (8 Aug 2017)

Colin P said:
			
		

> funny enough in our department they are funding an initiative to remove derelict boats, this year just over $350,000 is available, but that jumps to millions for the next 2 years, just in time for an election......



 :Tin-Foil-Hat:


----------



## Lumber (24 Aug 2017)

Don't know if this should go in a different thread, but:

*"Teachers' union votes to urge school boards to remove John A. Macdonald's name from public schools"*
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/john-macdonald-school-1.4259643

:boke: :boke: :boke: :boke: :boke:


----------



## The Bread Guy (24 Aug 2017)

Meanwhile, in cabinet ...


> Public Services Minister Judy Foote will announce her resignation on Thursday, CBC News has learned.
> 
> The Newfoundland and Labrador MP has been on leave from cabinet since spring for personal reasons.
> 
> But sources speaking on condition of anonymity say Foote will announce her permanent departure at a news conference in St. John's on Thursday. She will also announce she will resign as a member of Parliament later this year ...


----------



## dapaterson (24 Aug 2017)

In the "Shocked to discover there's gambling going on here" department, a former chief of staff to Jean Chretien has been convicted of accepting at least $2.2M in bribes from SNC-Lavalin while head of the Federal Bridge Corporation.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/fournier-charged-snc-lavalin-1.4260367


----------



## Good2Golf (24 Aug 2017)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Don't know if this should go in a different thread, but:
> 
> *"Teachers' union votes to urge school boards to remove John A. Macdonald's name from public schools"*
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/john-macdonald-school-1.4259643
> ...



What's good for the goose should be good for the Gander, right?  From here on in, CYUL should be (re-)known by its geographic name, Dorval International Airport, as it is the namesake of someone who was noted as having failed the First Nations to develop a meaningful and respectful solution to their place in Canadian society:

Why CYUL should revert to 'Dorval International Airport'


> The first major policy failure of Trudeau's first term was the 1969 White Paper on Indians, which was promoted by new Department of Indian and Northern Affairs minister Jean Chrétien as part of Trudeau's push for classical liberal participatory democracy. The statement proposed the general assimilation of First Nations into the Canadian body politic through the elimination of the Indian Act and Indian status, the parcelling of reserve land to private owners, and the elimination of the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs.[49] The White Paper prompted the first major national mobilization of Indian and Aboriginal activists against the Federal government's proposal, leading to Trudeau setting aside the legislation.



:2c:

Regards
G2G


----------



## EpicBeardedMan (24 Aug 2017)

Hahahaha, here we gooooooo!

http://www.torontosun.com/2017/08/24/ontario-elementary-teachers-union-calls-for-renaming-john-a-macdonald-schools


----------



## dapaterson (24 Aug 2017)

And in the "Living in Ottawa for 20 years is no reason not to claim my Ottawa house as a secondary residence" department, The Puffster is suing the Senate and the Government of Canada for about $8M.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/mike-duffy-sues-government-senate/article36078625/


----------



## ModlrMike (24 Aug 2017)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Don't know if this should go in a different thread, but:
> 
> *"Teachers' union votes to urge school boards to remove John A. Macdonald's name from public schools"*
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/john-macdonald-school-1.4259643
> ...





> Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.
> George Orwell, 1984



1984 was meant to be a warning, not an instruction manual.


----------



## Scott (24 Aug 2017)

Did anyone actually think we'd heard the last of Duffy?

Shared with the usual:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/mike-duffy-sues-government-senate/article36078625/



> Mike Duffy sues Senate, government for almost $8-million
> LAURA STONE AND DANIEL LEBLANC
> Ottawa — The Globe and Mail
> Published Thursday, Aug. 24, 2017 12:13PM EDT
> ...


----------



## Jarnhamar (24 Aug 2017)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/racist-graffiti-markham-suspects-police-photos-1.4259543

Devastating racist attack against a slide.

star of david= swastika
KKK

Seems legit.


----------



## EpicBeardedMan (24 Aug 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/racist-graffiti-markham-suspects-police-photos-1.4259543
> 
> Devastating racist attack against a slide.
> 
> ...



The suspects appear to be middle eastern. Why would they be spray painting KKK when they aren't white? Interesting.


----------



## Lumber (24 Aug 2017)

EpicBeardedMan said:
			
		

> The suspects appear to be middle eastern. Why would they be spray painting KKK when they aren't white? Interesting.



Because, like most ignorant and intolerant people, they're stupid.


----------



## ModlrMike (24 Aug 2017)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Because, like most ignorant and intolerant people, they're stupid.



Or perhaps they're trying to be clever.


----------



## EpicBeardedMan (24 Aug 2017)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Because, like most ignorant and intolerant people, they're stupid.



False flag was my thinking.


----------



## The Bread Guy (24 Aug 2017)

EpicBeardedMan said:
			
		

> The suspects appear to be middle eastern. Why would they be spray painting KKK when they aren't white? Interesting.


You must have better IMINT than I'm looking at @ the CBC site ...


			
				EpicBeardedMan said:
			
		

> False flag was my thinking.


Really?  I guess we'll see if your imagery assessment is correct as the case unfolds ...


----------



## EpicBeardedMan (24 Aug 2017)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> You must have better IMINT than I'm looking at @ the CBC site ...Really?  I guess we'll see if your imagery assessment is correct as the case unfolds ...



Do you not see the images that YRP released or...? How are you even arguing this? Lmao.


----------



## The Bread Guy (24 Aug 2017)

EpicBeardedMan said:
			
		

> Do you not see the images that YRP released or...?


You mean the attached from the attached YRP news release?  Not clear enough for me to bet money yet.  If you have better imagery to share, happy to reassess my guess vs. yours.


			
				EpicBeardedMan said:
			
		

> How are you even arguing this? Lmao.


Not arguing, just saying a bit soon to tell from _these_ photos alone.  We'll see how your false flag theory holds up as the investigation unfolds.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (24 Aug 2017)

Scott said:
			
		

> Did anyone actually think we'd heard the last of Duffy?
> 
> Shared with the usual:
> 
> https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/mike-duffy-sues-government-senate/article36078625/



The Puffsters  Statement of Claim if anyone is interested.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (24 Aug 2017)

Well, personally, if the government of Canada pays out 14.5 million dollars to you know who for you know what, I have no problem with 8 millions to Senator Duffy for what he was put through.


----------



## ModlrMike (24 Aug 2017)

An interesting commentary on our society. We seem to have no trouble accepting a payout to a convicted terrorist, but lose our minds over compensating someone who was acquitted in a court of law.


----------



## jollyjacktar (24 Aug 2017)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> An interesting commentary on our society. We seem to have no trouble accepting a payout to a convicted terrorist, but lose our minds over compensating someone who was acquitted in a court of law.



I could accept Duffy easier than the terrorist.   The terrorist, I'll never accept.


----------



## The Bread Guy (24 Aug 2017)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> An interesting commentary on our society. We seem to have no trouble accepting a payout to a convicted terrorist, but lose our minds over compensating someone who was acquitted in a court of law.


And in Duffy's case, he's going to get up on the stand and say, "hey - I was told it was OK until I was suspended without pay".


----------



## George Wallace (25 Aug 2017)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> An interesting commentary on our society.



There are just so many of those these days.

Take for instance the removal of the name Langevin from the East Block on Parliament Hill and now the call to remove the name Macdonald from Schools and other locations.  Here we are seeing snowflakes offended by the names of our Fathers of Confederation, yet at the same time they are naming schools and building statues to people who have taken up arms against Canada, traitors and Rebellion leaders whose followers murdered homesteaders in Manitoba and Saskatchewan; Louis Riel.  Is the country on drugs?


----------



## jollyjacktar (25 Aug 2017)

For a second there I thought you were going to say there's plans for an Omar Khadr Collegiate or something.


----------



## PuckChaser (25 Aug 2017)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> For a second there I thought you were going to say there's plans for an Omar Khadr Collegiate or something.


Seems like something the ETFO would suggest.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (25 Aug 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> There are just so many of those these days.
> 
> Take for instance the removal of the name Langevin from the East Block on Parliament Hill and now the call to remove the name Macdonald from Schools and other locations.  Here we are seeing snowflakes offended by the names of our Fathers of Confederation, yet at the same time they are naming schools and building statues to people who have taken up arms against Canada, traitors and Rebellion leaders whose followers murdered homesteaders in Manitoba and Saskatchewan; Louis Riel.  Is the country on drugs?



That's the complexity of history and the problem with the simplistic way that history was taught in the past. There is no true "black and white" narrative to any event and everything needs to be put into context.

Take Riel, a complex (and likely schizophrenic) character. The old narrative was that he was deemed a traitor by the English and a hero by the French and is far too simple to have any real value. The reality is more complex- undoubtedly the natives and more recently the metis had lived in the Red river basin for thousands of years prior to the Red river rebellion. That he queen of England, with no real footprint on the ground outside of the HBC, sold/gave land to Canada that she didn't "own" in any real sense aside from colouring a map pink was irrelevant to the natives and metis in the area. It was the plan to change from the seigneur system in use to square land plots that was the final straw and caused the uprising. The Northwest rebellion has similar roots based on suzerainty and land rights. In many ways, the Riel rebellions should be viewed in the same light as the many Scot rebellions (including the William Wallace uprising) as a subjugated people trying to keep their land rights. Canada had no real sovereignty over the area and certainly no history there, so can they be seen to be taking up arms or protecting their rights, like those in the south that argue the same sort of logic. That the red river rebellion led to Manitoba becoming a province was why Riel is now considered a father of confederation.

What I find hard to reconcile is how in one thread you argue that taking down confederate statues is a crime while then being upset that Riel would be honoured. In the simplistic history both the confederates and Riel are traitors who took up arms against their countries. At least Riel was fighting for rights and not to own other people....


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (25 Aug 2017)

Look, Bird Gunner, your opinion is yours and I actually agree with a lot of them.

But get some basic facts right: The Metis were not there for thousands of years. They could not, as Metis are not "natives" in the same sense as the other native tribes of North America. They are by definition a mixed race resulting from union of French Settlers/explorers of the great plains with local natives that became an independent tribal organization. That arrival of French settlers/explorers started in the late 1500's early 1600'. So they were only there for at most 200 years at the time of the rebellion.


----------



## Remius (25 Aug 2017)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Look, Bird Gunner, your opinion is yours and I actually agree with a lot of them.
> 
> But get some basic facts right: The Metis were not there for thousands of years. They could not, as Metis are not "natives" in the same sense as the other native tribes of North America. They are by definition a mixed race resulting from union of French Settlers/explorers of the great plains with local natives that became an independent tribal organization. That arrival of French settlers/explorers started in the late 1500's early 1600'. So they were only there for at most 200 years at the time of the rebellion.



I think that's what he meant by "more recently" when he was talking about the Metis.  Just the way he structured his para it came out wrong.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (25 Aug 2017)

Most Metis are descended from NWC men and not HBC as I recall. NWC was the company that introduced liquor into the furtrade and also encouraged more settlements than the HBC. HBC was content with only having a coastal presence until the NWC began undermining them. HBC also had policy to prevent settlements and missionaries from entering their territory for the longest time, which actually cushioned western Canadian FN's from encroachment for sometime.


----------



## The Bread Guy (25 Aug 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> ... they are naming schools and building statues to people who have taken up arms against (the central government), traitors and Rebellion leaders whose followers murdered ...


So, which of the guys matching this description -- who some consider a hero because he "stuck it to the man" as an underdog -- should have statues, then?

Also, FYI, here's Premier Wynne's take on the teachers' union idea ...


> Premier Kathleen Wynne has weighed in on a controversial proposal by the Ontario elementary teachers union to rename public schools bearing the name of Canada's first prime minister, saying it has "missed the mark."
> 
> The remarks come one day after the Elementary Teachers' Federation of Ontario made headlines with a proposal to strip public schools of John A. Macdonald's name.
> 
> ...


----------



## Jarnhamar (25 Aug 2017)

Really good points by Miss Wynne. Whitewashing our history isn't going to change anything. It's not the first step on reconciliation road it's a shallow attempt to placate a small portion of society who will quickly be on to their next social crusade.

I feel like the teachers union is trying to grab spotlight with this suggestion.

The french teacher from the link supported removing Sir John A's name but backpedaled when asked about giving French-Canadian Sir Wilfrid Laurier the same treatment.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (25 Aug 2017)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Look, Bird Gunner, your opinion is yours and I actually agree with a lot of them.
> 
> But get some basic facts right: The Metis were not there for thousands of years. They could not, as Metis are not "natives" in the same sense as the other native tribes of North America. They are by definition a mixed race resulting from union of French Settlers/explorers of the great plains with local natives that became an independent tribal organization. That arrival of French settlers/explorers started in the late 1500's early 1600'. So they were only there for at most 200 years at the time of the rebellion.



Perhaps it wasn't worded well, but it was meant to say that the natives had been there thousands of years and the metis had been there more recently (+/- the arrival of the HBC/NWC/Compagnies de la Franches Marine circa 1750-ish).

Agree that they are not native in the traditional, but there were "more native" than the British/Canadians who arrived later to survey once the queen had given royal ascension to the transfer of the Northwest territories to Canada. Britain still had no real presence in the area, and Canada less so, so calling Riel a "traitor to Canada", a country he and the rest of the metis living in now Winnipeg had no or little association with for the 200 years of existence, is strong IMHO.


----------



## The Bread Guy (25 Aug 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> ... I feel like the teachers union is trying to grab spotlight with this suggestion ...


And it would also be interesting to know how much input the membership had as a whole into the idea, versus The (Union) Centre doing something "on behalf of."



			
				Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> ... The french teacher from the link supported removing Sir John A's name but backpedaled when asked about giving French-Canadian Sir Wilfrid Laurier the same treatment.


Funny that ... #MoreThanOneHistory


----------



## FJAG (25 Aug 2017)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Perhaps it wasn't worded well, but it was meant to say that the natives had been there thousands of years and the metis had been there more recently (+/- the arrival of the HBC/NWC/Compagnies de la Franches Marine circa 1750-ish).
> 
> Agree that they are not native in the traditional, but there were "more native" than the British/Canadians who arrived later to survey once the queen had given royal ascension to the transfer of the Northwest territories to Canada. Britain still had no real presence in the area, and Canada less so, so calling Riel a "traitor to Canada", a country he and the rest of the metis living in now Winnipeg had no or little association with for the 200 years of existence, is strong IMHO.



In 1869 during the Red River Rebellion, Riel was advocating for rights for the Metis prior to the imminent transfer to Canada. He was an advocate for incorporation with Canada partially as a defence to US incursions because enshrining Metis recognition and French language and Catholic worship rights were more likely that way.

Manitoba became a province and the remainder of St Rupert's land a territory in 1870. 

The revolution for which he was tried was not the 1869 Red River Rebellion but the 1885 North West Rebellion by which time the federal government had enshrined it's dominion over Manitoba and much of what is now Saskatchewan by way of treaties with the various First Nations that had aboriginal claims to the lands. The Metis as such had no aboriginal land rights in Manitoba and only the limited rights to be assigned 1.4 million acres in Manitoba pursuant to the 1870 Manitoba Act.
See: https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/12888/index.do

The Metis who were the foundation for the 1885 rebellion in the North West Territories (principally that portion which became Saskatchewan) were very recent immigrants to it having moved there from Manitoba in the previous decade. Riel himself had a turbulent life which went from being elected to the House of Commons to living in exile in the US.

The land in the North West Territories (within which the recent Metis migration lived) were aboriginal lands but had been ceded to Canada through treaties by 1877. see here: http://www.otc.ca/ckfinder/userfiles/files/treatymap_large.pdf.

The conclusion to much of this is that Canada had legal dominion over the lands in question and that the lands the Metis fought over had been ceded by their true aboriginal stakeholders a number of years before the rebellion. 

Riel once again set up a provisional government as he had in 1869 (but this time on Canadian lands instead of aboriginal/company lands) in order to negotiate an agreement with Canada but had greatly miscalculated the government's reaction to this (In 1869 Canada was newly formed and much concerned by Quebec support for Riel while in 1885 the country was much more secure, had a railway going west and had less of a Quebec problem). 

IMHO this was a rebellion and Riel a traitor (or by virtue of his more recent US residency--1877 to 1885 during which time he became a naturalized citizen of the US--a foreign invader)

 :cheers:


----------



## jollyjacktar (25 Aug 2017)

:goodpost:

And I don't disagree with his fate for that matter either.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (25 Aug 2017)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Perhaps it wasn't worded well, but it was meant to say that the natives had been there thousands of years and the metis had been there more recently (+/- the arrival of the HBC/NWC/Compagnies de la Franches Marine circa 1750-ish).
> 
> Agree that they are not native in the traditional, but there were "more native" than the British/Canadians who arrived later to survey once the queen had given royal ascension to the transfer of the Northwest territories to Canada. Britain still had no real presence in the area, and Canada less so, so calling Riel a "traitor to Canada", a country he and the rest of the metis living in now Winnipeg had no or little association with for the 200 years of existence, is strong IMHO.



I apologize Bird Gunner. I certainly misunderstood your meaning even though it was plainly there.

But there you go again in rebuttal: The Compagnies Franches de la Marine are a not companies in the sense of commercial corporation, but as military fighting companies: They are the French colonial troops, equivalent to the Royal Marines of the era. They never forayed outside of what is now known as the Province of Quebec. 

I think you had the Compagnie des Cent Associés in mind  [

Sorry, couldn't resist. Keep up the good work


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (28 Aug 2017)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I apologize Bird Gunner. I certainly misunderstood your meaning even though it was plainly there.
> 
> But there you go again in rebuttal: The Compagnies Franches de la Marine are a not companies in the sense of commercial corporation, but as military fighting companies: They are the French colonial troops, equivalent to the Royal Marines of the era. They never forayed outside of what is now known as the Province of Quebec.
> 
> ...



Actually, les compagnies franche de la marine served throughout New France, Isle Royale (Cape Breton), Louisiana, and the Caribbean until the end of New France. By the fall of Quebec, they were more akin to colonial regulars than marines (the name means "Free Companies of the navy").

Depending on how your french is, the following is a good link that details the employment of les compagnies.

http://www.ameriquebec.net/actualites/2009/11/03-lhistoire-des-compagnies-franches-de-la-marine-en-nouvelle-france.qc

The units were generally employed throughout the empire, including in austere trading posts such as Fort Dauphin and Fort La Reine in now day Dauphin and Portage la Prairie. They also had a fort in Winnipeg, but i can't recall off the top of my head what it was. These soldiers and traders interacted widely with the natives since they were thousands of km from the nearest french unit. Notably, all of the units in the west were recalled at the start of the French and Indian wars to defend Quebec and never returned. However, a number of their former bases were taken by the British companies once they moved into the area as they were generally well strategically placed.

There's also a good book by Allan Greer called, "The people of New France" that details the compagnies role in the life of french society in la nouvelle france. In particular, it details how commissions in the officer ranks were coveted by the new nobility of New France, which meant that often young men waited for commissions and started their careers in the ranks. It also talks about how postings to the western sea, the prairies, and other locales was a key draw for many.

So no, the units certainly served outside of Quebec and into the west/Red River area, certainly interacted with the natives, and certainly (with the traders) left a distinct french mark in the area that remained until Riel arose.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (28 Aug 2017)

FJAG said:
			
		

> In 1869 during the Red River Rebellion, Riel was advocating for rights for the Metis prior to the imminent transfer to Canada. He was an advocate for incorporation with Canada partially as a defence to US incursions because enshrining Metis recognition and French language and Catholic worship rights were more likely that way.
> 
> Manitoba became a province and the remainder of St Rupert's land a territory in 1870.
> 
> ...



I agree with what you are saying, but still find "traitor" to be a strong term, since the North west rebellion was rooted in the upheavel of the Red River Rebellion. The displaced Metis were largely in a bad place- the bison were nearly killed off, the fur trading jobs they had relied on had largely disappeared, and they hadn't received any indication that their land rights would be respected by the GoC (which, to be fair, wasn't going to happen and didn't happen). Riel was brought back in 1884 as a metis voice since he had the highest "star power" in the hope that they woudn't continue to be ignored by the government. The revolutionary bill of rights included such things as, "That the Land Department of the Dominion Government be administered as far as practicable from Winnipeg, so that the settlers may not be compelled as heretofore to go to Ottawa for the settlement of questions in dispute between them and the land commissioner."... Pretty strong stuff.

For the battles- At Duck Lake the RCMP fired the first shots after extended negotiations and the actions at Frog Lake/Battleford by Big Bear were not really related to Riel, with Riel convincing the Metis to not follow the RCMP for future battles.

All that to say that the metis and Riel did take arms against the Canadian government, so meet the definition of "traitors". The complicated aspect is that the metis and natives were in fact being stripped of the rights that had been given to them after the Red River Rebellion. They were in fact going to continue to lose those rights and the Canadian government was asked several times to discuss the issue but preferred to stay silent. The metis and natives also never viewed themselves as Canadian and never took on this identity, staying more as a conquered people than willing participants. In this sense the rebellion is reasonable in much the same way that Scottish, Dutch, and other European rebellions against other powers are now viewed. That's why I still dont see Riel as a real traitor as he and the others weren't fighting against a power that was recognized. History's complicated.


----------



## FJAG (28 Aug 2017)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> I agree with what you are saying, but still find "traitor" to be a strong term, since the North west rebellion was rooted in the upheavel of the Red River Rebellion. The displaced Metis were largely in a bad place- the bison were nearly killed off, the fur trading jobs they had relied on had largely disappeared, and they hadn't received any indication that their land rights would be respected by the GoC (which, to be fair, wasn't going to happen and didn't happen). Riel was brought back in 1884 as a metis voice since he had the highest "star power" in the hope that they woudn't continue to be ignored by the government. The revolutionary bill of rights included such things as, "That the Land Department of the Dominion Government be administered as far as practicable from Winnipeg, so that the settlers may not be compelled as heretofore to go to Ottawa for the settlement of questions in dispute between them and the land commissioner."... Pretty strong stuff.
> 
> For the battles- At Duck Lake the RCMP fired the first shots after extended negotiations and the actions at Frog Lake/Battleford by Big Bear were not really related to Riel, with Riel convincing the Metis to not follow the RCMP for future battles.
> 
> All that to say that the metis and Riel did take arms against the Canadian government, so meet the definition of "traitors". The complicated aspect is that the metis and natives were in fact being stripped of the rights that had been given to them after the Red River Rebellion. They were in fact going to continue to lose those rights and the Canadian government was asked several times to discuss the issue but preferred to stay silent. The metis and natives also never viewed themselves as Canadian and never took on this identity, staying more as a conquered people than willing participants. In this sense the rebellion is reasonable in much the same way that Scottish, Dutch, and other European rebellions against other powers are now viewed. That's why I still dont see Riel as a real traitor as he and the others weren't fighting against a power that was recognized. History's complicated.



History is indeed complicated and I agree with much that you say above.

Where I take a different course is that I see the Metis issue and the Indian (as the term was then)  issue as two very separate ones.

The Indians were recognized by the crown as the aboriginal landholders and the crown negotiated with them to obtain title in exchange for certain benefits flowing to them from the crown. (I won't get into the argument about whether or not those dealings were honourable for the time and circumstances as I expect that's probably a couple of university courses that I don't have). By 1885 there were both economic pressure, as you indicated, and poor administration of treaties and the Cree attempted to renegotiate their treaty and when that didn't work, some rose up.

The Metis on the other hand were seeking recognition of rights which at the time the crown didn't think that they had as they were not a distinct aboriginal community with aboriginal rights. They occupied lands but with no legal status. The Metis in fact wanted to be part of the new British (later Canadian) colonies and advocated and negotiated for that in 1869. They did win concessions under the Manitoba Act (which were poorly administered) By the time of the NW Rebellion there may have been a backstory but nothing which provided a legal or justifiable right to take up arms against the crown.

Because of the treaties entered into before 1885 the Canadian crown very definitely had been recognized as the "owner" of the lands by the very aboriginals who ceded them to Canada. Citizenship was a much more fluid thing in the west at the time as one had a broad mixture of aboriginals, settlers from eastern Canada, foreign (read European) immigrants and US border jumpers. While the Metis may never technically have been Canadian citizens before 1885 they were, nonetheless, at that time, in occupation of Canadian lands and, therefore, by going into armed conflict with Canada, could be considered in open rebellion. 

The term treason (or, more accurately, high treason) is a very technical one and is defined in the Criminal Code to include "everyone ...  who, in Canada ... levies war against Canada ..."  In 1885 the government charged Riel under the British Treason Act of 1351 (see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason_Act_1351 and here: http://www.languageandlaw.org/TEXTS/STATS/TREASON.HTM) which was a part of Canadian law and which defined "High Treason" to include "if a man do levy war against our lord the King in his realm". The court convicted him on the basis of that act and he lost all appeals. It matters not whether or not the Metis considered themselves subjects of Canada. By virtue of Canada's legal title over the North West Territories by treaty and the fact that the Metis took up arms against the crown "within [the] realm" the act of treason was completed and thereby they were traitors.

 :cheers:


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (29 Aug 2017)

FJAG said:
			
		

> History is indeed complicated and I agree with much that you say above.
> 
> Where I take a different course is that I see the Metis issue and the Indian (as the term was then)  issue as two very separate ones.
> 
> ...



I can tell you're a lawyer  

I concede the definition of traitor and perhaps read history too stoically. I think we can agree that Louis Riel, circa Red River, was not a real traitor while we can disagree about Louis Riel, circa Northwest Rebellion. Sounds like the kind of complicated history that should be enshrined on a statue to show the duality of history  :cdnsalute:


----------



## Colin Parkinson (29 Aug 2017)

We have been including Metis into consultations for a large project near Fort St John, they are quite pleased to be included and treated equally to the FN's. There is one recognized settlement in BC at Kelly Lake. A number of the FN's are uncomfortable at having the Metis at the table.


----------



## Rick Goebel (29 Aug 2017)

Anybody else notice that the new version of cabinet is no longer gender-balanced?  Because it's 2017?


----------



## jmt18325 (29 Aug 2017)

Rick Goebel said:
			
		

> Anybody else notice that the new version of cabinet is no longer gender-balanced?  Because it's 2017?



The current cabinet is Trudeau + 15 men and 15 women.  That's the same as before, isn't it?


----------



## Good2Golf (30 Aug 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> The current cabinet is Trudeau + 15 men and 15 women.  That's the same as before, isn't it?



One more, now.  

I guess you missed the part where the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs was split into two portfolios: the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs; and the Minister of Indigenous Services.


----------



## Kat Stevens (30 Aug 2017)

How dare you, assuming gender like that!


----------



## Rick Goebel (30 Aug 2017)

Sorry, I got carried away.  It is indeed 15 and 15.  My apologies.


----------



## Good2Golf (30 Aug 2017)

Rick Goebel said:
			
		

> Sorry, I got carried away.  It is indeed 15 and 15.  My apologies.



No, don't double-think yourself, you were right the first time.  PM is also a Minister, of the Privy Council, so 1+15(16) + 15 - total 31 now, (30 before).

https://www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/ministries

Regards
G2G


----------



## Kirkhill (30 Aug 2017)

WRT "Metis" - 

Just for the record - metis incorporates both French speaking Roman Catholics like the Riels and Scots speaking Presbyterians like the McKays.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-M%C3%A9tis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bungi_Creole
http://www.mhs.mb.ca/docs/people/mckay_j.shtml

Mum was often a legitimate First Nations woman while Dad was a proud subject of the Crown.

And then there was Riel.


----------



## Lumber (30 Aug 2017)

I'm going to go out on a limb here and admit I'm pretty ignorant when it comes to the whole definition of Métis. I know that  Métis are persons of mixed blood (European/Aboriginal), but why do they have a distinct group at all? There are a lot of "Status Indians" in Ontario who are mixed-blood and they aren't considered Métis? Do the Métis not maintain roots to whatever tribes/bands their ancestral parents belonged to?


----------



## Jarnhamar (30 Aug 2017)

Lumber said:
			
		

> I'm going to go out on a limb here and admit I'm pretty ignorant when it comes to the whole definition of Métis. I know that  Métis are persons of mixed blood (European/Aboriginal),* but why do they have a distinct group at all?* There are a lot of "Status Indians" in Ontario who are mixed-blood and they aren't considered Métis? Do the Métis not maintain roots to whatever tribes/bands their ancestral parents belonged to?



I was wondering the same thing.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (30 Aug 2017)

"Métis" is mentioned in the Constitution Act 1982 as separate and distinct from the other groups that make up the “aboriginal peoples of Canada”.
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-16.html#h-52


> 2) In this Act, “aboriginal peoples of Canada” includes the Indian, Inuit and Métis peoples of Canada.



While there is no further definition of Métis in the Constitution, this was clarified by the Supreme Court in R. v. Powley.

https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/2076/index.do


> The term “Métis” in s. 35  of the Constitution Act, 1982 does not encompass all individuals with mixed Indian and European heritage; rather, it refers to distinctive peoples who, in addition to their mixed ancestry, developed their own customs, and recognizable group identity separate from their Indian or Inuit and European forebears.  A Métis community is a group of Métis with a distinctive collective identity, living together in the same geographical area and sharing a common way of life.


  Much more at link


----------



## Lumber (30 Aug 2017)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> "Métis" is mentioned in the Constitution Act 1982 as separate and distinct from the other groups that make up the “aboriginal peoples of Canada”.
> http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-16.html#h-52
> While there is no further definition of Métis in the Constitution, this was clarified by the Supreme Court in R. v. Powley.
> 
> ...



Right, so their distinctive culture is not "native" to Canada; it was created upon the arrival and subsequent intermixing with Europeans... so why are they considered a distinct group alongside Inuits and First Nations? Shouldn't they be treated akin to les Habitants or the Acadians?


----------



## jmt18325 (30 Aug 2017)

Rick Goebel said:
			
		

> Sorry, I got carried away.  It is indeed 15 and 15.  My apologies.



I don't think it ever counted Trudeau.  It always was 31 total (as far as I know, anyway - could be wrong.).  INAC was split in half, but the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons is also the Small Business and Tourism Minister - they were split before.


----------



## jmt18325 (30 Aug 2017)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> No, don't double-think yourself, you were right the first time.  PM is also a Minister, of the Privy Council, so 1+15(16) + 15 - total 31 now, (30 before).



It was 31 at the beginning, I think.  It was less than that lately, due to some resignations and double duties.  Now, with INAC split in half, it's back to 11.


----------



## Good2Golf (30 Aug 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> It was 31 at the beginning, I think.  It was less than that lately, due to some resignations and double duties.  Now, with INAC split in half, it's back to 11.



...or you could do some research, follow the link I provided a few posts earlier, and count both the current cabinet and that immediately prior, and see the prior cabinet was 30, consisting of the PM (Minister of the Privy Council) + 14 other male Ministers and 15 female Ministers.  The current: 31 (1+15, + 15).  

Worry yourself not, jmt, for it is not fake news...'tis the Government's own official site specifically related to Canadian Parliamentary Cabinets over the years.  Of course you are entitled to argue even with them - perhaps the Clerk of the Privy Council (who conveniently also happens to be the Secretary of the Cabinet) might pay you some heed if you can convince him that everyone else than you is wrong.

Regards,
G2G


----------



## SeaKingTacco (31 Aug 2017)

I older I get, the more comfortable I get with frequently being wrong....


----------



## Altair (31 Aug 2017)

The second I got married was the day I realized I would never be right again.


----------



## mariomike (31 Aug 2017)

Altair said:
			
		

> The second I got married was the day I realized I would never be right again.



Whenever you're wrong, admit it; and whenever you're right, shut up.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (31 Aug 2017)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> ...or you could do some research, follow the link I provided a few posts earlier, and count both the current cabinet and that immediately prior, and see the prior cabinet was 30, consisting of the PM (Minister of the Privy Council) + 14 other male Ministers and 15 female Ministers.  The current: 31 (1+15, + 15).
> 
> Worry yourself not, jmt, for it is not fake news...'tis the Government's own official site specifically related to Canadian Parliamentary Cabinets over the years.  Of course you are entitled to argue even with them - perhaps the Clerk of the Privy Council (who conveniently also happens to be the Secretary of the Cabinet) might pay you some heed if you can convince him that everyone else than you is wrong.
> 
> ...



Just to play devil's advocate, the number 31 is odd so doesn't lend itself to having an equal number of anything (unless there's a transgender MP in the cabinet). Perhaps they way they see it is 15 + 15 and the PM? That's about as "balanced" as its going to be outside of said transgender member. So, couldn't you both be right on a theoretical/practical level?

That to say- While I agree with some Liberal policy and disagree with others, I think the need to balance the cabinet is a poor one that will lead the PM into poor places as he potentially promotes weaker personnel into higher positions and they gaffe.


----------



## Lumber (31 Aug 2017)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Whenever you're wrong, admit it; and whenever you're right, shut up.



Having been in two marriages now, one where "you're never right", and one where "you're right when you're right and you're wrong when you're wrong", the latter is mind-blowingly invigorating.


----------



## Jarnhamar (31 Aug 2017)

[quote author=Bird_Gunner45](unless there's a transgender MP in the cabinet). 
[/quote]

I was thinking of that. I'm surprised we don't have 10 MPs that are transgender. 5 MtF and 5 FtM.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (31 Aug 2017)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Just to play devil's advocate, the number 31 is odd so doesn't lend itself to having an equal number of anything (unless there's a transgender MP in the cabinet). Perhaps they way they see it is 15 + 15 and the PM? That's about as "balanced" as its going to be outside of said transgender member. So, couldn't you both be right on a theoretical/practical level?
> 
> That to say- While I agree with some Liberal policy and disagree with others, I think the need to balance the cabinet is a poor one that will lead the PM into poor places as he potentially promotes weaker personnel into higher positions and they gaffe.



Doesn't Trudeau count as both since he is a feminist?  

And quite frankly, BG, I don't see the policy of balancing the cabinet in itself as potentially problematic. Being in politics and being a good minister of the state are not necessarily the same thing. Regardless of your personal qualifications, some people will be good ministers and some wont, and past qualifications and achievements outside of ministerial duties are no indicators of quality as political head of department. So, no matter who you pick in your party, you never know ahead of time how well they will perform or how much/little they will gaffe.

Where I do have a problem is in the insistence in their policy (at the behest of allegedly "modern" feminism) on equality of result as opposed to equality of opportunities - the later one being what equality under the law ought to be and nothing else - such as insisting on 25% of women in STEM in universities or else and the same 25% of women in the CAF, etc. One should wonder why, under such view, they do not also insist on 25% of men in secretarial posts (or office assistant - whatever they are called these days), nursing, cosmetics sales or elementary school teachers positions, to name a few.

Even many of the mid-twentieth century and early twenty-first feminists who battled on equality are now criticizing this approach to equality and believe that, at least in places like the Western democracies (as we define them), equality as they conceived of it has been achieved, that is a women can chose to do whatever she wants to do, so long as she otherwise meets the true requirements for the job, but that women are free to chose to do what they want. These older feminist do not recognize any basis for women to take an equal part of any trade or profession, so long as they have the choice.


----------



## Brad Sallows (31 Aug 2017)

I doubt that any feminists - older or younger - truly intend women to take an equal part of any trade or profession; for the younger, I assume that when they say "parity" what they really mean is "parity in attractive/powerful jobs".  Disproportionate representation of women in any particular endeavour generally exists for the same reason it exists in the specific endeavour of septic tank pumping: not many women want to do it.


----------



## mariomike (31 Aug 2017)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> I doubt that any feminists - older or younger - truly intend women to take an equal part of any trade or profession; for the younger, I assume that when they say "parity" what they really mean is "parity in attractive/powerful jobs".  Disproportionate representation of women in any particular endeavour generally exists for the same reason it exists in the specific endeavour of septic tank pumping: not many women want to do it.



When I started on the job / trade / profession / endeavour, our department ( Operations and Communications ) was 100% white / male. You had to be over 5'8" and 160 lbs. 

Times change, however. They started with Communications.

It was thought that women's voices would have a more soothing and calming effect over the radios than men's.

Operations was dirty, outside work with heavy lifting. 

But, women did well there also. I had a female partner, and we got along just fine. 

Good thing too, because I eventually ended up working for her!


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Sep 2017)

I'm sure this has been posted before (maybe by me) but it's worth the 2 minutes or so: http://video.dailymail.co.uk/video/mol/2016/05/24/2364977485694089444/640x360_2364977485694089444.mp4


----------



## PuckChaser (1 Sep 2017)

There will never be gender balance in Cabinet, as there are at least 58 genders: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2014/02/heres-a-list-of-58-gender-options-for-facebook-users/

Its like none of you paid any attention to GBA+.  :facepalm:


----------



## Jarnhamar (1 Sep 2017)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> There will never be gender balance in Cabinet, as there are at least 58 genders: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2014/02/heres-a-list-of-58-gender-options-for-facebook-users/
> 
> Its like none of you paid any attention to GBA+.  :facepalm:



Just make 60 Cabinet seats


----------



## Colin Parkinson (1 Sep 2017)

Well I note a large increase of women getting into the Landscaping trade, I did it for a bit, back in the 80's there were no women in that trade.


----------



## dapaterson (11 Sep 2017)

From the "Sometimes parody goes so far that it's true" department, "Trudeau Liberals decry Caroline Mulroney’s attempt to ride father’s coattails"

https://www.thebeaverton.com/2017/09/trudeau-liberals-decry-caroline-mulroneys-attempt-ride-fathers-coattails/


----------



## Loachman (17 Sep 2017)

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/rex-murphy-for-trudeau-governing-is-entirely-about-sweet-words-not-action

Rex Murphy: For Trudeau, governing is entirely about sweet words, not action

If sweet declarations were not so tied up with the need to act on them, this government would be perfect

Rex Murphy
September 15, 2017
2:52 PM EDT

Within the literati there’s a quite famous exchange between two of the last century’s prominent American novelists. Scott Fitzgerald is reported as offering Ernest Hemingway the following proposition: “Ernest, the rich are very different from you and me.” To which Hemingway retorted: “Yes, Scott, they deviously take advantage of various tax loopholes, and thereby increase the burdens on middle class Canadians. Tax ‘em more, I say.”

And there, almost to the comma, in Hemingway’s prescient comment you have a nearly exact premonition of the position Justin Trudeau is taking at this very time. “Amazing,” you might think, but it’s just one of the many illustrations of how the study of literature and politics converge. (Just as an aside, the works of P.G. Wodehouse will offer the studious inquirer a nearly perfect overlay to the politics of Newfoundland and Labrador, right up to the present day. Wodehouse’s masterpiece is impressively revelatory on federal-provincial relations during the turbulent administration of Premier Brian Peckford. Somewhere in the compendious and collected works of our own great critical sage, Northrop Frye, you will find reflections that bear on this very subject — literature as political prophecy. Literature has many faces. But perhaps I digress.)

We see from the above that Mr. Trudeau takes a very dim view of the rich, notwithstanding his own enrolment in that shifty cohort. He sees the need to take them down a tax peg or two.    

Except, of course, for the rare occasions when he chooses to dine with Eastern billionaires and solicit their support for the good of his party. Or when he deems it therapeutic to vacation on a private Caribbean island owned by the illustrious Aga Khan. Or summits with rock stars and Hollywood royalty. Who’s to say but that he undertakes such distasteful (to him) connections under the prudential axiom of “Know your enemy.” 

Nor should we account this an hypocrisy. For it is becoming more and more clear that there is no discrepancy between what Mr. Trudeau says on any given topic, and what he actually chooses to do - or not do, as the case may be. This is because with Mr. Trudeau the intention, and the intention alone, is the term that counts.

There is no one more gifted in modern Canadian politics in the art of saying the right thing, of finding the most accommodating and winsome language on almost any topic, than our prime minister.  He declares very well. And when he declares himself on any issue, that’s frequently the end of it. The doing, which we normally expect to occur after the declaring, the act which normally flows from a statement of intention, these are yokes for other people.

His is a government built on the statement of good intentions. Canadians have become very familiar with some of his most famous and fulsome predications:

“Diversity is our strength,” tops the list. It’s almost a personal incantation.

But there are others, almost equally embraced:

“No relationship is more important to our government and to Canada than the one with Indigenous peoples.”

“This election will be the last under first-past-the-post.”

“The world needs more Canada.”

“The rich must pay their fair share.”

Call these the Trudeau Five. Each houses a worthy sentiment, in simple language, conveying a sense of urgent, moral commitment. In lesser politicians, these plain, declarative statements would almost certainly imply a determination to link them to policies, to actions, to give flesh to their sentiments. But in a government of good intentions, this is not necessarily the case.

Take, “This election will be the last under first-past-the-post.” Where is that now? Why, in the crowded scrapyard of brilliant rhetorical flashes; statements of intention that gave warmth to a campaign, but which chilled in government.

Who was more declarative on the need for an inquiry into missing and murdered Indigenous women than Mr. Trudeau in opposition? And where is that sensitive, heart-aching matter now? In a great slough of imperfect administration, distrusted by those it sought to heal, and mired in red tape and grievous disappointment over its proceedings. Nonetheless, it would be unkind to say that the inquiry’s early failure should throw a shadow on the declaration of intention that begat it.

Internationally, Mr. Trudeau early and often declared that Canada could and should act as an example to the world, especially in its famous peacekeeping missions. That too stalled, and nearly two years in, remains an empty, open file. If - as another of his patented formulations has it - the world needs more Canada, well, the world is just going to have to wait for it.

As I say, there is no modern prime minister who has a more ready basket of soft thoughts and sweet words on almost any progressive concern, or who so impressively marshals the tone of sympathetic sincerity when declaring himself on the topics of the day, than Mr. Trudeau. If government were the business of declaring good intentions, and if declaring good intentions were not so damnably tied up with the need to act on them, this government would be perfect.

The same goes for his thoughts on the rich. We know from what he says what Mr. Trudeau thinks of them: they are a dark and devious bunch of free-riders. But tax policy or no tax policy, hard words or no hard words, he will stay friends with them when it is needful. When there are funds to raise, and a party to support, the calumnies heaped on them will evaporate, the dinners will recur, and their company will be sought as eagerly as before.

But no mind, whatever the subject, the prime minister’s heart is in the right place. He has many bright phrases and the Air Miles to prove it.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (17 Sep 2017)

Loachman said:
			
		

> http://nationalpost.com/opinion/rex-murphy-for-trudeau-governing-is-entirely-about-sweet-words-not-action
> 
> Rex Murphy: For Trudeau, governing is entirely about sweet words, not action
> 
> ...



The "World needs more Canada" quote cannot be originally attributed to PM Trudeau- it was first stated by Bono and then by Obama as "NATO needs more Canada". These then spun off into the commercials and other tripe that followed.

While the LPC has failed/delayed initiatives as Old man Murphy correctly asserts, so did the CPC, the Liberals before him, the PC's before them, etc etc etc. Trying to say that talking big and not delivering is a Trudeau only failing is ignoring such goodies as the CPC's providing the CAF with F35s, the Liberals before them creating the NVC to help vets, and the PCs before them stating that they would purchase nuclear subs. While there are a thousand "but" arguments I'm sure, I firmly believe that Trudeau/the LPC of 2017 isn't guilty of anything that every other party isn't


----------



## PuckChaser (17 Sep 2017)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> While there are a thousand "but" arguments I'm sure, I firmly believe that Trudeau/the LPC of 2017 isn't guilty of anything that every other party isn't



Do you have any more of the rose-coloured glasses for sale?

You're not seeing the problem. The problem is the Liberals campaigned on being "different" and "not Harper". However, we're seeing similar tactics that took Harper years to start using. Let's see the latest "Do as I say, not as I do" campaign promise break from the Trudeau Liberals:

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/liberals-set-to-limit-debate-on-big-priorities-as-mps-return-to-ottawa-1.3593308



> "We're looking forward to debating everybody, but if it comes to a point where we're seeing obstructionism as we saw on certain occasions in the last session, time allocation is a tool that could be used," said Ahmad, who stressed they have not made up their minds to use it.
> 
> "It's a case-by-case analysis."
> 
> NDP House Leader Murray Rankin said he was disappointed with the approach, especially since the Liberals had joined the NDP in criticizing the previous Conservative government of prime minister Stephen Harper for imposing time allocation so often.



"Obstructionism" is the democratic right of the Opposition parties using the rules of the Commons to oppose legislation. I mean, the basic dictatorship of China like PM Trudeau admires has no "obstructionism" or opposition of any kind allowed by law, so perhaps that's what they're going to try for.

You'll also note that almost 2 years into a 4 year governing period of a large majority in the House, the Liberals have been unable to accomplish more than 25% of their campaign promises, with a stunning 15% already broken. (https://trudeaumetre.polimeter.org/)


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (17 Sep 2017)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Do you have any more of the rose-coloured glasses for sale?
> 
> You're not seeing the problem. The problem is the Liberals campaigned on being "different" and "not Harper". However, we're seeing similar tactics that took Harper years to start using. Let's see the latest "Do as I say, not as I do" campaign promise break from the Trudeau Liberals:
> 
> ...



No need for rose coloured glasses as I specifically stated that the Liberals had failed/delayed initiatives. For the article commented on, one can rebuttle with the Conservatives Bill C-51 which over 100 law professors called "dangerous". Trudeau has changed the tone in Ottawa, which is a nice change of pace from the constant negativity prior. Is it show over substance? absolutely.

At any rate, the point in the original text was not to say Trudeau is doing something great or something terrible. It's to say that Old Man Rex's (I dont have much time for him- he's an out of touch Ottawa denizen in the make of Mr. duffy) assertion that this government is somehow different than previous ones is incorrect. I have seen SSE money coming in this year from the new defence plan, which is more than I can say for Conservative F35s, so there's that.


----------



## PuckChaser (17 Sep 2017)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> I have seen SSE money coming in this year from the new defence plan, which is more than I can say for Conservative F35s, so there's that.



You were all about colouring every government the same but ou must have completely missed the part about how the Chretien Liberals got us into the F-35 (Then JSF) program, and it was Liberals drumming up opposition with fake costs that prevented the Tories on the edge of a major election from pulling the trigger. But now the current Liberal government is our saviour in defense spending? In what way? Invented capability gaps to sole source aircraft to politically delay competition on a real new fighter that they know the F-35 will win, but they can't sole source without a competition now that Lockheed has provided a costed proposal for 18x F-35As to cover the interim fighter "gap"? Or are you impressed by increased defense spending that won't kick in until years down the road or was basically re-released previous spending (CSC but with increases to cover more ships, Army Logistic vehicles) to bump up the total "increase"? Maybe you were impressed by the Defense Policy document that promised a wide-ranging review that basically turned into a CFDS over many more years with marginal increases to capability while massive issues were left on the table like recruiting timelines, undermanning, retention, etc?


----------



## FSTO (17 Sep 2017)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> No need for rose coloured glasses as I specifically stated that the Liberals had failed/delayed initiatives. For the article commented on, one can rebuttle with the Conservatives Bill C-51 which over 100 law professors called "dangerous". Trudeau has changed the tone in Ottawa, which is a nice change of pace from the constant negativity prior. Is it show over substance? absolutely.
> 
> At any rate, the point in the original text was not to say Trudeau is doing something great or something terrible. It's to say that Old Man Rex's (I dont have much time for him- he's an out of touch Ottawa denizen in the make of Mr. duffy) assertion that this government is somehow different than previous ones is incorrect. I have seen SSE money coming in this year from the new defence plan, which is more than I can say for Conservative F35s, so there's that.


t
So what is your opinion of the interim fighter buy and the refusal to conduct a competition for a fighter replacement until after the next election?


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (17 Sep 2017)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> You were all about colouring every government the same but ou must have completely missed the part about how the Chretien Liberals got us into the F-35 (Then JSF) program, and it was Liberals drumming up opposition with fake costs that prevented the Tories on the edge of a major election from pulling the trigger. But now the current Liberal government is our saviour in defense spending? In what way? Invented capability gaps to sole source aircraft to politically delay competition on a real new fighter that they know the F-35 will win, but they can't sole source without a competition now that Lockheed has provided a costed proposal for 18x F-35As to cover the interim fighter "gap"? Or are you impressed by increased defense spending that won't kick in until years down the road or was basically re-released previous spending (CSC but with increases to cover more ships, Army Logistic vehicles) to bump up the total "increase"? Maybe you were impressed by the Defense Policy document that promised a wide-ranging review that basically turned into a CFDS over many more years with marginal increases to capability while massive issues were left on the table like recruiting timelines, undermanning, retention, etc?



No, I was tracking that the JSF was started under the Liberals. Same as I was tracking how the Liberals started the MMEV and MGS projects and the conservatives cancelled them. 

As for the Liberals somehow stalling the F35, didn't you yourself state, ""Obstructionism" is the democratic right of the Opposition parties using the rules of the Commons to oppose legislation"? The conservatives had a majority and could have bought the F35 as easily as the Liberals could have pushed through any legislation they wanted, including their excuse that the NDP/Conservatives somehow stopped electoral reform. The conversation about the F18's is irrelevant to this conservation (and has its own thread). As for the SSE policy, I dont disagree that it's probably just like the CFSD... lots of ink and not a lot of money. However, the reality is that I can say with 100% certainty that the CFSD wasn't worth the paper it was printed on once the cutbacks started. The same may or may not be able to be said about the SSE. Only time will tell (since it hasn't happened- unless you have a time machine).

Why is it that my assertion that the Liberals of today are really no different in "saying one thing and doing another" than were the CPC, the Liberals of the 90's, the PC's of the 80's, Liberals of the 70's, etc etc _has_ to mean that I support the Liberals? I voted CPC in 2006 for fiscal prudence and got massive deficits but my parents voted liberals in the 1990s for spending and got massive cut backs. Governments always keep some promises and break others. Once the CPC takes power again in 2023-ish I can only assume that I'll say the same thing about them.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (17 Sep 2017)

FSTO said:
			
		

> t
> So what is your opinion of the interim fighter buy and the refusal to conduct a competition for a fighter replacement until after the next election?



I think it's irrelevant to the point made in this thread and that there's already a thread for that.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (18 Sep 2017)

Under the CPC we got:

C17's
C130J
Leased and then bought Chinooks
Leased and then bought Leopard 2

They waffled on the F35 in line with Martin and the current Liberal government
They stumbled on the Arctic but at least brought the issue into the light, with some work being done and still underway.


----------



## The Bread Guy (18 Sep 2017)

In other political news ...


> The Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, today announced that by-elections will be held on October 23, 2017, in the following two electoral districts:
> 
> Sturgeon River–Parkland, Alberta
> Lac-Saint-Jean, Quebec


----------



## Good2Golf (18 Sep 2017)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> I think it's irrelevant to the point made in this thread and that there's already a thread for that.



So it's not a political issue in 2017, you're saying?


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (18 Sep 2017)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> So it's not a political issue in 2017, you're saying?



Yes, it is certainly an issue in 2017, but is irrelevant to the issue being stated in that it has no bearing on the argument that "all governments keep some promises but break others". That's literally the only point being made- there's no comment on the efficacy of the LPC in 2017 nor of the CPC in 2006-2015, etc. the exception was the point on the CFSD as it was brought up by others. That, however, is irrelevant to the initial point.


----------



## Loachman (18 Sep 2017)

The less of their agenda that the Liberals achieve, the happier I am, so I'm not complaining at all.


----------



## Good2Golf (19 Sep 2017)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Yes, it is certainly an issue in 2017, but is irrelevant to the issue being stated in that it has no bearing on the argument that "all governments keep some promises but break others". That's literally the only point being made- there's no comment on the efficacy of the LPC in 2017 nor of the CPC in 2006-2015, etc. the exception was the point on the CFSD as it was brought up by others. That, however, is irrelevant to the initial point.



Wrong.

This thread is to discuss the political aspects of a number of issues being dealt with by the various political parties.  It is not just a "all parties break their promises, so we shouldn't be discussing this issue - it's irrelevant" tread.

Other threads with specific subjects cover the ranges of issues related to those subjects, and while political aspects can be considered valid for inclusion there, this thread is equally valid within which to discuss the principally political aspects of current issues.  If you think it's irrelevant, then fine, we won't miss you while you sit in the Interim Fighter or CF-18 replacement threads, keeping your view of all things aircraft fenced in there.

:2c:

G2G


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (19 Sep 2017)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Wrong.
> 
> This thread is to discuss the political aspects of a number of issues being dealt with by the various political parties.  It is not just a "all parties break their promises, so we shouldn't be discussing this issue - it's irrelevant" tread.
> 
> ...



Not wrong. Context is the issue in that the question back was not relevant to the original point. I understand that "Politics 2017" can be about anything to do with politics, including the CF-18 replacement. Do you understand that the topic is irrelevant to the conversation to that point?  But if we must...

The purchase of Super Hornets or whatever comes out of it is _clearly_ not a long term solution and is _clearly_ as a result of a poorly planned election promise. However, the origins of the problem lay in the CPC stating publicly that they would buy the F-35 and than backing out of that promise for what can only be considered to be political reasons. The LPC/NDP were in opposition and opposed in the same manner the CPC is now. The CPC backed out as they feared the blowback on the upcoming election (which ironically didn't matter since they lost anyway... the only difference it made was that the RCAF could have had F35s with a Liberal government). Yes, the LPC started the F35 program, but that doesn't matter one iota to the CPC cancelling it. They cancelled it for political reasons, same as the Liberals are trying to make this "interim" buy for political reasons. The CPC said they would purchase it and didn't while Trudeau said he wouldn't and didn't, so I guess the Liberals were at least honest, if not terribly misguided.

My personal feeling is that the best case scenario is that the LPC agreed to purchase the Super Hornet's in the hope that the F35 would become "operational" to the point of being non-controversial so that they could purchase it with less political fallout. My more cynical sides leads me to believe that the LPC offered to buy Super Hornets in order to let them bridge to the next election or further to avoid having to make a decision. In terms of politics I think both parties (CPC and Liberal) understand deep down that very very few Canadians truly care what sort of fighter aircraft we have and less are likely to make that a voting criteria. I also think both parties are unlikely to go far out on a limb for the military for the same reason. once Afghanistan ended and the brief period of public interest the CAF had ended so did the money.


----------



## PuckChaser (19 Sep 2017)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> My personal feeling is that the best case scenario is that the LPC agreed to purchase the Super Hornet's in the hope that the F35 would become "operational" to the point of being non-controversial so that they could purchase it with less political fallout.



That's funny, considering they campaigned on a promise to never buy the F-35.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (19 Sep 2017)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> That's funny, considering they campaigned on a promise to never buy the F-35.



Please review my initial point on governments and promises.


----------



## PuckChaser (19 Sep 2017)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Please review my initial point on governments and promises.


Review the part where the Liberals campaigned on being different. They don't get a free pass on reneging on promises everytime you need to prove an argument. 

I know it's difficult going from PMSH who did a majority of what he said he'd do and nothing his opponents accused him of hiding, to PMJT who will say anything to your face to get a vote or social media like but really mean very little of it, but you're going to have to keep up to what's actually happening.


----------



## Good2Golf (19 Sep 2017)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> ...Yes, the LPC started the F35 program, but that doesn't matter one iota to the CPC cancelling it. They cancelled it for political reasons, same as the Liberals are trying to make this "interim" buy for political reasons. The CPC said they would purchase it and didn't while Trudeau said he wouldn't and didn't, so I guess the Liberals were at least honest, if not terribly misguided...



Factually wrong.

The Harper Government cancelled nothing.  In fact, during the Harper Government's tenure, they signed the JSF Production, Sustainment and Follow-on Development (PSFD) MOU in 2006 and several MOU renewals prior to 2015.

To not arbitrarily approve the project through exploitation of a majority government position while opposition parties were opposing the acquisition, is not a cancellation.

And the issue is still relevant to this thread.

G2G


----------



## Loachman (20 Sep 2017)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I know it's difficult going from PMSH who did a majority of what he said he'd do



We are still burdened with the Chretien/Rock Firearms Act 2.2 decades later, despite initial promises to repeal it completely.

I know many firearms owners who either did not vote or voted for somebody else as punishment during the last election.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (20 Sep 2017)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Factually wrong.
> 
> The Harper Government cancelled nothing.  In fact, during the Harper Government's tenure, they signed the JSF Production, Sustainment and Follow-on Development (PSFD) MOU in 2006 and several MOU renewals prior to 2015.
> 
> ...



I'll concede that the project wasn't cancelled. The fact that the Conservatives announced on 16 Jul 10 that they were going to procure 65 x F35 and reset the process in Dec 2012 for political reasons. That or it was CPC incompetence in not undertaking the proper contracting/procurement steps and following regulations. Either way, the fact that the F35 didn't start delivery is a CPC error.


----------



## Good2Golf (20 Sep 2017)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> I'll concede that the project wasn't cancelled. The fact that the Conservatives announced on 16 Jul 10 that they were going to procure 65 x F35 and reset the process in Dec 2012 for political reasons. That or it was CPC incompetence in not undertaking the proper contracting/procurement steps and following regulations. Either way, the fact that the F35 didn't start delivery is a CPC error.



Then considering success as pointed out by Colin P:


			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> Under the CPC we got:
> 
> C17's
> C130J
> ...



they had an 80% success ratio with acquiring badly needed equipment for the CAF.  For politicians, an 80% success rate for the grass-roots operators isn't shabby.

1/5th of a decade into the PK deployment promise and how're the Liberals doing?   :crickets:

G2G


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (20 Sep 2017)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Review the part where the Liberals campaigned on being different. They don't get a free pass on reneging on promises everytime you need to prove an argument.
> 
> I know it's difficult going from PMSH who did a majority of what he said he'd do and nothing his opponents accused him of hiding, to PMJT who will say anything to your face to get a vote or social media like but really mean very little of it, but you're going to have to keep up to what's actually happening.



I don't think at any point was I giving the LPC of today a "free pass" or said that I didn't believe that the LPC had broken promises. That said, the assertion that PMSH kept the majority of his promises is a stretch.

The Conservatives broke or were unable to carry through with many extremely important promises. Included in this is increased military spending outlined in the CFDS, not procuring the F35, promising to not run deficits than running over $100 billion of deficits a couple of months later, senate reform (though not necessarily the fault of the CPC), ending the US-Canada price gap, and lower greenhouse emissions (notably bill C-38) to name a few. There were other issues that they failed on, such as attempting to block the SCC decision on gay marriage and only implementing 29 of the 60 promised reforms in the FAA (of which 7 of the 29 were rolled back after). They also kept many, including lowering the GST, scrapping the gun registry, introducing the parliamentary budget office, and balancing the budget in 2015. 

The LPC has 2 years to complete promises, but the out and out change on the election reform is egregious to say the least. They're on pace to be like every other government.

As for the "I know it's difficult..." comment, it's not difficult at all. Just because I criticize parts of the CPC period of leadership doesn't 100% mean that I support the LPC, NDP, or any other party. I agree with parts of the CPC platform and parts of the LPC platforms (heck, even parts of the NDP platform) and make my voting decisions based on which party meets my needs. I have also explicitly stated that I believe that all governments keep some promises and break others. That then informs my voting choices for the next cycle. Some promises are easy to keep and usually get knocked off in the first 100 days. Some are too broad to enact. Some are just taken away. Some are just impossible to enact due to the changing situations.  

I get that many people are partisan and take a "side" but don't believe that 100% of anything is right. The constant "right" vs "left" bickering and comments about how if you think one side has a point you must be fully on the other side (with the associated finger pointing, name calling, etc) is tiresome. For example- I don't think Harper was a bad PM and don't think that Trudeau is a bad PM yet. Both have different styles- Harper was extremely introverted while Trudeau is extroverted.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (20 Sep 2017)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Then considering success as pointed out by Colin P:
> they had an 80% success ratio with acquiring badly needed equipment for the CAF.  For politicians, an 80% success rate for the grass-roots operators isn't shabby.
> 
> 1/5th of a decade into the PK deployment promise and how're the Liberals doing?   :crickets:
> ...



The question was on F35s and Super Hornets correct? When was it stated that the CPC didn't do _anything_ for the military? I don't remember saying that I thought the Liberals were doing a great job with military procurement, so lets stop making everything into some sort of attack on the CPC shall we? Hyper-partisanship isn't the intent here.


----------



## Good2Golf (20 Sep 2017)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> The question was on F35s and Super Hornets correct? When was it stated that the CPC didn't do _anything_ for the military? I don't remember saying that I thought the Liberals were doing a great job with military procurement, so lets stop making everything into some sort of attack on the CPC shall we? Hyper-partisanship isn't the intent here.



Putting things into place the way you'd like to see them, only when you deem them relevant of course, is?


----------



## The Bread Guy (29 Sep 2017)

And now, for something a touch less partisan ...

_*"Canadian Armed Forces bid farewell to the Governor General and Commander-in-Chief of Canada David Johnston"*_
_*"Message from the CDS on the Departure of the Commander in Chief of Canada"*_
_*"Farewell Message to Canadians by Governor General David Johnston  "*_
Good luck in the next phase ...


----------



## Loachman (29 Sep 2017)

https://globalnews.ca/news/3765696/analysis-poll-finds-scheers-tories-ahead-of-trudeaus-liberals-but-can-we-believe-it/

September 24, 2017 1:23 pm 

ANALYSIS: Poll finds Scheer’s Tories ahead of Trudeau’s Liberals but can we believe it?

By David Akin 

Chief Political Correspondent  Global News 

The takeaway from the new poll from Toronto-based Forum Research seems rather remarkable.

If an election were held today, Forum says, 39 per cent of the country would vote for Andrew Scheer’s Conservative Party and 35 per cent would vote for Justin Trudeau’s Liberals.

Forum’s president Lorne Bozinoff doesn’t stop there, though. He then applies his poll result to a seat distribution model and concludes that, if an election were held right now, the result would be a Conservative minority - can you say Prime Minister Andrew Scheer? - where the Tories would have precisely half the seats in the House of Commons. The Tories would win 169, while the Liberals would win 130 seats, the NDP 26, the Bloc Quebecois 12, and the Green Party would keep its single seat.

“Trudeau enters the fall legislative session with his popularity slipping,” Bozinoff said in a statement accompanying the release of the poll on Sunday morning. “The primary beneficiary of Trudeau’s decline is Andrew Scheer’s Conservatives.”

This is just the second poll since early October 2015 that finds anyone but Justin Trudeau’s Liberals in first place.  (The other one, from March, was also from Forum.) So, the question quickly posed on social networks is does this poll represent the reality of Canadian public opinion or is it an outlier?

Rival pollsters and statistics scientists will have their own opinions but the only real answer is that we truly cannot know if this is an outlier or reality unless we had an actual general election and were able to compare Forum’s poll against actual results.

Some pundits and political operatives will dismiss Forum out-of-hand because of some polls it has published in the past, where it tries to track political preference in just one riding. (It swung and missed by a wide margin, for example, during a 2013 by-election in the Manitoba riding of Brandon Souris.)

But when Forum takes the national pulse, its record versus the actual results has been as good as its peers and, in some cases, much better. For example, its final poll before the 2015 general election found 40 per cent support for the Liberals, 30 per cent for the Conservatives and 20 per cent for the NDP. The actual results? A 39.5 per cent lead for the Liberals, 31.9 per cent for the Conservatives and 19.7 per cent for the NDP.

In the 2011 general election, Forum was, by some measures, best among its peers when it came to its final poll of that campaign versus actual results.

But in this case, of course, we will not have actual results with which to compare Forum’s.  The next best thing then is to take a look at several recent polls to see if Forum may have picked up on a trend.

The Forum poll, which was in the field on Sept. 13 and 14, finds the Conservatives up by four points over the Liberals. Meanwhile, the weekly tracking poll from Nanos Research, for the week ending Sept. 15, finds the Liberals with more than a 10-point lead over the Tories. For the week ending Sept. 8, Nanos had the Liberals were up by 12 points on the Tories.

Campaign Research was in the field Sept. 8-11 and it found the Liberals with a 12-point lead. Abacus Data, polling from Sept. 1-3, also found a 12-point Liberal lead . Mainstreet Research, polling Aug. 28-31, found an 11-point Liberal lead.

So you be the judge: One pollster, Forum, finds a four-point Conservative lead while five other polls from four other pollsters done around the same time find the Liberals up by 10 points or more.

Forum, for the record, uses an interactive voice response telephone survey technology and polled 1,350 for its most recent poll. Forum says the margin-of-error is three percentage points, 19 times out of 20. Campaign Research and Abacus cannot calculate a margin-of-error because their survey population is not selected on a truly random basis. (That’s not to say they may not be accurate; it’s just a statement of statistical fact.) Mainstreet, which also uses a telephone survey method and, as a result, can calculate a margin-of-error,  surveyed 2,000 Canadians, reached on both landline and cell phones, and claims it is accurate to within 2.19 percentage points. Similarly, Nanos uses a telephone survey of cellphones and landlines and factors in 1,000 results collected over a four-week rolling sample. It says its margin-of-error is 3.1 percentage points.

And yet, if you take all the polls published since the 2015 election and plotted the results on a graph, as a Wikipedia contributor has done, there appears to be some evidence the spread between Liberals and Conservatives has been tightening somewhat since mid-summer. Still, there’s no denying the big picture that shows Liberal dominance in all polls since the 2015 election.

So what to make it of it all? On social media, the response among political partisans is predictable: Liberals dismiss the Forum poll as an outlier while Conservatives hold it up as proof of how public opinion has swung against the Liberals, likely as a result of their recent misadventures in tax reform.

Outlier or not, thoughtful partisans on either side see it as a reminder that, in politics, odd things can and do often happen. In Canada, we need only point to the circumstances through which B.C. and Alberta ended up with NDP governments or the United States ended up with Donald Trump.

So this Forum poll may remind some Liberals of the dangers of complacency and the damage that may be done to their brand if not enough promises are kept on everything from Indigenous issues to climate change.

For Conservatives who may have privately doubted that new leader Andrew Scheer can topple Trudeau, this Forum poll may give them some heart. The Conservatives have a solid base of support of at least 30-32 per cent no matter the pollster and that party continues to dominate when it comes to political fundraising.

As for the country’s New Democrats, they’re busy wrapping up a leadership race and should have a new permanent leader early next month. That will introduce a new dynamic into the federal political scene and it will be at that point, that all these polls – will start to take on a new importance.

© 2017 Global News, a division of Corus Entertainment Inc.


----------



## Loachman (29 Sep 2017)

http://angusreid.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/2017.09.27-federal-issues.pdf

Federal Politics: Trudeau still seen as best PM, but Conservatives ‘best to form government’ 

Too lengthy to post, and lots of graphs.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (29 Sep 2017)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> And now, for something a touch less partisan ...
> 
> _*"Canadian Armed Forces bid farewell to the Governor General and Commander-in-Chief of Canada David Johnston"*_



Saw this in the link.  Perhaps this particular item should also end up in the buttons and bows thread.



> In his role as Commander-in-Chief throughout his seven-year mandate, Governor General Johnston, along with Honorary Captain (Navy) Johnston:
> •Attended 330 military events and activities
> •Visited 12 Canadian Armed Forces bases;
> •*Approved 79 new badges for Canadian Armed Forces Units *
> ...


----------



## Loachman (29 Sep 2017)

http://www.torontosun.com/2017/09/26/little-reason-to-believe-liberal-promises-about-minimal-tax-change-damage

Little reason to believe Liberal promises about minimal tax change damage 

By Lorne Gunter , Edmonton Sun 
First posted: Tuesday, September 26, 2017 04:34 PM EDT | Updated: Tuesday, September 26, 2017 04:39 PM EDT 

The Trudeau Liberals have obviously never heard the old adage, “When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.”

Despite widespread anger from Canada’s entrepreneurs (about 3.5 million of them), the federal Grits have continued to claim that the vast majority of shopkeepers, small-scale manufacturers, independent fishermen, contractors, restaurateurs, farmers and ranchers, doctors, lawyers and other professionals are duping the tax system.

The government seems determined to forge ahead with significant tax increases on these middle-class Canadians; so determined that since Parliament reconvened more than a week ago, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Finance Minister Bill Morneau have ramped up their rhetorical class warfare against the “rich” and “wealthy” for not paying their “fair share” of taxes.

The Liberals’ latest spin, repeated this week by various spokespeople, is that the majority of small business owners have nothing to fear. The changes will affect only about 10 per cent of them, the government claims.

Yeah, and if you believe that, I’ve got some great beachfront property I’d like to sell you on Baffin Island.

There is no way any government can draft tax rules that are that surgical, that precise; especially when their aim is to suck another $3 billion to $5 billion out of the necks of entrepreneurs.

Besides, here’s another old saying I just invented: “When a government says it’s only going to tax the rich, hold onto your wallet because the middle class is about to get whacked.”

There just aren’t enough “rich” people in Canada to fund more government spending. That means that any free-spending government – like the Trudeau Liberals – is very quickly going to hit up the middle class.

The middle class ain’t rich, but there are more than 10 million of us (versus about a quarter of a million “rich”). We may not have tons of money, but there are tons of us to tax.

That’s why, no matter what a government says, nearly every tax hike falls on the middle class. It’s not because higher-income individuals are cheaters. It’s just simple arithmetic.

Here’s something else to remember about the Liberals’ honesty when you hear them say, “Trust us, taxes will rise on only 10 per cent of small business owners.”

Remember how they promised during the 2015 election to lower taxes on the middle class? The PM even boasted to the UN General Assembly last week that his government had done just that.

Well, that’s hogwash, too.

A new study by Vancouver’s Fraser Institute shows that far from lowering middle-class taxes, the Liberals have raised them on over 80 per cent of families – by an average of nearly $900 a year!

It’s true the Trudeau government lowered the middle-class tax rate from 22 per cent to 20.5 percent. That applies to most families earning $45,000 to $90,000 (roughly).

But they have also ended so many tax credits that eight-in-10 middle-class families will pay nearly $900 more to Ottawa than they did under the Harper Tories.

Fifty-four per cent of middle-class families benefitted from income splitting, but the Liberals took that away. Forty per cent claimed the child fitness credit – whoosh! Many claimed the education tax credit, the tuition, the transit credit and others, now all gone, gone, gone.

The net effect of all these Liberal changes is that while middle class Canadians are paying a lower tax rate, they are actually paying higher taxes.

There is absolutely no reason to believe the Trudeauites won’t do something similar to small business owners, so they can claim not to have raised taxes on 90 per cent of them while simultaneously draining their bank accounts.


----------



## Loachman (29 Sep 2017)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/health-canada-legal-fees-first-nations-girl-dental-coverage-1.4310224

Ottawa spent $110K in legal fees fighting First Nations girl over $6K dental procedure

'As a taxpayer, I'm absolutely floored,' First Nations advocate Cindy Blackstock says

By John Paul Tasker, CBC News Posted: Sep 29, 2017 5:00 AM ET Last Updated: Sep 29, 2017 3:06 PM ET

The federal Liberal government has spent more than $110,000 fighting a First Nations girl in court to block payment for orthodontic treatment that cost just $6,000, according to documents released under the Access to Information Act and shared with CBC News.

Josey Willier, a Cree teen living in Calgary, had ongoing problems with her teeth that resulted in chronic aching pain in her lower gums.

She took over-the-counter pain medication daily for two years because of extreme discomfort associated with impacted teeth and a severe overbite, among other ailments. A Calgary-based orthodontist, Mark Antosz, recommended braces to avoid invasive jaw surgery in the future.
Stacey Shiner, the child's mother, sought payment for the braces under the First Nations and Inuit health benefit program, but was denied by Health Canada, the department that administers the insurance plan. She appealed three times to no avail, and ultimately took the case to Federal Court.

Between January 2016 and April 2017, the government spent $110,336.51 in legal fees as part of its fight to avoid paying for the procedure. The final cost will likely be higher, as a decision on this case was not handed down until May.

The judge assigned to Willier's case, Sean Harrington, ultimately found in favour of the government.

In his judgment, Harrington said he found it "reasonable" that Willier's treatment was not covered. "The procedure followed was fair.... There is nothing in the record to suggest that any child in Canada, First Nations or not, would have been treated any differently than Josey was." That decision is now being appealed.

Last fall, the Liberals voted to support an NDP motion that called on the government to stop fighting Indigenous families who are seeking access to services covered by Ottawa - but only two days after that vote, government lawyers were back in court fighting Shiner.

"This was an opportunity for this government to show that they were going to make reconciliation real on the ground, and instead it's the same old brass knuckles approach to squashing basic treatment for children," NDP MP Charlie Angus said in an interview.
'As a human being, I think it's immoral'

Cindy Blackstock, the executive director of the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society and an advocate for equal treatment of Indigenous children, was an intervener in Shiner's case.

"I think it's atrocious," she told CBC News. "As a human being, I think it's immoral that Canada would not fund services where two concurring pediatric orthodontists agree that without treatment this girl will experience chronic pain and will have difficulty eating and talking.

"As a taxpayer, I'm absolutely floored that Canada would spend $110,000 defending [against] a $6,000 investment to help a child. They could have used that money to buy 18 children in medical need the orthodontic services they needed."

Health services for First Nations people living on reserve are funded almost exclusively by the federal government. While provincial health care plans often exclude dental care, the federal program for First Nations includes regular cleanings, X-rays, root canals and other procedures.

The First Nations health program also covers certain orthodontic treatments, but only when the case is deemed medically necessary. A claimant must have "severe and functionally handicapping malocclusion" (overbite) to be eligible. The department determined Willier's case fell short after it consulted with four orthodontists of its own choosing - but those doctors did not physically examine Willier.

In a statement Thursday, Health Canada defended its decision to deny care, adding in 2014-15 it funded approximately $5 million in orthodontic treatment for other kids.

"In this case, the issue is not about the monetary value or affordability of the claim," the statement said. "The issue is that there is no clinical evidence to support approval of the claim under the Non-Insured Health Benefits Program (NIHB)."

Health Canada also said the program for First Nations children is more generous than what is available to others. "The NIHB program covers the full cost of orthodontic treatment when it is medically necessary ... whereas private plans typically cover only one-quarter to one-third of costs."

Blackstock said she doesn't believe the government should cover orthodontics to fix cosmetic issues, and she is aware of departmental concerns over opening the "floodgates" for orthodontic care.

"But if there are other children out there who can't eat or talk properly without chronic pain, they're welcome to all my tax dollars," she said.

"We are saying, if there's a medical need, and where the alternative is a far more costly intervention [such as surgery], that the government would pay for in any event, why not take the lower-cost item that's actually in the child's best interest?"

Willier is not the first child to be repeatedly denied coverage. In 2015-16, nearly all applications, at all three levels of appeals pertaining to the orthodontics program, were denied by administrators of the benefits program: 99 per cent of first-level appeals, 100 per cent of second-level appeals and 100 per cent of all third-level appeals.

Sarah Clarke, the lawyer representing the girl pro bono, has already filed an appeal to the Federal Court ruling. The government's legal costs will almost certainly go up, she said, because lawyers will have to respond to the latest factum filed in court last week.

Clarke said the health program is fundamentally flawed because departmental approval is not based on the child's level of suffering.

As to why the government is continuing litigation, Clarke said she believes it's all about the bottom line. "My only reasonable hypothesis is to save money on any other case that's coming behind us."

Angus, a candidate for his party's leadership, said Indigenous Services Minister Jane Philpott could have intervened to stop legal proceedings before the court rendered its decision.

He said he has repeatedly raised this particular case with Philpott, who until recently served as health minister. During question period in January 2016, Philpott said she would look into Willier's case and report back. Philpott's office deferred to Health Canada for comment.

"Jane Philpott is a medical doctor, and she goes along with using lawyers to deny services - that's simply perverse, it's bordering on institutional malevolence.

"It's the pattern of denial that has been inflicted on Indigenous children for decades, and this government has to be accountable and has to stop it."


----------



## FJAG (29 Sep 2017)

Loachman said:
			
		

> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/health-canada-legal-fees-first-nations-girl-dental-coverage-1.4310224
> 
> Ottawa spent $110K in legal fees fighting First Nations girl over $6K dental procedure
> 
> ...



Much like everyone else I find a problem in that there was government money to the tune of $110k spent on this suit but one has to realistically assign the blame here.

Firstly the judge, after hearing all the evidence, found that the government properly applied the law and properly and fairly assessed the claim before denying it. The fact of the matter is that the federal government does not provide free comprehensive dental care for everyone and in the few cases where it does it does so under limited circumstances. The current case, while unfortunate, simply didn't meet the test and therefore the government (according to the judge) quite rightly denied the claim.

What is the alternative? To give in as soon as someone objects? To give in the moment that they file a lawsuit? Agents of the crown do not have much discretion. They reviewed this case with four orthodontists who reviewed the file and provided opinions that the case did not fall into the circumstances where coverage would be available. The question here isn't whether or not the girl needed braces but whether or not coverage for them was available under the regulations.

Sometimes the problem with pro bono legal representation is that the client does not have a financial stake in the outcome and therefore won't back off a case that has little chance of success. Sometimes pro bono lawyers feel more outrage at the circumstances and keep a case going when common sense dictates that they should back off. The crown (and by that I include all of us taxpayers) has no option but to go along for the ride and now, they'll (we'll) once again have to go along for the ride on the appeal. I think it would have been better for everyone if the lawyer in this case had paid out of her own pocket (or crowd sourced) the money for the braces rather than go to court.

 :2c:

 :cheers:


----------



## Loachman (30 Sep 2017)

FJAG said:
			
		

> They reviewed this case with four orthodontists who reviewed the file and provided opinions that the case did not fall into the circumstances where coverage would be available.



There's the cold, hard law and bureaucratic rules, and then there's basic humanity.

And benefit of the doubt seldom goes to the unfortunate sufferer.

"The First Nations health program also covers certain orthodontic treatments, but only when the case is deemed medically necessary. A claimant must have 'severe and functionally handicapping malocclusion' (overbite) to be eligible."

But

"two concurring pediatric orthodontists agree that without treatment this girl will experience chronic pain and will have difficulty eating and talking" is not sufficient "severe and functionally handicapping malocclusion" (overbite) to be eligible", apparently.

So what is?

Where is the cold, hard line actually drawn? Who determines what constitutes "severe and functionally handicapping"?

"The department determined Willier's case fell short after it consulted with four orthodontists _*of its own choosing*_ - but those doctors _*did not physically examine*_ Willier."

Examining Josey Willier prior to consigning her to a lifetime of further misery and dysfunction might be the _*minimum*_ fair and humane thing to do. How else could they determine that her condition was not sufficiently "severe and functionally handicapping"?

"In 2015-16, nearly all applications, at all three levels of appeals pertaining to the orthodontics program, were denied by administrators of the benefits program: _*99 per cent*_ of first-level appeals, _*100 per cent*_ of second-level appeals and _*100 per cent*_ of all third-level appeals."

So why even bother with an appeal process if it is not even going to give an appearance of a veneer of hope and fairness? Shouldn't an occasional appeal be decided in favour of an appellant just to make it look like he/she had at least a tiny chance?

The process needs some adjustment.

Judges' decisions are occasionally overturned on appeal for various reasons, and I'd hope that this decision is one of them.

"Last fall, the _*Liberals voted*_ to support an NDP motion that called on the government to stop fighting Indigenous families who are seeking access to services covered by Ottawa - but only two days after that vote, government lawyers were back in court fighting Shiner."

Not good optics for a "sunny ways" prime minister at all - especially one who made Omar Khadr a multi-millionaire to, supposedly, save money on court costs, and also promised an awful lot to First Nations.

The Khadr case _*should*_ have been fought to the bitter end.

This one should _*not*_.


----------



## FJAG (30 Sep 2017)

Loachman said:
			
		

> There's the cold, hard law and bureaucratic rules, and then there's basic humanity.
> 
> And benefit of the doubt seldom goes to the unfortunate sufferer.
> 
> ...



That's my point though, Loachman. 

You can't change the process for one case if the department is consistently applying the law (or regulation) as it is written. It's an old legal idiom that "hard cases make bad law". Government agents can't simply ignore their responsibility to apply the law or regulation in the manner that the legislature intended it to be. Nor can one expect the courts to force them to apply the law incorrectly.  

What is necessary is that the matter be addressed at the legislative level or (if the matter is a regulatory one) at the ministerial level. That of course goes beyond looking not just at one case but the overall effect of a change of the regulation. One question is cost and the other question that needs answering is why should the federal government pay for this type of health service for the aboriginal child if the health care system for all other Canadian children doesn't provide for it.

As an aside on the Khadr issue "Sunny Ways" wants you to stay outraged. His cockamamie rationale is found here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/09/28/trudeau-says-he-wants-canadians-to-stay-outraged-about-omar-khadr-deal_a_23226612/?utm_hp_ref=ca-homepage

 :cheers:


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (30 Sep 2017)

FJAG said:
			
		

> That's my point though, Loachman.
> 
> You can't change the process for one case if the department is consistently applying the law (or regulation) as it is written. It's an old legal idiom that "hard cases make bad law". Government agents can't simply ignore their responsibility to apply the law or regulation in the manner that the legislature intended it to be. Nor can one expect the courts to force them to apply the law incorrectly.
> 
> ...



I agree with your assessment. While the Liberals have certainly placed a lot of political capital on aboriginal rights, that certainly isn't, nor should be, a carte blanche for "have whatever you want". There needs to be a line in the sand. If the government of the day wants to change where said line is than that is another matter.


----------



## FSTO (30 Sep 2017)

I advocate 100% dental and medical coverage for all children until the age of 21. And it covers everything. The amount of money we spend for chronic medical issues that could have been nipped at an early age is well worth the cost.


----------



## Loachman (30 Sep 2017)

I agree - and that is one of the things that pisses me off about this particular case. Josey Willier's condition is likely to worsen over time, causing her more unnecessary suffering and costing more when it does get "bad enough".


----------



## jollyjacktar (30 Sep 2017)

Agreed.  An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, as they say.


----------



## jollyjacktar (30 Sep 2017)

Regardless of the rules being correctly applied or not, the Liberals come off this looking like a bunch of dicks yet again.  I guess there's some silver lining to this.


----------



## McG (1 Oct 2017)

Loachman said:
			
		

> http://www.torontosun.com/2017/09/26/little-reason-to-believe-liberal-promises-about-minimal-tax-change-damage
> 
> Little reason to believe Liberal promises about minimal tax change damage
> By Lorne Gunter , Edmonton Sun
> ...



I first saw something on this in the Financial Post, where the report authors submitted an article about thier findings:  http://business.financialpost.com/opinion/what-middle-class-tax-cut-your-family-is-probably-paying-more-under-trudeau

I also noticed that Global found a University of Victory academic to argue that consideration of the Canada Child Benefit might have maybe reversed the findings of the report.  https://globalnews.ca/news/3769136/taxes-middle-class-liberals/

Apparently the PM also made this argument, because the Fraser Institute has published this rebuttal: https://www.fraserinstitute.org/blogs/according-to-prime-minister-trudeau-redistribution-is-the-new-tax-relief


> According to Prime Minister Trudeau, redistribution is the new ‘tax relief’
> Charles Lammam & Hugh MacIntyre
> The Fraser Forum
> 29 Sep 17
> ...



Anyway, those who want to make their own opinion can go read the full report here: https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/measuring-the-impact-of-federal-personal-income-tax-changes-on-middle-income-canadian-families.pdf


----------



## Loachman (1 Oct 2017)

http://business.financialpost.com/opinion/philip-cross-the-rotten-evidence-in-ottawas-evidence-based-tax-crackdown#comments-area

Only thing missing from Ottawa's 'evidence-based' tax crackdown is evidence

Philip Cross: The Department of Finance regularly becomes mesmerized by the shiny object of a more efficient tax system

The federal government’s tax-reform proposals were presented under the academic sheen of evidence-based policy-making. However, very little evidence supports the reforms, while the effect of the existing tax system resembles the consumption tax that evidence-based policy-makers claim to favour. The whole exercise has become a reminder that evidence is quite separate from policy, which requires time-tested judgement in an uncertain world.

The Department of Finance regularly becomes mesmerized by the shiny object of a more efficient tax system. In 1981, it tried to broaden the tax base and lower tax rates. The result was disastrous, a rare failed budget that had to be scrapped. In 1989, it convinced the Mulroney government to tilt the tax system from income to consumption taxes (notably the GST), helping to condemn the Conservatives to the greatest electoral defeat in history. In 2006, Finance repeatedly tried to dissuade the Harper government from its main platform of lowering the GST, which would have crippled his credibility with voters. The latest round targets small business taxes, ignoring the family trusts the prime minister and finance minister use extensively.

Ironically, the current tax system for small businesses operates like a consumption tax, the Holy Grail for Department of Finance tax policy. It is a complete falsehood to say that small-business owners pay less taxes than their salaried employees. Small businesses pay corporate income taxes immediately, and then pay personal income taxes when savings inside their corporation are withdrawn to finance personal consumption (focusing on the first tax payment and overlooking the second is like ignoring half of someone’s tax-instalment payments while claiming they are not paying enough). The current structure spares income from being taxed as long as it is saved, the goal of a consumption tax, but taxes it at the personal income tax system’s progressive rate when withdrawn. The total of the corporate income tax paid now and the personal income tax paid in the future is the real effective tax rate, which is higher than what middle-class employees pay.

The obsession with evidence-based policy-making risks confusing goals with means. The goal should be a smoothly functioning society, not a superficially more-efficient tax system. Finance regularly fails to convince skeptical governments and the broader population to support its tax proposals because it ignores the transition costs of moving too far too fast. When evidence points to policies that encourage society to move from point A to point B, only conservative thought considers the speed of the transition.

The current tax-reform package is very selective about the evidence it deems relevant. There is no evidence that the current tax system harms economic growth, or that there has been excessive savings in the business sector, which actually turned negative over the past two years. How will taxing savings in small businesses impact investment and growth, or impact Canada’s low rate of startups and small-business creation? No evidence is provided to answer these questions.

The whole artifice of evidence-based policy-making is open to question. Facts and policy are completely separate entities. Evidence is almost always nuanced or outright ambiguous and never comes with a definitive policy recommendation. Judgement is always involved, starting with whether government action justifies the inevitable loss of personal freedom, what specific actions best attain the desired result, and how fast government wants to move society to this preferred outcome.

Claims the proposed reforms are an exercise in evidence-based policy-making are contradicted by the avalanche of dogma and class-warfare rhetoric deployed to justify them. Proponents like Michael Wolfson have concluded that the lesson to be learned from the opposition to tax reform was the power of special-interest groups (who apparently control the new NDP government in B.C., which recently voiced its concerns). This childish finger-pointing ignores the federal government’s disingenuous communication strategy and the mendacity of its claim that business owners pay less tax than employees. Most importantly, it does not account for the impotence of the business lobby as governments across the nation proliferate regulations, impose carbon taxes, increase EI premiums, hike CPP contributions, boost minimum wages, raise corporate income taxes and erect more regulatory hurdles to investment.

Ultimately, evidence-based policy-making is almost always impossible because it ignores the most fundamental challenge to human existence: uncertainty. This uncertainty extends to our understanding of how the world works, never mind how it unfolds. In The End of Alchemy, former Bank of England Governor Mervyn King acknowledged the fundamental role of uncertainty by highlighting the primordial role that heuristic plays in how people have always coped with an uncertain world. Rules of thumb are based on thousands of years of human experience with uncertainty. They are preferable for coping compared with rationality bounded by a few years of data or “blind faith in experts who claim certainty.” Uncertainty obliterates the evidence-based view of the world because optimal behaviour and, therefore, ideal policy becomes impossible.

The fundamental problem with the proposed changes to the tax code is they increase uncertainty in a world already rife with unknowns: uncertainty about NAFTA, the unpredictable course of economic and tax policy here and in the U.S., the unknown risks lurking in the global financial system, even the uncertainty about our statistical understanding of the world we live in. The goal of responsible policy-making, often the opposite of evidence-based policy-making, should be to reduce and not increase uncertainty.


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Oct 2017)

CPAC is reporting (at 1529 Hrs EST) that Jagmeet Singh has been elected as the new NDP leader (replacing Thomas Mulcair) with 54% of the vote.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (1 Oct 2017)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> CPAC is reporting (at 1529 Hrs EST) that Jagmeet Singh has been elected as the new NDP leader (replacing Thomas Mulcair) with 54% of the vote.



It will be interesting to see if if he can draw back all those NDP voters who voted for the Liberals in the last election.


----------



## PuckChaser (1 Oct 2017)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> It will be interesting to see if if he can draw back all those NDP voters who voted for the Liberals in the last election.



He's just got to go hard left. The Liberals abandoned the progressives as soon as they got in power. He'll make them (Liberals and NDP) split the vote again.


----------



## Altair (2 Oct 2017)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> It will be interesting to see if if he can draw back all those NDP voters who voted for the Liberals in the last election.


In the ROC I'm sure he can.

I don't think he's going to do well in Quebec at all.

Might be a wash.


----------



## Jarnhamar (2 Oct 2017)

I see the PM is taking some flak for sharing Maryam Monsef's post about tolerance and inclusion and _diversity is our strength_ from the rally in Peterborough this weekend after the attacks in Edmonton. (though I'm still looking to see if maybe it was before the attacks, times look close)

In her facebook post she posted of a banner which included the phrase end white supremacy, the timing and optics of his re-posting it after the attack (if that's the case) seem pretty dumb.

(I believe the rally was an anti-trudeau anti-immigration policy rally in which the white supremacists ironically didn't even show up to but Antifa got violent anyways including apparently assaulting a police officer).


----------



## The Bread Guy (2 Oct 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> ...(I believe the rally was an anti-trudeau anti-immigration policy rally in which *the white supremacists ironically didn't even show up* to but Antifa got violent anyways including apparently assaulting a police officer) ...


While some "ultra-nationalists" (splinters from Soldiers of Odin) did ...


----------



## Jarnhamar (2 Oct 2017)

Fair enough good sir. I meant to say they did not show up to their own protest in Peterborough.


----------



## The Bread Guy (2 Oct 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Fair enough good sir. I meant to say they did not show up to their own protest in Peterborough.


Fair enough.


----------



## ModlrMike (2 Oct 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> (snip)...in which the white supremacists ironically didn't even show up to but Antifa got violent anyways including apparently assaulting a police officer).



Maybe that was the point? Perhaps I'm just too Machiavellian?


----------



## jollyjacktar (2 Oct 2017)

Any excuse to attack people seems to be the mantra of antifa.  Should be called antipeo as they don't seem to like people.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (3 Oct 2017)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Any excuse to attack people seems to be the mantra of antifa*extremists*.  Should be called antipeo _*idiots*_as they don't seem to like people.



There, fixed that for you. While people seem to like to drum up the "antifa" boogeyman, the right is perfectly capable of committing crimes as well. Extremists, not any right or left wing ideology, is the true evil here.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/quebec-city-mosque-shooter-formally-charged-182134773.html


----------



## mariomike (3 Oct 2017)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> While people seem to like to drum up the "antifa" boogeyman, the right is perfectly capable of committing crimes as well.



American statistics may, or may not, be of interest to Canadian Right and Left Wing political discussion,

Which Ideology Has Inspired the Most Murders in Terrorist Attacks on U.S. Soil?
https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/which-ideology-has-inspired-most-murders-terrorist-attacks-us-soil

"Islamists have killed about 14 times as many people as Nationalist and Right Wing terrorists who, in turn, have killed about 10 times as many people as Left Wing terrorists."


----------



## Colin Parkinson (3 Oct 2017)

Just tells you who is smarter, more dedicated and capable.


----------



## jollyjacktar (3 Oct 2017)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> There, fixed that for you. While people seem to like to drum up the "antifa" boogeyman, the right is perfectly capable of committing crimes as well. Extremists, not any right or left wing ideology, is the true evil here.
> 
> https://www.yahoo.com/news/quebec-city-mosque-shooter-formally-charged-182134773.html



Thanks, but it didn't need fixing.  I meant what I said without the interference, thank you very much.  I'll let you know if it does in future.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (3 Oct 2017)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Thanks, but it didn't need fixing.  I meant what I said without the interference, thank you very much.  I'll let you know if it does in future.



I wasn't actually asking for permission. I was pointing out that the antifa thing is, at best, a red herring. Yes, there are idiots in antifa but there are idiots in the right as well, who seem to be just as capable of being idiots. Extremism is the problem.


----------



## Jarnhamar (3 Oct 2017)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> I wasn't actually asking for permission. I was pointing out that the antifa thing is, at best, a red herring. Yes, there are idiots in antifa but there are idiots in the right as well, who seem to be just as capable of being idiots. Extremism is the problem.



Extremism is the problem but this specific case (and others like it I'd say) it is a great example of what ANTIA is about. White nationalist extremists don't even have to show up to their own rallies anymore to cause shit.T Agreed extremism is the problem but to me this indicates who the larger threat is currently.




			
				mariomike said:
			
		

> "Islamists have killed about 14 times as many people as Nationalist and Right Wing terrorists who, in turn, have killed about 10 times as many people as Left Wing terrorists."


Purely speculation but I want to say that the crazy left-wing ANTIFA crap really only spooled up since Trump has been nominated (and chosen) as president. I wonder how that stat of Islam vs Right vs Left would look if we only started counting violence since Trump joined the picture.


----------



## jollyjacktar (3 Oct 2017)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> I wasn't actually asking for permission. I was pointing out that the antifa thing is, at best, a red herring. Yes, there are idiots in antifa but there are idiots in the right as well, who seem to be just as capable of being idiots. Extremism is the problem.



And I wasn't asking for anyone to "fix" anything for me either...


----------



## mariomike (3 Oct 2017)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> And I wasn't asking for anyone to "fix" anything for me either...



Perhaps the polite thing for members to do is allow other members to fix ( modify ) their own posts.

FTFY: "Often used sarcastically - not to fix an honest mistake, but to sarcastically disagree with someone."


----------



## Halifax Tar (3 Oct 2017)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Perhaps the polite thing for members to do is allow other members to fix ( modify ) their own posts.
> 
> FTFY: "Often used sarcastically - not to fix an honest mistake, but to sarcastically disagree with someone."



But then how would members impose their own perceived superiority over others ?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (3 Oct 2017)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Perhaps the polite thing for members to do is allow other members to fix ( modify ) their own posts.
> 
> FTFY: "Often used sarcastically - not to fix an honest mistake, but to sarcastically disagree with someone."



Or to use humour to emphasize the point being made. Don't forget that one.


----------



## jollyjacktar (3 Oct 2017)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Perhaps the polite thing for members to do is allow other members to fix ( modify ) their own posts.
> 
> FTFY: "Often used sarcastically - not to fix an honest mistake, but to sarcastically disagree with someone."



Not to worry.   When l want a non staffmember to modify my post into something l have no intention of saying (if it's not to interject some haha), I'll know who to approach.


----------



## mariomike (3 Oct 2017)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Not to worry.   When l want a non staffmember to modify my post into something l have no intention of saying (if it's not to interject some haha), I'll know who to approach.



I guess FTFY is the 21st century way of putting words in someone's mouth.


----------



## jollyjacktar (3 Oct 2017)

Or twisting their words.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (3 Oct 2017)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Or twisting their words.



Or pointing out that I think you're wrong about a topic. FTFY is used all the time on here. If it will make you feel better than I wont FTFY, I'll simply say- Antifa is more or less being thrown around as some sort of right wing boogeyman. The left does not have a lock on the use of violence in extremism nor does the right (who has, as has been shown, actually killed more people than the right). McVeigh was a right wing nut job. So was the mosque shooter. And the guy who shot up the church in South Carolina. etc etc etc


----------



## mariomike (3 Oct 2017)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> The left does not have a lock on the use of violence in extremism nor does the right (who has, as has been shown, actually killed more people than the right).



See Reply #791.
https://milnet.ca/forums/threads/124900.775.html
"Islamists have killed about 14 times as many people as Nationalist and Right Wing terrorists who, in turn, have killed about 10 times as many people as Left Wing terrorists."


----------



## jollyjacktar (3 Oct 2017)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Or pointing out that I think you're wrong about a topic. FTFY is used all the time on here. If it will make you feel better than I wont FTFY, I'll simply say- Antifa is more or less being thrown around as some sort of right wing boogeyman. The left does not have a lock on the use of violence in extremism nor does the right (who has, as has been shown, actually killed more people than the right). McVeigh was a right wing nut job. So was the mosque shooter. And the guy who shot up the church in South Carolina. etc etc etc


By all means, if you think I'm wrong and full of it, feel free to say so.  I may or may not concur.  I will give you that there are isolated bastards on the right whom have murdered innocent people over the last couple of decades.  

But that being said, what l see are mobs of black garbed leftists who are rampaging in packs, attacking anyone that doesn't look like them or may disagree with them as well as rampant acts of vandalism against private and public property.  That's what I'm seeing.  Maybe one day they'll cross the line and kill some of their victims instead of just beating them.

I expect that you and l shall rarely see Aye to Aye.  C'est la vie.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (3 Oct 2017)

mariomike said:
			
		

> See Reply #791.
> https://milnet.ca/forums/threads/124900.775.html
> "Islamists have killed about 14 times as many people as Nationalist and Right Wing terrorists who, in turn, have killed about 10 times as many people as Left Wing terrorists."



Agree. The irrational fear of "antifa" (which can't even really be defined as a group as its a broad term used to describe many smaller groups with no centralized leadership or overarching "goals") is silly. People who identify with antifa show up at rally's, throw things, act like idiots, and then leave. to my knowledge they dont walk into churches and shoot people (South Carolina), blow up buildings (Oklahoma), or shoot up a planned parenthood centre (Colorado Springs, 2015). Antifa isn't a "good" organization, but rank in the realm of extremists who are never good (I can't think offhand of an extremist anything that I would consider good or even passable).


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (3 Oct 2017)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> By all means, if you think I'm wrong and full of it, feel free to say so.  I may or may not concur.  I will give you that there are isolated bastards on the right whom have murdered innocent people over the last couple of decades.
> 
> But that being said, what l see are mobs of black garbed leftists who are rampaging in packs, attacking anyone that doesn't look like them or may disagree with them as well as rampant acts of vandalism against private and public property.  That's what I'm seeing.  Maybe one day they'll cross the line and kill some of their victims instead of just beating them.



Like these guys?


----------



## jollyjacktar (3 Oct 2017)

I'm sure we could spend hours dick measuring here, but I'm not going to join you.  Have fun playing by yourself.


----------



## Loachman (4 Oct 2017)

https://townhall.com/columnists/jackkerwick/2017/09/05/antifa-officially-an-antiamerican-terrorist-organization-n2377185

Antifa, (Officially) an Anti-American Terrorist Organization

Jack Kerwick 

Posted: Sep 05, 2017 9:16 AM

Following Charlottesville, politicians and media personalities, Republican and Democrat, “liberal” and “conservative,” excoriated President Trump for condemning bad actors among the “Unite the Right” rally attendees and the so-called “counter-demonstrators” who confronted them.

According to these moral show boating pontificators, all of the blame for the violence that ensued fell on the shoulders of those “white supremacists” that _*lawfully*_ assembled to protest the proposed removal of a Robert E. Lee statue.  *The thugs who expressed their resentment of the rally by way of baseball bats, bottles of urine and feces, flamethrowers, clubs, bear mace, and an assortment of other potentially deadly weaponry, they’d have us believe, were otherwise peaceful angels heroically demonstrating against “hate” and “bigotry.”*

In age of Big Lies, this is among the biggest and most grotesque (as is shown here and here).
Charlottesville was indeed a dark day for our country, but largely because, with the sole exception of President Trump, it revealed the abject cowardice and truly scandalous moral confusion on the part of the movers and shakers of law and public opinion:

Those who legally attempted to engage in peaceful protest were vilified while the violent criminals who violated their constitutional rights were romanticized.

_*There would have been no violence had Antifa vermin respected the right of their opponents to peacefully assemble.*_  That this is the truth is borne out by the following considerations:

(a)Some of the rally attendees met the previous night for their march through the campus of the University of Virginia.  They exponentially outnumbered the few “anti-fascists” that heckled them.  Had the “white supremacists” been looking to rumble, they could have crushed their antagonists.  Yet there was no violence.

(b)Although we continue to hear from the chronically misinformed, the disingenuous, and the virtue-signalers in D.C. and corporate media (“conservative,” no less than “liberal”) that the rally in question was a gathering of neo-Nazis, most people there had neither affiliation with nor respect for neo-Nazis.  Retired military personnel and law enforcement agents, resolved to uphold their oath to the Constitution, comprised the militia groups that were on the scene.  Some of them were armed with firepower.

Had they wanted to drop bodies, including and especially the bodies of those who initiated the violence against the rally attendees, they could have easily done so. That they didn’t unload on anyone proves not only that they weren’t looking for violence, but that they were far more restrained and civil than the Antifa and Black Lives Matter goons that came spoiling for a fight.

Since at least the beginning of the year, some of us have been doing what little we can to draw the public’s attention to the guttersnipes that are “Antifa.”  _*These are the punks who, dressed in all black and wearing masks, have repeatedly descended upon Trump supporters, police officers, journalists, and anyone and everyone else who these neo-communists label “fascist.”*_

No one in Big Media mentioned them - until Charlottesville forced them to take notice.

At first, as was mentioned above, journalists, commentators, and politicians - Republican no less than Democrat - depicted Antifa as a virtuous lot determined to resist the forces of hatred and bigotry. And make no mistakes, those who essentially said against Trump that “there were no sides” in Charlottesville, that he was both mistaken and morally flawed in repudiating the violence of the “counter-demonstrators,” held some such view of these anti-American scumbags.

Now, though, those who were guilty of romanticizing Antifa are being compelled to retreat from their morally outrageous position of just a few weeks ago.

This is a striking turn of events.  After all, their supporters, however silent they may have been, saw Antifa punks in Charlottesville with their faces covered, clogging streets, and assaulting those with whom they disagreed. Presumably, this spectacle should’ve sufficed sooner to provoke Nancy Pelosi and Paul Ryan to take the steps that they finally did last week and disavow Antifa.

Yet neither Pelosi, Ryan nor any of their colleagues in Congress did any such thing in the immediate hours and days following Charlottesville. Instead, they in effect ran cover for Antifa by dumping on the president for calling it out. 

In fact, Antifa had been regularly unleashing mayhem against Trump supporters, business owners, police officers, and others for the better part of at least a year. But the Pelosis and Ryans of the world uttered not a syllable of condemnation. 
So, what’s changed?

Shortly after Charlottesville, and emboldened by the favorable press supplied them by their fellow ideologues in the media and Washington D.C - i.e. “the Resistance” - Antifa thugs proceeded to attack statues and monuments around the country.  A petition for the White House to label Antifa a terrorist outfit was created on August 17.  Within but five days, it gained up to 250,000 signatures (far exceeding the 100,000 signatures that require the White House to formally respond within 30 days).

However, Antifa already is listed among the terrorist groups recognized by my home state of New Jersey. And at the close of the last week of August, word went around the media that President Obama’s FBI and Department of Homeland Security had classified Antifa “activities” as “domestic terrorist violence” back in 2016.

This is good news.

Formally, it’s a question as to whether this means that Antifa is regarded as a terrorist organization.  Still, the implication is clear enough.  The president needs to be explicit, but until then, we can look back at the reaction to Trump’s Charlottesville remarks in a new light:

Everyone who blasted the president for calling out Antifa blasted him for decrying the actions of anti-American terrorists.

Everyone who dumped on Trump for refusing to let Antifa off of the hook dumped on him for refusing to give a bunch of anti-American terrorists the pass that his critics were all too willing to give them.

Paul Ryan, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Marco Rubio, Charles Krauthammer, and a whole lot of other Republicans have not only been unwilling to do what Obama’s government was willing to do and label Antifa activities as “terrorist”; they expressed shock and disgust that the president of the United States, the titular head of their own party, would so much as note that Antifa is violent!

But Antifa is violent. It is a purveyor of terrorism.

And, importantly, it most certainly is a strong-arm organ of the very “Resistance” movement to which belong the members of the Democratic Party; most media propagandists, academics, and entertainers; Deep State bureaucrats; and NeverTrump Republicans.

This last point being so, it is imperative that the rest of us repeatedly force their co-“resistors” to unequivocally and loudly disavow the violent, anti-American terrorist thugs of Antifa.


----------



## Loachman (4 Oct 2017)

FBI, Homeland Security warn of more ‘antifa’ attacks

_*Confidential documents call the anarchists that seek to counter white supremacists ‘domestic terrorists.’*_

By JOSH MEYER 09/01/2017 04:55 AM EDT

Federal authorities have been warning state and local officials since early 2016 that leftist extremists known as “antifa” had become increasingly confrontational and dangerous, so much so that the Department of Homeland Security formally classified their activities as “domestic terrorist violence,” according to interviews and confidential law enforcement documents obtained by POLITICO.

Since well before the Aug. 12 rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, turned deadly, DHS has been issuing warnings about the growing likelihood of lethal violence between the left-wing anarchists and right-wing white supremacist and nationalist groups.

Previously unreported documents disclose that by April 2016, authorities believed that “anarchist extremists” were the primary instigators of violence at public rallies against a range of targets. They were blamed by authorities for attacks on the police, government and political institutions, along with symbols of “the capitalist system,” racism, social injustice and fascism, according to a confidential 2016 joint intelligence assessment by DHS and the FBI.

After President Donald Trump’s election in November, the antifa activists locked onto another target - his supporters, especially those from white supremacist and nationalist groups suddenly turning out in droves to hail his victory, support crackdowns on immigrants and Muslims and to protest efforts to remove symbols of the Confederacy.

Those reports appear to bolster Trump’s insistence that extremists on the left bore some blame for the clashes in Charlottesville and represent a “problem” nationally. But they also reflect the extent that his own political movement has spurred the violent backlash. 

In interviews, law enforcement authorities made clear that Trump’s inflammatory rhetoric and policies - first as a candidate and then as president - helped to create a situation that has escalated so quickly and extensively that they do not have a handle on it.

“It was in that period [as the Trump campaign emerged] that we really became aware of them,” said one senior law enforcement official tracking domestic extremists in a state that has become a front line in clashes between the groups. _*“These antifa guys were showing up with weapons, shields and bike helmets and just beating the shit out of people. … They’re using Molotov cocktails, they’re starting fires, they’re throwing bombs and smashing windows.”*_

Almost immediately, the right-wing targets of the antifa attacks began fighting back, bringing more and larger weapons and launching unprovoked attacks of their own, the documents and interviews show. And the extremists on both sides have been using the confrontations, especially since Charlottesville, to recruit unprecedented numbers of new members, raise money and threaten more confrontations, they say.

“Everybody is wondering, 'What are we gonna do? How are we gonna deal with this?'” said the senior state law enforcement official. “Every time they have one of these protests where both sides are bringing guns, there are sphincters tightening in my world. Emotions get high, and fingers get twitchy on the trigger.”

Even before Charlottesville, dozens and, in some cases, hundreds of people on both sides showed up at events in Texas, California, Oregon and elsewhere, carrying weapons and looking for a fight. In the Texas capital of Austin, armed antifa protesters attacked Trump supporters and white groups at several recent rallies, and then swarmed police in a successful effort to stop them from making arrests.

California has become another battleground, with violent confrontations in Berkeley, Sacramento and Orange County leading to numerous injuries. And antifa counter-protesters initiated attacks in two previous clashes in Charlottesville, according to the law enforcement reports and interviews.

Rallies are scheduled over the next few months across the country, including in Texas, Oregon, Missouri and Florida. Authorities are particularly concerned about those in states where virtually anyone, including activists under investigation for instigating violence, can brandish assault rifles in public.

Tensions have gotten so heated that after activists traded accusations after Charlottesville, a rumor circulated online that antifa would try and shut down the massive Sturgis, South Dakota, motorcycle rally because there were too many Confederate flags and Trump signs. It wasn’t true, but it prompted an outpouring of pleas by attendees for anti-fascists to come so they could assault them. One displayed a “Sturgis Survival Kit” for potential antifa protesters, complete with a tourniquet, morphine, body cast and defibrillator.

“Both the racists and a segment of violent antifa counter-protestors are amped for battle in an escalating arms race, where police departments are outmaneuvered, resulting in increasingly violent dangerous confrontations,” said former New York City police officer Brian Levin, who has been monitoring domestic militants for 31 years, now at the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University, San Bernardino. “It’s an orchestrated dance. The rallies spill over into social media and then even more people show up at the next rally primed for violent confrontation.”

In recent decades, authorities have focused almost exclusively on right-wing groups as the most likely instigators of domestic terrorist violence, especially since Timothy McVeigh blew up the Oklahoma City federal building in 1995, killing 168 people.

More recently, the antifa groups, which some describe as the Anti-Fascist Action Network, have evolved out of the leftist anti-government groups like “Black bloc,” protesters clad in black and wearing masks that caused violence at events like the 1999 Seattle World Trade Organization protests. They claim to have no leader and no hierarchy, but _*authorities following them believe they are organized via decentralized networks of cells that coordinate with each other. Often, they spend weeks planning for violence at upcoming events, according to the April 2016 DHS and FBI report entitled “Baseline Comparison of US and Foreign Anarchist Extremist Movements.”*_

Dozens of armed anti-fascist groups have emerged, including Redneck Revolt and the Red Guards, according to the reports and interviews. One report from New Jersey authorities said self-described antifa groups have been established in cities including New York, Philadelphia, Chicago and San Francisco.

Some of the DHS and FBI intelligence reports began flagging the antifa protesters before the election. In one from last September, portions of which were read to POLITICO, DHS studied “recent violent clashes … at lawfully organized white supremacist” events including a June 2016 rally at the California Capitol in Sacramento organized by the Traditionalist Workers Party and its affiliate, the Golden State Skinheads.

According to police, counter-protesters linked to antifa and affiliated groups like By Any Means Necessary attacked, causing a riot after which at least 10 people were hospitalized, some with stab wounds.

At the Sacramento rally, _*antifa protesters came looking for violence*_, and _*“engaged in several activities indicating proficiency in pre-operational planning, to include organizing carpools to travel from different locations, raising bail money in preparation for arrests, counter-surveilling law enforcement using three-man scout teams, using handheld radios for communication, and coordinating the event via social media,”*_ the DHS report said.

The intelligence assessments focus less on guns than handmade weapons used by antifa, with photos of members brandishing _*ax handles and shields, often with industrial-sized bolts attached to create crude bayonets*_. A senior state law enforcement official said, _*“A whole bunch of them” have been deemed dangerous enough to be placed on U.S. terrorism watch lists.*_

The FBI and DHS had no comment on that, or on any aspect of the assessments, saying they were not intended to be made public.

_*By the spring of 2016, the anarchist groups had become so aggressive, including making armed attacks on individuals and small groups of perceived enemies, that federal officials launched a global investigation with the help of the U.S. intelligence community, according to the DHS and FBI assessment.

The purpose of the investigation, according to the April 2016 assessment: To determine whether the U.S.-based anarchists might start committing terrorist bombings like their counterparts in “foreign anarchist extremist movements” in Greece, Italy and Mexico, possibly at the Republican and Democratic conventions that summer. 

Some of the antifa activists have gone overseas to train and fight with fellow anarchist organizations, including two Turkey-based groups fighting the Islamic State, according to interviews and internet postings.

In their April 2016 assessment, the DHS and FBI said the anarchist groups would likely become more lethal if “fascist, nationalist, racist or anti-immigrant parties obtain greater prominence or local political power in the United States, leading to anti-racist violent backlash from anarchist extremists.”

The assessment also said the anarchist groups could become more aggressive if they seek to “retaliate violently to a violent act by a white supremacist extremist or group,” they acquire more powerful weapons or they obtain the financial means to travel abroad and learn more violent tactics.

Several state law enforcement officials said that all of those accelerating factors have come to pass. And recent FBI and DHS reports confirm they are actively monitoring “conduct deemed potentially suspicious and indicative of terrorist activity” by antifa groups.

*_But one of the internal assessments acknowledged several significant “intelligence gaps,” including an inability to penetrate the groups’ “diffuse and decentralized organizational structure,” which made it difficult for law enforcement to identify violent groups and individuals. Authorities also “lack information to identify the travel patterns linking U.S. and foreign anarchist extremists,” the assessment said.

The two agencies also said in their April 2016 assessment that many of the activities the groups engaged in “are not within the purview of FBI and DHS collection” due to civil liberties and privacy protections, including participating in training camps, holding meetings and communicating online.

In another assessment this past August, DHS warned about the potential for unprecedented violence at Charlottesville. The agency also acknowledged gaps in its understanding of antifa, saying it had only “medium confidence” in its assessments regarding both the affiliations among the various groups and the motivation of attackers.

Said one senior New Jersey law enforcement official following the antifa groups: “There’s a lot more we don’t know about these groups than what we do know about them.”

- edit to add link -


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Oct 2017)

Loachman said:
			
		

> FBI, Homeland Security warn of more ‘antifa’ attacks
> 
> _*Confidential documents call the anarchists that seek to counter white supremacists ‘domestic terrorists.’*_
> 
> (...)


More from New Jersey's DHS on this from another thread here.


----------



## jollyjacktar (4 Oct 2017)

So..... not the hero's that some would trumpet.....  I'm shocked, l tell you, shocked.    :sarcasm:


----------



## mariomike (4 Oct 2017)

Toronto has a long history of anti-fascism. At least as far back as the swastika riots in the west-end. 

When I was younger Anti-fa in this city was called ARA ( Anti-Racist Action ).

Their objective seemed to be to never let the white supremacists have the street.

This created lots of police OT.

Back then, before the internet, the white supremacists had to rely on handing out flyers at city high schools. Their primary organizing tool was a telephone hate line.

ARA used to paste "UNWANTED" posters on telephone poles exposing the faces of Toronto's white supremacist leadership and some of their more prominent supporters. 
( Primitive by today's standards. But again, this was before the internet. )


----------



## Loachman (4 Oct 2017)

Thanks for adding the link to my last post, milnews. I know that I copied it, but obviously did not paste it in prior to dashing off this morning. I have a bunch of other similar articles open on my machine as well.

Anybody that thinks that antifa is just "some sort of right wing boogeyman" which should not be taken seriously is RTFOOI. That they have not actually caused any deaths, so far, is purely chance.

Concerns about leftist violence are much more than "irrational fear". They are perfectly valid.

"can't even really be defined as a group as its (sic) a broad term used to describe many smaller groups with no centralized leadership or overarching "goals".

Many/most/perhaps all "legitimate" terror organizations use/have used cellular structures and non-traditional hierarchies to achieve their aims. It makes penetration by law enforcement agencies very difficult, as intended. This should not be confused with a lack of organization. The "overarching goal" is the destruction of free society. That can be achieved not only through open violence and intimidation, but also through incessant wars of words, including artificially-constructed pronouns, and suppression of the free speech of others.

"People who identify with antifa show up at rally's (sic), throw things, act like idiots, and then leave. to my knowledge they don’t (sic) walk into churches and shoot people (South Carolina), blow up buildings (Oklahoma), or shoot up a planned parenthood centre (Colorado Springs, 2015)."

Or shoot Republicans at congressional baseball practices. Or shoot up nightclubs in Florida. But those are just regular registered Democrats, although the latter was also a Jihadi. Antifa are the more extreme shock troops of the left. They have not yet committed murder, true, but please be patient.

This guy, a college professor who taught "_*ethics, critical thinking*_, and comparative philosophy East/West", came close:

http://www.eastbaytimes.com/2017/05/24/berkeley-college-professor-arrested-as-assault-suspect/

http://www.eastbaytimes.com/2017/05/26/professor-suspected-in-berkeley-bike-lock-attack-arraigned-in-oakland-court/

He was lucky that he was not arraigned on homicide charges instead.

Both extremist factions are vile. One, however, is noisy but largely impotent yet gets the majority of the press coverage. The other is truly violent yet has generally been ignored by press and politicians. That, finally, appears to be slowly, but still only slightly, changing.


----------



## Loachman (4 Oct 2017)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Toronto has a long history of anti-fascism. At least as far back as the swastika riots in the west-end.
> 
> When I was younger Anti-fa in this city was called ARA ( Anti-Racist Action ).
> 
> ...



Were they beating people, throwing large rocks, bottles of urine, and small explosive devices at their opposition? Heaving barricades through windows? Whacking people over the head with bike locks? Suppressing free speech?

I have no problem with law-abiding protesters. I do, however, have a big problems with thugs of _*any*_ political or "-ist" affiliation.

I concentrate on antifa here because there are still deluded people who believe that antifa have noble goals in mind and do not constitute a threat.

And, yes, I am aware of those numbers. Historical numbers are not necessarily, however, an accurate predictor of the future.

Three statisticians went hunting for deer. They spotted one up against a tree line. The first took careful aim and lightly squeezed his trigger. The round struck a tree three feet to the left of the deer. The second lined the deer up in his sights, and gently let off his shot. The round struck another tree, three feet to the right of the deer. "Nailed him", yelled the third statistician in rapturous glee.

Trends - numbers of activists, their actions, and the encouragement that they receive through insufficient law-enforcement action to date - are more reliable predictors.

Unless firm action - investigations, arrests, charges, findings of guilt, and appropriate sentences - are taken, their violence will continue to grow and spread.


----------



## FJAG (4 Oct 2017)

Loachman said:
			
		

> https://townhall.com/columnists/jackkerwick/2017/09/05/antifa-officially-an-antiamerican-terrorist-organization-n2377185
> 
> Antifa, (Officially) an Anti-American Terrorist Organization
> 
> ...



You might be more persuasive if you weren't citing witers like Jack Kerwick; author of such brilliant pieces like: The Fake Controversy of the Confederate Flag - And Why It Matters.

https://www.unz.com/article/the-fake-controversy-of-the-confederate-flag-and-why-it-matters/

 [cheers]


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (4 Oct 2017)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Were they beating people, throwing large rocks, bottles of urine, and small explosive devices at their opposition? Heaving barricades through windows? Whacking people over the head with bike locks? Suppressing free speech?
> 
> I have no problem with law-abiding protesters. I do, however, have a big problems with thugs of _*any*_ political or "-ist" affiliation.
> 
> ...



Who are you speaking to about believing there's noble goals with antifa? From what I've read, it's been more or less "All extremists are bad" whether they are right or left wing ones. This is usually followed up by some sort of "Antifa is bad" reiteration, etc, etc, etc.

As for the violence-  the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START), found 92% of all "ideologically motivated homicide incidents" committed in the United States from 2007 to 2016 were done "with a right-wing extremist or white supremacist motive". According to the Government Accountability Office of the United States, 73% of violent extremist incidents that resulted in deaths since September 12, 2001 were caused by right wing extremists groups.

if we review FBI in 2006 we see the following list of victims:
Target          Number of hate crime incidents
Blacks                     2640  
Jews                       967  
Whites                    890  
Gays                      747  
Hispanics               576  
Lesbians                163  
Muslims                 156  

Taking a non-partisan view at the hate crime statistics, I would suggest the evidence indicates that left and right wing people are somewhat equally represented in these crimes.

Here's what I suggest is a reasonable and rationale world view:

- Right-wing terror exists. 
- Left-wing terror exists. 
- Islamic terror exists. 
- Organised groups carry out attacks with logistical support and widespread applause in all examples of terrorism. 
- Loners carry out attacks with no support and no applause and no allies. 
- Mentally ill people carry out attacks that look like terror. 

And I hope we can agree: 
- It is wrong to blame right-wing peaceful republicans for right-wing terror. 
- It is wrong to blame left-wing peaceful democrats for left-wing terror. 
- It is wrong to blame peaceful anti-extremist Muslims for Islamic terror.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (4 Oct 2017)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Were they beating people, throwing large rocks, bottles of urine, and small explosive devices at their opposition? Heaving barricades through windows? Whacking people over the head with bike locks? Suppressing free speech?
> 
> I have no problem with law-abiding protesters. I do, however, have a big problems with thugs of _*any*_ political or "-ist" affiliation.
> 
> ...



Here's some antifa links for you (It's even "written" by Rex Murphy, the "old guy yelling at kids on his lawn" of Canadian politics):

https://www.thebeaverton.com/2017/09/antifa-dangerous-group-world-rest/


----------



## PuckChaser (4 Oct 2017)

Dis you just try to counter a real argument with a satire website? What's next, using Duffel Blog as a primary source for military policy debates?


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (4 Oct 2017)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Dis you just try to counter a real argument with a satire website? What's next, using Duffel Blog as a primary source for military policy debates?



No. The argument has been countered with facts about the rates of right wing/left wing/islamic terrorism, the number of people killed in related attacks, and other such evidence. This was more of an amplification of the line of argument. 

That said- I hope you read the article. It's actually well written and demonstrates not an endorsement of antifa but rather a satirical view that they are no worse than their right wing counterparts. The line, "It’s a well-known fact that a journalist can only write about one dangerous thing at a time, so of course we were left with no choice but to focus solely on antifa rather than a known anti-islam organization with thousands of active members online" was well done, IMHO.

This article, also satire, also does a nice job of expressing my thoughts on the antifa "threat"...

https://www.thebeaverton.com/2017/09/local-man-forgets-wifes-birthday-antifa/


----------



## jollyjacktar (4 Oct 2017)

Well l won't join you in getting the wool pulled over my eyes or buying those cheap antifa bridges being sold to the gullible.  Like PT Barnum said...


----------



## FJAG (4 Oct 2017)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Well l won't join you in getting the wool pulled over my eyes or buying those cheap antifa bridges being sold to the gullible.  Like PT Barnum said...



I hate to burst your little bubble but there's no one on this forum (or for that matter in Canadian society in general) who's defending Antifa (much less buying their bridges, drinking their cool-aid, etc).

All we've been saying is that you need to keep perspective and see that violent right-wing extremism is a bigger threat.

You cite Homeland Security respecting the Antifa threat above. You should also look at their information on right-wing extremism such as here:

https://www.hsdl.org/c/forgotten-news-the-constant-threat-of-right-wing-terrorism/

and in particular the Anti Defamation League study that is cited by them here:

https://www.adl.org/sites/default/files/documents/CR_5154_25YRS%20RightWing%20Terrorism_V5.pdf

which provides some simple to understand statistics and case studies of what has been happening. Antifa, asinine as it is, pales by comparison.

 [cheers]


----------



## jollyjacktar (4 Oct 2017)

We shall have to agree to disagree on whom we view as the bigger threat.  For me, of the two, it's antifa.


----------



## McG (4 Oct 2017)

Are left wing political violence and right wing political violence really different threats?  If citizens get caught between warring biker gangs, do we try to sub-categorize it as Hells Angels violence or Rock Machine violence and then argue over which “type” of violence is the greater threat?

If political violence is a problem regardless of the perpetrator’s place in the political spectrum, then is it not possible to discuss the problem in terms that are neutral of the offenders’ political alignments?

... also, while I know the topic of political violence has achieved boiling points in the US, this is the Canadian politics thread.  Yes, there are similarities between the countries and a lot of their social phenomena do have the ability to diffuse across the border.  But, there are always differences between the countries’ political and social realities.  If the topic cannot be discussed without reference to Republicans or Democrats and if the discussion requires primarily reference to extreme US occurrences vice reference to anything from this side of the border: then it is probably safe to assume the discussion belongs in one of those US political threads.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (5 Oct 2017)

MCG said:
			
		

> Are left wing political violence and right wing political violence really different threats?  If citizens get caught between warring biker gangs, do we try to sub-categorize it as Hells Angels violence or Rock Machine violence and then argue over which “type” of violence is the greater threat?
> 
> If political violence is a problem regardless of the perpetrator’s place in the political spectrum, then is it not possible to discuss the problem in terms that are neutral of the offenders’ political alignments?
> 
> ... also, while I know the topic of political violence has achieved boiling points in the US, this is the Canadian politics thread.  Yes, there are similarities between the countries and a lot of their social phenomena do have the ability to diffuse across the border.  But, there are always differences between the countries’ political and social realities.  If the topic cannot be discussed without reference to Republicans or Democrats and if the discussion requires primarily reference to extreme US occurrences vice reference to anything from this side of the border: then it is probably safe to assume the discussion belongs in one of those US political threads.



Agree. If you are shot by a stray bullet between 2 groups of idiots, it doesn't *really* matter which group shot said bullet. I also agree that Canada is not the US in that we dont have the racial baggage that they do (though, not to the extent we would like to believe we dont). The argument is that neither left nor right wing people are worse in terms of extremists.


----------



## Rifleman62 (5 Oct 2017)

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/andrew-coyne-pro-choice-stance-wont-cost-liberals-in-the-polls-but-their-moral-entitlement-might
*
Andrew Coyne: Liberals’ moral arrogance on full display in fight over Status of Women chair* - 4 Oct 17
_With the current generation of Liberals, on the other hand, the sense of entitlement seems inbred, rooted less in incumbency than in an unvarnished assumption of moral superiority_

Just a month ago the Liberals were riding high, with a lead in the polls averaging roughly 12 points. Suddenly, things are a lot tighter. A new Ekos Research poll puts them just one point ahead of the Conservatives, 34-33: a statistical tie. Their lead in the latest Nanos and Ipsos surveys is a little better, at seven points, but Forum Research puts the Conservatives four points ahead, while an Angus Reid poll has it 36 to 33 for the Conservatives as the party that “would make the best government.”

What accounts for this who can say. But one part of it may be a growing weariness with a governing party that appears to believe, almost literally in some cases, that it was born to rule. Previous Liberal governments acquired that arrogance only after many years in office. With the current generation of Liberals, on the other hand, the sense of entitlement seems inbred, rooted less in incumbency than in an unvarnished assumption of moral superiority: a belief, not only that their views are superior to those of their opponents, but that theirs are the only views it is possible for a decent person to hold.

As exhibit A, I give you the recent fiasco at the status of women committee. For those just joining us, the fracas was set off by the Conservatives’ nomination as chair of the committee, Rachael Harder, the party’s critic for the Status of Women portfolio. Thirty years old, smart as a whip, with a background in sociology and youth consulting, Harder is a promising up-and-comer, of a type and vocation one would more typically find in the Liberal caucus.

She has, however, one fatal flaw, at least to the Liberals: she is (sensitive readers may wish to avert their eyes) pro-life, or if you prefer, anti-abortion. Which is to say, she presumably believes there should be some sort of federal law governing abortion, as opposed to the legal void in which it now takes place. It’s not clear how fervently she believes this, or what sorts of limits she would prefer were in place. The Campaign Life Coalition gives her an “amber-light” rating: though she once filled out a questionnaire for the group saying she would work to pass legislation “to protect unborn children” from conception onward, she also reportedly told an all-candidates meeting in 2015 that “she believes every woman should have access to abortion.”

No matter. Any deviation from the status quo on abortion, no matter how slight, is enough to cast one into the pit. Neither does it matter that there would be no chance whatever of Harder using her post as status of women’s committee chair to implement her fiendish plan. The mere knowledge that somewhere within her lurked some small gleam of wrongthink was grounds for disqualification. Or rather, something worse than that: it was not sufficient for the Liberal majority on the committee to defeat her nomination, as eventually they did (later electing another Conservative MP to the chair against her will). No, so intolerable was the very idea that when it was first proposed the Liberals on the committee walked out in protest.

There is, it is true, a lot of posturing at work here. But it is also true that many Liberals (and New Democrats) sincerely believe this: that any woman who does not believe in absolute unrestricted abortion on demand does not truly believe in women’s rights, and as such is unfit for such a post. They are entitled to think that. What marks them apart is their absolute unwillingness to extend the same courtesy to their opponents — or even to recognize that their opponents do not see things that way.

Pro-lifers do not get up in the morning thinking “how can I reduce women’s rights today?” So far as they are prepared to let the state intervene in what would otherwise be entirely a personal matter, it is in the profound belief that another set of rights are engaged: those of the fetus she is carrying. They may be wrong about that. Or they may be right, but not to the point that the mother’s rights can be overridden. But whether they are right or they are wrong, it is not a belief that is so far off the map as to warrant this kind of demonization.

Why not? Is it impossible that it could be, even in principle? I’ve seen people argue that nominating Harder for chair of status of women is like giving a Holocaust denier responsibility for promoting religious tolerance. Well now. What would be the signs that pro-lifers had sunk into a similarly marginal, if not depraved state?

Perhaps it would, if the matter were settled law — though other fights, such as for assisted suicide, persisted in the face of legal defeat. But it isn’t: the Supreme Court, in its famous 1988 Morgentaler decision, did not say that no abortion law could be constitutional — only that the one in front of them was not. Indeed, the court was at pains to suggest the kind of law that would pass scrutiny, notably a “gestational” approach, with restrictions applying only in the later stages of a pregnancy. Justice Bertha Wilson, the feminist icon, led the way.

Or perhaps it would, if Parliament had decided on the matter — though again, that has not always or even usually been the signal for other campaigns to give up. But again, that isn’t the case: the House of Commons passed a new abortion law in 1990. It died, rather, on a tie vote of the Senate.

Or perhaps, if public opinion were overwhelmingly against it. Once again, that isn’t so: polls consistently show, nearly 30 years after Morgentaler, that public opinion remains divided on the issue — a small hard-core opposed to legalizing abortion under any circumstances, a larger hard-core adamant that it should be legal in all circumstances, and a large block, even a majority, somewhere in the middle. Moreover, there is no gender gap: men and women are equally likely to believe there should be some restriction on abortion.

Or maybe if Canada were the only country still debating the issue, while abortion on demand was the norm in the rest of the world. But in fact it’s the other way around: Canada is the only country in the democratic world that imposes no legal limits on abortion. Perfectly respectable, socially liberal countries like Sweden, France, the Netherlands etc think it permissible to progressively tighten access after a certain number of weeks.

Maybe they’re all wrong. Maybe we should stay with the status quo. But it is not, I submit, intolerable to take a different view. Yet such is the bubble within which our political and media class operate that we have persuaded ourselves that the rest of the world are the outliers, and Canada, though it is at one logical extreme of the possible approaches, the benchmark of moderatism.

I am explicitly not saying this controversy has anything to do with the Liberals’ recent decline in the polls, which predates it in any event. But the sense of moral entitlement it reveals, the intolerance of differences of opinion, the demonization of opposition, the insufferable smugness? Yeah, it just might.

Photo Caption: Conservative MP Rachael Harder rises during question period in the House of Commons on Parliament Hill in Ottawa on Wednesday, Sept.27, 2017. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Adrian Wyld


----------



## FJAG (5 Oct 2017)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> http://nationalpost.com/opinion/andrew-coyne-pro-choice-stance-wont-cost-liberals-in-the-polls-but-their-moral-entitlement-might
> *
> Andrew Coyne: Liberals’ moral arrogance on full display in fight over Status of Women chair* - 4 Oct 17
> _With the current generation of Liberals, on the other hand, the sense of entitlement seems inbred, rooted less in incumbency than in an unvarnished assumption of moral superiority_



Let me start by saying that I'm a Conservative and dislike the Liberals for numerous reasons, however, on this issue I disagree with my party's position entirely.

The chair of the Status of Women committee is traditionally held by a member of the opposition. The committee has six Liberal, two Conservative and one NDP members.

Of the two Conservative members: Harder has come out as Pro Life and Karen Vecchio as Pro Choice.

Our laws/policy on abortion is not in turmoil. It was settled by the SCC Morgentaler decision and has been working quite acceptably for thirty years. In short those who are Pro Life are free not to have abortions and those who are Pro Choice, have exactly that--a choice--as to whether to have one or not. Doctors and clinics can provide appropriate health care advice on the issue without fear of being arrested by the state.

The committee wisely chose Vecchio as the chair notwithstanding her reluctance to accept the position as it goes against her leadership's choice of Harder. 

By putting Harder forward to chair this committee, my party has signalled an intent to abandon the position--which had been so wisely followed by Harper over the years--of leaving the status quo in place. At the very least Harder's nomination is a tone deaf move which shows that Scheer is either being unnecessarily confrontational, naive or just plain stupid.

In my view, nominating a Pro Lifer to a position of leadership in this committee is a bad signal to the country that a future Conservative government under its present leadership would move to impose restrictions and thereby limit the choice available to women. I categorically won't support that.

 :cheers:


----------



## Loachman (5 Oct 2017)

FJAG said:
			
		

> ... It was settled by the SCC Morgentaler decision and has been working quite acceptably for thirty years. In short those who are Pro Life are free not to have abortions and those who are Pro Choice, have exactly that--a choice--as to whether to have one or not.



The human beings with the biggest stake in this matter would likely, if given _*their*_ choice, dispute _*your*_ concept of acceptability, freedom, and choice.

But they are given no choice whatsoever.

None at all.


----------



## FJAG (5 Oct 2017)

Loachman said:
			
		

> The human beings with the biggest stake in this matter would likely, if given _*their*_ choice, dispute _*your*_ concept of acceptability, freedom, and choice.
> 
> But they are given no choice whatsoever.
> 
> None at all.



So now we both know where each of us stand on this issue and since I know you won't change my mind and, I suspect that I won't change yours, we should probably not waste our time debating it.

That said, I think my party was out to lunch on this issue not only because I think they are fundamentally wrong but because that road leads to political suicide in this country.

 [cheers]


----------



## mariomike (5 Oct 2017)

Even has its own mega-thread,

Abortion Issues - Mega Thread [MERGED] 
https://army.ca/forums/threads/105125.75


----------



## YZT580 (5 Oct 2017)

We are discussing only one element of qualification here and it is not even as Coyne said regarding an issue that would be brought forward by the committee. It is a disgrace that a person who does not totally follow a pre-set mind-set is not allowed a place of leadership for fear that she may contaminate the rest of the group. Free thinking as long as it is the same thought as mine?


----------



## Loachman (5 Oct 2017)

Just another Sunny Way.


----------



## ModlrMike (6 Oct 2017)

As Patton said "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking."


----------



## Rifleman62 (6 Oct 2017)

> What accounts for this who can say. But one part of it may be a growing weariness with a governing party that appears to believe, almost literally in some cases, that it was born to rule. Previous Liberal governments acquired that arrogance only after many years in office. With the current generation of Liberals, on the other hand, the sense of entitlement seems inbred, rooted less in incumbency than in an unvarnished assumption of moral superiority: a belief, not only that their views are superior to those of their opponents, but that theirs are the only views it is possible for a decent person to hold.



To me, the quote above is the main thrust in the article with the rejection of Ms Harder as the proof. IMHO the quote above fits the Liberals, the current Trudeau government, exactly and that's why I posted it.


----------



## Rifleman62 (6 Oct 2017)

Two related articles.

http://www.torontosun.com/2017/10/05/a-pipeline-dies-in-the-wake-of-lac-megantic-being-forgotten?token=6cd7d989fd79b2b3dc80a87fe17e6e45
*
A pipeline dies in the wake of Lac Megantic being forgotten* -  MARK BONOKOSKI – 5 Oct 17

TransCanada’s cancellation Thursday of the Energy East pipeline may be a victory for myopic environmentalists, but it is also an indictment of the Trudeau Liberals.

Under Justin Trudeau’s leadership, the Liberals imposed stringent greenhouse gas regulations on TransCanada that do not apply to foreign entities — including those ruled by despots and human-rights abusers — that are shipping crude by ocean-going tankers for off-loading at Canada’s east-coast ports.

So, it was hardly a level oil field.

It has not been a good week for the prime minister. On Wednesday, Trudeau was embarrassingly berated on Parliament Hill by First Nation demonstrators over his government’s undeniable botching and projected indifference concerning the inquiry into murdered and missing indigenous women and girls.

“How dare you come out here and say that you support our families?” asked B.C.’s Connie Greyeyes.

“How dare you come out here and say these things?”

And then came TransCanada pulling the plug on a pipeline project from Alberta’s oilsands to refineries in Saint John, N.B., that would have provided upwards of 15,000 construction jobs, and another 1,000 positions down the road.

The Energy East pipeline, 4,600 kms in length, would have been the longest pipeline in North America, with the capacity of safely moving 1.1-million barrels of oilsands and Saskatchewan crude a day to refineries on the East Coast.

If there was ever a mega-project, this was it.  It carried a $15.7-billion price tag, and would have provided billions in tax revenues.

Gone, too, is TransCanada’s Eastern Mainline project which would have added new natural gas pipelines and gas-compression facilities in southwestern Ontario and Quebec where most of the country’s home and industrial gas consumers are located.

The reason? The same stringent Canada-only environmental regulations that took the Energy East pipeline out of play, but continues to allow foreign fuels to flow into Canada without the same onerous regulations.

Quebec Premier Phillippe Couillard and Montreal Mayor Denis Coderre, the two loudest opponents of Energy East, would appear to have very short memories, and therefore dismissive of the fact that pipelines are arguably the safest method of moving crude, a commodity that is still vitally necessary and thus far irreplaceable. 

Have they forgotten Lac Megantic, or don’t they care?

Would they rather have Canadians continue to bail out Bombardier than have Quebecers feel safe when freight trains roll through their towns in the middle of the night?

As a reminder, 47 Quebecers burned to death on that tragic day back in July 2013 when an unattended 74-car freight train carrying tankers filled with crude rolled down the hill and exploded in the town, destroying almost half of Lac Megantic’s downtown core.

Lisa Raitt, now deputy leader of the federal Conservatives, had to deal with the aftermath of that disaster while transport minister in the government of former PM Stephen Harper.

And she took direct aim Thursday at Trudeau for the cancellation of the Energy East pipeline.

“I want to be very clear,” she said. “Today’s announcement is not a result of a sudden decision by TransCanada.

“It’s a result of the disastrous energy policies promoted by Justin Trudeau and his failure to champion the Canadian energy sector.”

“He forced Canadian oil companies to comply with standards that are not required for foreign countries,” she added.

 “And these decisions have allowed companies operating in Venezuela, Saudi Arabia and Algeria to ship oil to Canada with an advantage over companies like TransCanada that employ middle-class Canadians.”

But she was not done.

“Everything Justin Trudeau touches becomes a nightmare,” she said.

Would that she were wrong, but she isn’t.



http://m.edmontonsun.com/2017/10/05/lorne-gunter-justin-trudeaus-response-to-energy-east-cancellation-is-laughable

*Justin Trudeau's response to Energy East cancellation is laughable *- Lorne Gunter -5 Oct 17

Almost the moment TransCanada announced Thursday it was ending its attempt to build the $15-billion Energy East Pipeline from Alberta to New Brunswick, the federal Liberal government began insisting this was purely a “business decision.”

Don’t look at us, Trudeau government spokespeople insisted. World oil prices and all that, don’t ya know.

Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr insisted “it’s not up to me to explain why TransCanada made this decision on the basis of what’s in its interest … Nothing has changed in the government’s decision-making process.”

That’s a laugh.

The Trudeau Liberals have moved the goalposts on TransCanada substantially at least twice in the two years they’ve been in power.

Back in January 2016, just two months after being sworn in, the Liberals announced that National Energy Board (NEB) pipeline hearings – which at that time already involved months of testimony from hundreds and even thousands of witnesses – would be made even more complex and drawn out. Later they announced the timeline would be changed from 18 months to three years.

Then just this past August, the NEB announced that during their review of Energy East, they intended to hold TransCanada to account for all greenhouse emissions created by the fossil fuels that travelled through the 4,500-kilometre line, which would have had a 1.1-million-barrel-a-day capacity.

Typically, enviro reviews of pipelines take into account the emissions caused by building and operating the line. But the new Liberal NEB intended to hold TransCanada accountable for the emissions caused by extracting the oil from the ground and from consuming it after it exited Energy East – even if it was first put on a tanker and consumed somewhere overseas.

That doesn’t sound as if “nothing has changed,” as Carr insisted Thursday.

The Liberals, and especially Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, have also been extremely vague about whether they support Energy East. That too has caused investors to get skittish.

Trudeau has refused to engage Quebec politicians, such as Montreal Mayor Denis Coderre, when they have made outrageous accusations against the pipeline. An “expert” panel appointed by the Liberals recommended moving the hearings side of the NEB out of Calgary to Ottawa (a move that was later rejected) and Trudeau has repeatedly refused to explain what he considers adequate consultation with First Nations.

All that uncertainty, plus significant tax changes on oil and gas exploration contained in the Liberals’ 2017 budget, is likely what caused TransCanada to throw up its hands and shut down Energy East.

If this were just a “business decision” based on a soft world oil market, how come TransCanada is continuing with other pipeline projects in other countries, such as the Grand Rapids Pipeline in the States?

World oil prices are the same everywhere. All that’s different is the anti-oil atmosphere in Canada.

If TransCanada’s decision is based on business factors, it is the federal government that changed the factors.

It’s also not too much of a stretch to wonder whether this isn’t what the Trudeau Liberals wanted all along, because it saves them from having to make voters and politicians in Quebec unhappy.

It’s also interesting that our own Premier Rachel Notley’s first instinct was the same as the federal Liberals’ – blame this entirely on business. In her official statement she never once even hinted that Trudeau and the Liberals had a hand in it.

The Energy East cancellation, though, must put an end to Notley’s “social licence” fantasy. Spending billions on “green” energy and forcing the shutdown of coal power has done nothing — nothing! — to get pipelines built, which was the original whole goal.

All the carbon tax and billions in green spending has done is drive more Albertans out of work and dive our treasury deeper into debt.


----------



## Rifleman62 (7 Oct 2017)

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/rex-murphy-deliverology-where-are-thy-successes

*Rex Murphy: Deliverology, where are thy successes?* - 6 Oct 17
_Has Trudeau delivered on his promise to strike the perfect balance between Energy and the Environment? Why no, it looks like a real bust_

An utterly unreliable source, nowhere close to the prime minister and his inner circle, who wishes to remain anonymous, and in whom I have hardly any trust whatsoever, tells me the Trudeau government may be seeking a refund from their Deliverology Guru.*

The shaman of Deliverology (a barbarous and most uninspired coinage) is Mr. Michael Barber. A shortcut for understanding what he does is to think of him as a kind of Tony Robbins for immature governments. A deliverologist is a slick confidence booster for the unprepared, for those who sweep into public office (sometimes much to their own surprise) and who promised the moon and most of the outlying planets in the hope to get there, and are now in desperate need of a hired astronomer (or consultant) to get them off the hook.

Trudeau and his top advisers brought Sir Michael into the game to teach them how to deliver (how to promise they needed no help on; Liberals promise as salmon go upstream — it’s their innate compulsion and gift). But now, at mid-point in the Trudeau term, where’s the beef?

_Trudeau brought Sir Michael into the game to teach them how to deliver_

Did Trudeau deliver on a new electoral system by getting ride of first-past-the-post? Nein. No delivery there. Perfect failure. As were the vaporous hearings on electoral reform, which were scuttled by the very minister who set them up. 

Has he repaired the country’s relationship with First Nation’s people? Uh Uh. The MMIW inquiry might be compared to a drawing room farce, were the subject matter not so sensitive. It has appalled the very people it was set up to serve, brought tears from many who once saw it as an instrument of mercy, and has lost the best people to conduct the inquiry through their resignations. Huge, messy, sad flop on a very sensitive file. I guess Mr. Barber and the crackerjack wisdoms of Deliverology, here, once again, failed, yes, to deliver.

Tax reform. There is no need to detail this chaos. The video file from the Oakville town meeting with the finance minister provides all you need to see on how well this is not going over. Deliverology failure once again.

_And now to the biggest file of all. Energy and the Environment_

And now to the biggest file of all. Energy and the Environment. Striking the Balance. Social Licence and the Carbon Dioxide Tax. Has Trudeau delivered on the promise to strike the perfect balance between Energy and the Environment? Well, if your idea of the perfect balance is one end of the scale hitting the roof (that would be the Green end), and the other collapsed on the floor (that would be the Energy and Pipelines end), then he has. However, if you’re more inclined to see balance as two scales more or less in equilibrious harmony, then it’s a real bust.

Thursday, TransCanada, having spent close to a billion dollars already trying to move Energy East forward, announced it was not going ahead with the project. It rightly, though diplomatically, put the blame on the overreach of the National Energy Board, with the expanded scope of its regulations and requirements. A huge $15-billion project cancelled. This, mere weeks after Petronas walked away from any even more gigantic enterprise of some $36 to 39-billion. Some five or six major outside investors have left the Alberta oilfields. All of this after Fort McMurray almost burnt to the ground, oil prices dropped, and jobs lost have run into the tens of thousands. 

And then there’s Trans Mountain, which the government has “approved.” I drop the scare quotes because, while Trudeau has indeed offered approval to Trans Mountain, he is at his most tepid, formulaic, dutiful and uninspiring when doing so. Catch him at a WE day hootenanny if you want to hear him really make a pitch. Or at a Women of the World séance in full trumpet blast on the wonders of male feminism. In such settings, the accents of commitment, determination and enthusiasm are at full pitch. On Trans Mountain, he whispers. On the environmental side of this famous balance, he’s Elmer Gantry on steroids. On the oil industry, he’s a silent spectator, bringing to my mind the phrase from Hamlet: “you who are but mutes and witness to this act.” 

_This is stirring very real and drastic tensions within the Confederation
_
Plus, the B.C. pipeline is under the gun of its new NDP government and the three Greens who are keeping that party in power. They have pledged to “kill” the pipeline. Those who think the Western pipeline has a better chance than the Eastern one (now cancelled) are feeding on the fumes of exhausted optimism. Deliverology, where are thy successes?

Energy East’s withdrawal is close to putting a seal on any break from the (effective) barrier to Alberta getting its product to outside markets. The regulatory fences that have been erected, and this Liberal government’s emphatic embrace of vague environmentalism and the cloudy cause of global warming amount to a witting or unwitting boycott of that province’s principal resource. The huge investments in energy that Canada could and should be receiving are going to other countries, and jobs and prosperity with them. The industrial policy of the Trudeau government on oil is almost masochistic. And if we think of the opposite — its support of Bombardier, a jet fuelled enterprise — it is schizophrenic as well.

And that is stirring very real and potentially drastic tensions within the Confederation. We had one bout of Western alienation under Trudeau 1. It would be wise to avoid another under Trudeau 2, although it very much looks like we will not.

* Mr. Barber is not actually a guru — a spiritual, usually Indian mystic or wiseman. But then again, Deliverology is not exactly an “ology” either.

Photo Caption: Sir Michael Barber, a hired government coach of sorts, is flanked by Heritage Minister Mlanie Joly (L) and Environment Minister Catherine McKenna as they head to morning meetings at the Delta Lodge at Kananaskis west of Calgary, Alta., on April 26, 2016.


----------



## jollyjacktar (7 Oct 2017)

Ah yes, Enviromental Barbie.


----------



## ModlrMike (10 Oct 2017)

So... helping the middle class? Perhaps not so much:

*Trudeau's tax hounds salivate over discounted hot dogs*

Who would have thought retail sales clerks, hardly perceived as at the top of the financial food chain, were such tax-evading scofflaws that the Trudeau Liberals would be unleashing the taxman on them?

More at LINK and lest I be accused of spreading fake news... CTV News

What's next? Airmiles, CT money?



*_Staff edit: fixed CTV ink._


----------



## jollyjacktar (10 Oct 2017)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> So... helping the middle class? Perhaps not so much:
> 
> *Trudeau's tax hounds salivate over discounted hot dogs*
> 
> ...



Fake news!  Fake News!  I couldn't get the CTV link to work and it IS the Sun...  >


----------



## Colin Parkinson (10 Oct 2017)

I wonder if CPC will play the Saudi oil angle, the only problem will be then selling arms to Saudi and still buying their oil after the CPC wins an election.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (10 Oct 2017)

Colin, Saudi Arabia is completely insignificant to Canada's energy markets.

To use the last available figures that are complete, 2014, Canada was:

Producing 3.5 Million barrels per day of crude; exporting 2.6 million barrels per day, thus keeping 1.1 million barrels per day for Canadian refineries. These refineries imported a further 600,000 barely per day, of which (fifth most important supplier @ approx. 10%) Saudi Arabia accounted of 60,000 barrels per day. Meaning that, overall, SA contributes less than 3% of Canada's crude needs, while we in Canada, produce in excess of 300% of our needs. 

Canada'a other suppliers - not to mention our own internal capacity to produce crude oil - can make up any loss of Saudi Arabia without even bating an eye.

http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/sites/www.nrcan.gc.ca/files/energy/files/pdf/2014/14-0173EnergyMarketFacts_e.pdf


----------



## Colin Parkinson (10 Oct 2017)

One has to ask why import any? As for feedstock, the refinery out here, can only get a small portion from the existing pipeline network (Trans mountain) The rest of the feedstock has to be barged in from the US.


----------



## jollyjacktar (10 Oct 2017)

We may have the oil but now we cannot get it to the refinery in St John.  Thanks to the efforts of some.


----------



## McG (10 Oct 2017)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Colin, Saudi Arabia is completely insignificant to Canada's energy markets.
> 
> To use the last available figures that are complete, 2014, Canada was:
> 
> ...


Is unrefined oil the whole picture?  How much already refined product do we import?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (10 Oct 2017)

The only major refinery on the West Coast is scheduled for a major revamp and will be down for quite some time, all of the product will have to come either by road from Alberta or barge from Cherry Point


----------



## Altair (11 Oct 2017)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Two related articles.
> 
> http://www.torontosun.com/2017/10/05/a-pipeline-dies-in-the-wake-of-lac-megantic-being-forgotten?token=6cd7d989fd79b2b3dc80a87fe17e6e45
> *
> ...


Let me start by saying that the cancellation of energy east has nothing to do with the environment, the economy or safety.

It was 100 percent political.

And looking at it from a political perspective it made 100 percent sense.  If approved, PM Trudeau would have had to fight with environmentalists in not only BC, but also in vote rich Ontario and Quebec. People really upset would flock to the NDP, not conservatives, potentially splitting the vote on the left, benefiting the CPC as a result. Not worth it to pick up a few( very few) votes in Alberta and Saskatchewan.

That all being said, Trudeau has not left Alberta out in the cold.

Keystone XL looks like it will be built in the states, 830,000 barrels a day.

He approved transmountain, 300,000 barrels a day to 890,000, increase of 590 000 barrels a day.

He approved line 3 replacement, upping capacity from 390 000 barrels a day to 790 000 barrels a day, increase of 400 000 barrels per day.

So in all, he's increased pipeline capacity for Alberta by 1 820 000 barrels of oil per day. He did so without angering leftists in ontario and quebec, sacrificing votes in BC in the process.

So politically, he's juggled it well.


----------



## PuckChaser (11 Oct 2017)

Trudeau did absolutely nothing for Keystone XL. It was held up in the US by Obama and approved by Trump. Unless you can prove he lobbied for it's construction, those barrels per day increase are not Trudeaus. Energy East would have brought more oil to NB refineries, creating jobs in hard times on the East Coast.


----------



## jollyjacktar (11 Oct 2017)

But it fits into some folks narratives that way...


----------



## Altair (11 Oct 2017)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Trudeau did absolutely nothing for Keystone XL. It was held up in the US by Obama and approved by Trump. Unless you can prove he lobbied for it's construction, those barrels per day increase are not Trudeaus. Energy East would have brought more oil to NB refineries, creating jobs in hard times on the East Coast.


he's on record saying he supported it, but fine, taking that out,  he's increased capacity by 990 000 barrels a day, with a extra 830 000 barrels a day coming from external forces.

Not exactly like he's ignored the need for pipelines.


----------



## FSTO (11 Oct 2017)

Altair said:
			
		

> he's on record saying he supported it, but fine, taking that out,  he's *increased capacity by 990 000 barrels a day, with a extra 830 000 barrels a day coming from external forces.*
> 
> Not exactly like he's ignored the need for pipelines.



Potentially. Has an inch of new pipe been laid yet?


----------



## Altair (11 Oct 2017)

FSTO said:
			
		

> Potentially. Has an inch of new pipe been laid yet?


 patience. They are coming.


----------



## PuckChaser (11 Oct 2017)

FSTO said:
			
		

> Potentially. Has an inch of new pipe been laid yet?


Haven't you read Op HONOUR? We can't make jokes like that anymore.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (11 Oct 2017)

Altair said:
			
		

> And looking at it from a political perspective it made 100 percent sense.  If approved, PM Trudeau would have had to fight with environmentalists in not only BC, but also in vote rich Ontario and Quebec. People really upset would flock to the NDP, not conservatives, potentially splitting the vote on the left, benefiting the CPC as a result. Not worth it to pick up a few( very few) votes in Alberta and Saskatchewan.



A few weeks ago I listened to a CBC reporter interview the leader of the B.C. Green party and his analyst of the situation was that Trudeau and the Liberals, by approving Kinder Morgan, were willing to loss a few seats in B.C. in the hope that they would win more seats in Central Canada (esp. Quebec) by opposing the eastern oil pipeline.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (11 Oct 2017)

Unrelated, but just saw the new Andrew Scheer commercial about changes to the small business tax laws.

I dont know who his PR team is, but the end makes me think of Ray Zalinsky from Tommy Boy (Dan Akyroids character...)....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRHULPFE3zo


----------



## larry Strong (11 Oct 2017)

Altair said:
			
		

> patience. They are coming.



Yeah, your going to want to have lots of patience for "Trans Mountain".......it won't get past the Alberta border anytime soon....

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/trans-mountain-pipeline-ndp-1.4241796


Used to be a saying back in the day......something about counting and hatched chickens......


----------



## Altair (12 Oct 2017)

Larry Strong said:
			
		

> Yeah, your going to want to have lots of patience for "Trans Mountain".......it won't get past the Alberta border anytime soon....
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/trans-mountain-pipeline-ndp-1.4241796
> 
> ...


Fair point.

Nothing has been done...yet.

However, in response to that article posted about how trudeau killed energy east, which he did, are people ignoring that pipeline capacity is potentially jumpng by 1820000 barrels a day, 990 000 approved by the LPC and 830 000 in a assist from the Americans?

And while there will still be roadblocks for the approved pipelines, what more can the PM do?


----------



## YZT580 (12 Oct 2017)

What could a PM do?  Well for starters, he could have ensured a level playing field for assessing new projects?  Requiring someone to foot the bill for all CO that goes through the pipe ensures that no pipeline will ever be built in Canada. And all in the vain attempt to attract a few votes in Quebec.  He has definitely alienated New Brunswick.


----------



## Altair (12 Oct 2017)

YZT580 said:
			
		

> What could a PM do?  Well for starters, he could have ensured a level playing field for assessing new projects?  Requiring someone to foot the bill for all CO that goes through the pipe ensures that no pipeline will ever be built in Canada. And all in the vain attempt to attract a few votes in Quebec.  He has definitely alienated New Brunswick.


I'll rephrase that, in case it wasn't clear.

What more can the PM do about pushing forward the already approved pipelines?

As I've said before, approving energy east would have been political nonsense. 

Loses votes in Ontario and Quebec, probably to the NDP.

Doesn't pick up votes in Alberta and Saskatchewan.  

Why commit political suicide?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (12 Oct 2017)

Well he could tell the NrCan and CEAA to finish a modified review of the Digby Island LNG in Prince Rupert where PNW LNG was going to move to. Sort out any remaining issues and then when the situation changes Canada is ready to offer up a ready to build project with FN backing.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (12 Oct 2017)

Altair said:
			
		

> Why commit political suicide?



Much more important  then actual leadership........sad......


----------



## Altair (12 Oct 2017)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Much more important  then actual leadership........sad......


What party has gone out of its way to commit political suicide?

No party goes out and does something that would alienate their supporters, and the ones that do pay a price at the polls.

Politicians make political decisions.


----------



## GR66 (12 Oct 2017)

Altair said:
			
		

> What party has gone out of its way to commit political suicide?
> 
> No party goes out and does something that would alienate their supporters, and the ones that do pay a price at the polls.
> 
> Politicians make political decisions.



...or they could lead public opinion by explaining to Canadians why a particular course of action is best for Canada as a whole and the affected groups in particular.

Oops...there I go being silly again!


----------



## Altair (12 Oct 2017)

GR66 said:
			
		

> ...or they could lead public opinion by explaining to Canadians why a particular course of action is best for Canada as a whole and the affected groups in particular.
> 
> Oops...there I go being silly again!


Ahh yes, like the environmental groups listen to logic and reason.

Like the mayor of Montreal and premier of Quebec weren't going to make a huge stink about it.

Like the anti pipeline activists weren't going to make sure the liberals paid the price in Ontario and Quebec, key provinces for trudeau if he wants to get re elected.

Like i said, politically, this was the only logical decision for the PM.

Like i said, Alberta looks like it's going to get 1.8 million more barrels a day in pipeline capacity.

So he made a political decision to shore up support in central Canada while still( potentially) delivering on pipelines.

Compared to what his father, or the present day NDP, that's rather balanced.

He could have found a way to block all the pipelines, played to the BC leftists, and sacrificed votes in Alberta, which is what, 3 or 4 seats?

I think trudeau is exactly in the mushy middle here, CPC would have approved all the pipelines, NDP would have approved none of the pipelines, the LPC have approved of half of the pipelines.


----------



## jollyjacktar (12 Oct 2017)

Until his promises are a reality 100%, he has delivered SFA and has as much tangible substance as a fart, cough or burp.  Take your pick.


----------



## GR66 (12 Oct 2017)

Altair said:
			
		

> Ahh yes, like the environmental groups listen to logic and reason. - the hard core environmentalists are outnumbered by the regular people that want an economy that puts food on the table.
> 
> Like the mayor of Montreal and premier of Quebec weren't going to make a huge stink about it. - They would have...but politics is a game of give and take.  I'm sure there are infrastructure projects that they (and their voters) want that could be used as carrots.
> 
> ...


----------



## Retired AF Guy (12 Oct 2017)

Altair said:
			
		

> Like the mayor of Montreal and premier of Quebec weren't going to make a huge stink about it.



The Mayor of Montreal already made a big stink when he (with provincial approval) flushed eight billion litres of sewage into the St. Lawrence.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (12 Oct 2017)

I think the point was that the majority of people in Quebec and Ontario (particularly Toronto) don't really care about pipelines in any practical way since there's only a minor impact on them directly. Same as I'm sure people in Alberta don't care about the auto industry or the Irving shipyards in Saint John and Halifax.

Making the private sector basically stop work on the energy east pipeline was a short-sighted decision beyond a doubt. It's clear this was done to keep voters in Ontario and Quebec on-line with the LPC. Politically, rural Ontario wasn't voting liberal in any great numbers, nor is Alberta and the east. Voters in urban Ontario and Quebec, who are generally anti-pipeline, do. It's short-sighted but easy math.


----------



## GR66 (12 Oct 2017)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> I think the point was that the majority of people in Quebec and Ontario (particularly Toronto) don't really care about pipelines in any practical way since there's only a minor impact on them directly. Same as I'm sure people in Alberta don't care about the auto industry or the Irving shipyards in Saint John and Halifax.
> 
> Making the private sector basically stop work on the energy east pipeline was a short-sighted decision beyond a doubt. It's clear this was done to keep voters in Ontario and Quebec on-line with the LPC. Politically, rural Ontario wasn't voting liberal in any great numbers, nor is Alberta and the east. Voters in urban Ontario and Quebec, who are generally anti-pipeline, do. It's short-sighted but easy math.



Which is it...voters in Ontario and Quebec don't care about pipelines in any practical way, or they are typically anti-pipeline and the PM is blocking the pipelines to keep their votes?  You can't have it both ways.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (12 Oct 2017)

GR66 said:
			
		

> Which is it...voters in Ontario and Quebec don't care about pipelines in any practical way, or they are typically anti-pipeline and the PM is blocking the pipelines to keep their votes?  You can't have it both ways.



I think that most people in Toronto and urban Ontario don't care about pipelines, per se, but see them negatively. A small portion of environmentalists are anti-pipeline, but the bulk are in the "I think they're bad, but if they dont affect me than I'm neutral" category. That said, I think people in the east, particularly in Quebec care when the pipeline is going through their neighbourhood, which the energy east pipeline was. That was the groundswell opposition in Montreal and other Quebec environs- the pipeline was going through Quebec to make money for Alberta and Saskatchewan and NB. The reality is that people in central Canada will only really care about a pipeline to the extent of changing a vote if it directly impacts them (outside of financial ways which are harder to define).

I think making excessive levies on companies building pipelines (not blocking as you say since there wasn't a block of the pipeline, per se, as the Liberals still ostensibly support it) was more to avoid the headache of dealing with a loud minority in the two largest provinces in confederation than anything else. That's why Keystone XL is great politically- the majority runs through the US so it largely wont concern or upset the 80% of people who dont fall in the far left or far right extremes.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (13 Oct 2017)

In a meeting with a number of First Nations from NE BC, we got word that PNW LNG had decided not to go ahead, they cheered, until I pointed out that Pertonass owns Progress Energy and will continue to frack and drill for NG in the NE and ship it to the US through existing pipelines, so the net effect is that they still suffer the impacts and the FN along the pipeline route and terminal, don't get any of the proposed revenue sharing that was supposed to happen. Plus the BC economy takes a big hit, while the company still gets to extract the resource for less benefit to the Province as a whole. Exactly the same scenario with Nexan and the Aurora LNG project.


----------



## jollyjacktar (13 Oct 2017)

Be careful what you wish for.  I wonder if down the road that both the Mayor or Montreal and the Premier of Quebec will be sucking hind tit with lower equalization payments by Alberta than would have been made with Energy East revenues.  Would serve them both right if it does happen.


----------



## Altair (13 Oct 2017)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Be careful what you wish for.  I wonder if down the road that both the Mayor or Montreal and the Premier of Quebec will be sucking hind tit with lower equalization payments by Alberta than would have been made with Energy East revenues.  Would serve them both right if it does happen.


Quebec isn't in that bad a spot economically right now, their budget is balanced, the debt to GDP ratio is dropping and the economy is growing at the rate of 2.3 percent.

Energy east or not, Quebec might be due for lower equalization at this point.

As for Alberta, energy east or not, their pipeline capacity is probably going to be increased by 1.8 million barrels a day, that's going to help lower the costs of getting their oil to market and as a result help them economically. 

Alberta, for the record, is predicted to have 3 percent GDP growth this year with no new pipelines coming online yet, so it stands to reason when the pipelines do come online the Alberta economy will rebound even more.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (13 Oct 2017)

Altair said:
			
		

> Quebec isn't in that bad a spot economically right now, their budget is balanced, the debt to GDP ratio is dropping and the economy is growing at the rate of 2.3 percent.
> 
> Energy east or not, Quebec might be due for lower equalization at this point.
> 
> ...



For the record, neither pipeline have yet been built. The Keystone XL pipeline only helps move more discount oil into the US market. Net loss for Canada. 

If you knew anything about the current political climate in BC, I would not bet any money that Kinder Morgan ever gets built. Even with a Federal permit. You think this Liberal Government will actually do more than go through the motions when protesters start blocking the right of way and sabotaging construction equipment? When the BC provincial government ties the whole thing up in court until the next provincial election? Really?

As for the 3 percent GDP growth in Alberta this year, much of it is borrowed government money, just papering over the holes. Entirely unsustainable. Private Investment capital is still hard to come by.

Your turn.


----------



## Altair (13 Oct 2017)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> For the record, neither pipeline have yet been built. The Keystone XL pipeline only helps move more discount oil into the US market. Net loss for Canada.


That discount oil is still going to refineries in texas today, only difference is that it's using inefficient and more costly rail. Keystone brings down the costs exporting that oil





> If you knew anything about the current political climate in BC, I would not bet any money that Kinder Morgan ever gets built. Even with a Federal permit. You think this Liberal Government will actually do more than go through the motions when protesters start blocking the right of way and sabotaging construction equipment? When the BC provincial government ties the whole thing up in court until the next provincial election? Really?


 the BC government has no grounds to stop it, the feds will just let the court system do their jobs, and the police do theirs. They wont personally be there, but they will let the process do its thing. We are also unsure about the shelf life of the BC minority government.





> As for the 3 percent GDP growth in Alberta this year, much of it is borrowed government money, just papering over the holes. Entirely unsustainable. Private Investment capital is still hard to come by.
> 
> Your turn.


Alberta isn't rozy by any means, but at the end of the day, until the province does the logical thing and implements a sales tax (what province wouldn't be running a 10 billion dollar deficit if it didn't have a sales tax?) or oil prices rebound to the absurd highs of 2010-2014, or the government claws back every single entitlement given out over the past decade, nothing will solve the multiple issues it's being hit with. Even energy east wouldn't solve the issue. Help, yes, solve, no. 

That all said, if and when pipelines do start coming online, line 3 and keystone for sure, we shall see how much resistance Transmountain runs into, the lower cost of transporting oil to market will help the Alberta economy on a whole. 

I'm not buying the whole gloom and doom for alberta just because energy east isn't going forward, nor am I buying that things would have been golden if it was built.


----------



## Good2Golf (13 Oct 2017)

Altair said:
			
		

> ...the BC government has no grounds to stop it, the feds will just let the court system do their jobs...



:nod:

Precisely!  Just like they did letting the Federal Courts determine the validity of Omar Khadr's lawsuit, and if valid, letting the Court decide how much the award should be.


G2G


----------



## Altair (13 Oct 2017)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> :nod:
> 
> Precisely!  Just like they did letting the Federal Courts determine the validity of Omar Khadr's lawsuit, and if valid, letting the Court decide how much the award should be.
> 
> ...


While I agree that they should have fought it on principal, I am also sadly aware that if (more like when) they lost it would have given the piece of garbage even more money.

The thing here is, they cannot lose on this one, this is a federal jurisdiction. 

When the feds feel that they can win a case, they fight it tooth and nail. Just like they do against veterans and pensions.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (13 Oct 2017)

The BC government can make their lives miserable, because they still need a host of Provincial permits and each one of those will be sent out for FN consultation, which will slow down construction and force Trans-Canada to offer up goodies to them. Then there are civic permits for portions of the pipeline construction and protests, with the delays and policing costs.


----------



## Good2Golf (13 Oct 2017)

The was never a golden egg-laying goose that any government didn't see fit to squeeze the neck of...some don't know when to let go...


----------



## Colin Parkinson (13 Oct 2017)

The best case scenario for the BC NDP, is a vigorous defense against KM and losing. That way they can claim they fought the good fight and they still get the jobs for the Unions and revenue from the shipments. To be honest it's a crappy place for a terminal, they have to go through a lift span that' s old and will also be seeing an increase in grain car traffic from G3. So there will be user conflicts. Bridges in that area have been hit about 3 times previously.  







http://searcharchives.vancouver.ca/span-of-second-narrows-bridge-falling-into-inlet


----------



## Altair (17 Oct 2017)

Colin P said:
			
		

> The BC government can make their lives miserable, because they still need a host of Provincial permits and each one of those will be sent out for FN consultation, which will slow down construction and force Trans-Canada to offer up goodies to them. Then there are civic permits for portions of the pipeline construction and protests, with the delays and policing costs.


I'm sure the BC government is going to do everything in their power to make it difficult, and I'm sure the Federal NDP pick up a ton of votes as a result, but at the end of the day, I have no doubt that pipeline is getting built.

The only way is doesn't is if the federal NDP win the next election.


----------



## jollyjacktar (17 Oct 2017)

I'm sure it won't be built.


----------



## Altair (17 Oct 2017)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I'm sure it won't be built.


The Liberals want it built. The Conservatives want it built.

BC, for all the noise they are going to make, cannot stop it indefinitely. 

Sooner or later it will be built.


----------



## jollyjacktar (17 Oct 2017)

I won't hold my breath for that day to arrive because tomorrow never comes.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (18 Oct 2017)

Altair said:
			
		

> The Liberals want it built. The Conservatives want it built.
> 
> BC, for all the noise they are going to make, cannot stop it indefinitely.
> 
> Sooner or later it will be built.



I am involved deeply in a lot of the projects in BC, nothing, ever is a sure bet.


----------



## larry Strong (18 Oct 2017)

Altair said:
			
		

> The Liberals want it built. The Conservatives want it built.
> 
> BC, for all the noise they are going to make, cannot stop it indefinitely.
> 
> Sooner or later it will be built.



And how many board feet of lumber were harvested from Clayoquot Sound?..........



Cheers
Larry


----------



## Altair (18 Oct 2017)

Larry Strong said:
			
		

> And how many board feet of lumber were harvested from Clayoquot Sound?..........
> 
> 
> 
> ...


price. 

Tea. 

China.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (19 Oct 2017)

The "War in the woods" is an excellent example of social license, one proponent I reviewed conducted a significant amount of expensive studies we told them were not required, purely to "purchase" that social license, pretty much every proponent recognized it as a major factor. Only Ottawa did not comprehend it or the value of early and full consultation with First Nations. BC First Nation framework is utterly different than any other part of the country, fewer treaties, large amount of territory claimed by multiple parties, multiple power blocs in each band competing for control of the resources and benefits. Not to mention that those bands might not agree to be in the same room as each other.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (19 Oct 2017)

Colin P said:
			
		

> The "War in the woods" is an excellent example of social license, one proponent I reviewed conducted a significant amount of expensive studies we told them were not required, purely to "purchase" that social license, pretty much every proponent recognized it as a major factor. Only Ottawa did not comprehend it or the value of early and full consultation with First Nations. BC First Nation framework is utterly different than any other part of the country, fewer treaties, large amount of territory claimed by multiple parties, multiple power blocs in each band competing for control of the resources and benefits. Not to mention that those bands might not agree to be in the same room as each other.



The legacy (and cultural memory) of pre-contact inter-tribal conflict seems (to my relatively untrained eye) to still be rather strong on the West Coast. A perhaps relatively unappreciated issue, outside of BC?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (19 Oct 2017)

I wouldn't think so SKT.

Here in Quebec, the various FN manage to claim Quebec's territory 2 and 1/2 times over between them, and the fights between them on who "owns" what can be pretty nasty, especially in the North between the Innu, Inuits, Cree and Naskapis, where hunting territories are concerned.

Though, to their credit, they just set aside their differences recently and agreed between themselves to a FN deal on joint Caribou herd protection and management because at least one of the main herds that they all depend on for food has suffered an extremely important reduction in size in the last ten years.

I say Kudos to them as this is, to my knowledge, the first time that FN have worked together on management of anything on a "jointly claimed" territory in Canada and without any external government (Canada or Quebec) having to impose it on them.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (19 Oct 2017)

Interesting, our Aboriginal advisors from that region don't seem to report the same problems as ours do, perhaps a better relationship at the Federal level?


----------



## larry Strong (19 Oct 2017)

Altair said:
			
		

> price.
> 
> Tea.
> 
> China.



Yah I know....the Clayoquot was going on while you were just starting to wear short pants........read up on it......

http://www.timescolonist.com/news/local/reaction-to-the-trans-mountain-pipeline-decision-pro-and-con-1.3426719

Construction for Trans Mountain was slated to start September 2017....well they are already 9 months behind due to permit issues

http://www.ctvnews.ca/business/trans-mountain-activity-slowed-by-permits-kinder-morgan-canada-says-1.3638537

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/trans-mountain-kinder-morgan-court-first-nations-1.4316928

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4105721-trans-mountain-expansion-will-likely-scuttled-causing-severe-damage-kinder-morgan


Keep drinking the koolaid bud..........



Cheers
Larry


----------



## PuckChaser (22 Oct 2017)

More and more this is looking like direction from National Revenue minister Diane Lebouthillier to have CRA find low-hanging fruit to tax to artificially reduce the size of the $30B deficit. First income splitting, then employee discounts on burgers, now diabetics aren't being considered for the disability tax credit.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/liberals-accused-of-diabetes-tax-grab-with-apparent-benefit-clawback-1.3643566

Stay tuned for another about-face from the Liberal party on national taxation, while they blame bureaucrats for making the changes. Makes you wonder why PSAC pumped money into the Liberal campaign in 2015 only to be made the scapegoat for terrible fiscal mismanagement.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (23 Oct 2017)

The leadership of PSAC is often delusional, to be fair, CPC was going after their members so the choice for them is always Libs or NDP.


----------



## Loachman (1 Nov 2017)

http://torontosun.com/news/national/morneau-fined-under-conflict-of-interest-act

Morneau pays $200 fine under Conflict of Interest Act

Anthony Furey

Published: November 1, 2017 
Updated: November 1, 2017 3:33 PM EDT 

Federal Finance Minister Bill Morneau has paid a fine under the Conflict of Interest Act.

A notice quietly posted to the ethics commissioner’s website recently details the two sections of the act the embattled senior Liberal minister has been penalized for violating.

Both penalties are related to Morneau’s failure to disclose his directorship in the corporation that owns his French villa and an estimate of its value.

The violation comes with a $200 fine, which the public notice marks as “paid.”

Such fines are not uncommon, with 14 having been issued so far this year to various Liberals. But this latest revelation confirms Morneau has broken provisions of the Conflict of Interest Act. This contrasts with the finance minister’s repeated assertions that he has always been in full compliance with the rules as laid out by ethics commissioner Mary Dawson.

“This was an administrative error and the minister has agreed to pay the administrative penalty,” Daniel Lauzon, spokesman for Morneau, told the Sun on Wednesday. “The property itself has been disclosed, but the legal vehicle through which the property is owned was missed.

“Still, it’s the kind of error we shouldn’t be making, and the minister has and will continue to work with the ethics commissioner to make sure he is in full compliance.”

Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer seized on the news of the public posting of Morneau’s fine. “Canadians deserve much, much better from Justin Trudeau’s out-of-touch Liberals,” Scheer posted to social media. “He must stop behaving as though rules don’t apply to people like him.”
Previous years, under both Liberal and Conservative governments, show a similar volume of fines issued.

Earlier this month, for example, the ethics commissioner’s office posted notice that Yves Comeau, director of communications for the minister of health, paid a $100 fine for “failure to submit a confidential report within 60 days of appointment.”


----------



## jollyjacktar (1 Nov 2017)

However will he afford such a massive fine?

 :sarcasm:


----------



## George Wallace (1 Nov 2017)

The PM decided this year that he would dress up as Superman..........He never got the correct one though.


----------



## Jarnhamar (1 Nov 2017)

So Trudeau dressed up like a white man who saves humanity? Talk about white privilege on so many levels  :crybaby:


----------



## dapaterson (1 Nov 2017)

Actually, he's dressed as an illegal alien who came into the country as an infant.


----------



## Jarnhamar (1 Nov 2017)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Actually, he's dressed as an illegal alien who came into the country as an infant.



Super white privilege AND cultural appropriation.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (1 Nov 2017)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Actually, he's dressed as an illegal alien who came into the country as an infant.



I sure hope his parents didn't lie on his application for citizenship!


----------



## George Wallace (5 Nov 2017)

Interesting read:

https://www.thestar.com/news/paradise-papers/2017/11/05/trudeau-bronfman-kolber-offshore-trust-taxes.html


----------



## SeaKingTacco (5 Nov 2017)

You know, I am not against tax planning.

It is hypocrisy of it all that I cannot stand.


----------



## gryphonv (6 Nov 2017)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/paradise-papers-leak-jean-chretien-madagascar-oil-1.4388740

How convenient pleading ignorance.


----------



## jollyjacktar (6 Nov 2017)

Denis Coderre goes down in flames.  Love it.  Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.  LOL

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/montreal/montreal-mayor-valerie-plante-day-1-1.4388908


----------



## gryphonv (6 Nov 2017)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Denis Coderre goes down in flames.  Love it.  Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.  LOL
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/montreal/montreal-mayor-valerie-plante-day-1-1.4388908



I haven't been following the news from Montreal, but this looks like a great step forward, espically for a city trying to escape from the corruption/mafia image.


----------



## Good2Golf (6 Nov 2017)

“¡Hasta la vista, ba-by!”


----------



## OldSolduer (6 Nov 2017)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Denis Coderre goes down in flames.  Love it.  Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.  LOL
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/montreal/montreal-mayor-valerie-plante-day-1-1.4388908



Dumb as dirt is gone? Good!


----------



## dapaterson (6 Nov 2017)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Denis Coderre goes down in flames.  Love it.  Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.  LOL
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/montreal/montreal-mayor-valerie-plante-day-1-1.4388908



Waiting for his appointment as a Senator in 3... 2... 1...


----------



## FJAG (7 Nov 2017)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> You know, I am not against tax planning.
> 
> It is hypocrisy of it all that I cannot stand.



Tax planning is legal. Tax avoidance is not.

 :cheers:


----------



## ModlrMike (7 Nov 2017)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Tax planning is legal. Tax avoidance is not.
> 
> :cheers:



Tax avoidance, defined as paying the least amount of tax possible, is legal. Tax evasion is not.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (7 Nov 2017)

Yes.  Tax planning is just the term used for tax avoidance in polite society.  :nod:


----------



## FJAG (7 Nov 2017)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Tax avoidance, defined as paying the least amount of tax possible, is legal. Tax evasion is not.



 :facepalm:  Sometimes I think that I should just stay in bed longer. Yes. I meant to say tax "evasion" is illegal. Tax avoidance is just fine and is the legitimate aim of tax planning. Sigh.

Where's the "mea culpa" smiley when you really need it.

 :cheers:


----------



## Jarnhamar (8 Nov 2017)

I just read the government is spending half a billion dollars on Canada 150 celebrations this year

As a tax paper I gotta say how proud I am of that. 

Is it too much to hope that some of the merchandise includes pink vagina 150 toques?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (8 Nov 2017)

Well, at least they didn't spend one full billion dollars on celebrating their 375th anniversary, like a City that shall remain nameless ... but who just had a change of Mayor.  Just saying!


----------



## Rifleman62 (14 Nov 2017)

See after the CBC article for the link "mandate tracker"


http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberals-mandate-promises-deliverology-analysis-wherry-1.4400036

*Trudeau's Liberals check their to-do list: 67 promises down, more than 200 still to go* - Aaron Wherry - CBC News - Nov 14, 2017 
_Newly launched government web site keeps track of promises kept, broken and 'modified'_

Justin Trudeau's Liberals, elevated to power on promises to do all sorts of things and awash in enthusiasm for data and evidence, are proposing now to account for what they've been doing with their time in office: to quantify both their own ability to keep a promise and track whether keeping those promises is contributing to measurable improvements in the welfare of the country.

Now it is down to how well they keep score on themselves.

First, this morning, the Liberals are launching a mandate tracker: an online accounting of the government's progress, or lack thereof, on each and every commitment specified in the mandate letters issued by the prime minister to each cabinet minister.

By the government's own count — CBC News was given an early look at the website — there were a total of 364 commitments specified in those letters.

At the midway point of its term, the government believes it has fulfilled 66 of those promises. (Another commitment to resettle 25,000 Syrian refugees is considered "completed" but "modified" because that mark was not reached until February 2016, instead of the promised deadline of Dec. 31, 2015.)

Three commitments are listed as "not being pursued." These include, most infamously, the promise of electoral reform, but also promises to remove the GST from new capital investments in affordable rental housing and provide a 12-month break on employment insurance premiums for companies that hire young workers,.

The majority of commitments are listed as "underway." Of those, 218 are listed as "on track," while 13 are described as "underway with challenges." The promise to balance the federal budget by 2019 is considered an example of the latter — the challenge apparently being that it's almost definitely not going to happen.

The website will be updated regularly over the next two years.

Measuring the mandate

The Trudeau government's own tally can be compared with a count maintained by researchers at Laval University. Based on 353 promises identified in the last Liberal election platform, those researchers gives the Liberals credit for keeping 110 commitments so far and breaking 12.

But beneath those numbers, there will be room for debate. The site provides some explanation for each commitment, and how well the government has accounted for itself should be closely parsed.

When Jean Chretien's Liberals issued a 36-month progress report in 1996, they claimed to have fulfilled 78 per cent of their promises. But they also credited themselves with beginning to both replace the GST and wind down what was then known as the department of Indian Affairs — both the department and the tax, you might notice, are still with us.

Any government should be happy to list off its good deeds. And, depending on how many more items the government is able to complete between now and 2019, much might depend on how much progress the Liberals are able to demonstrate on those commitments not quite fulfilled.

But the mandate tracker is also just the first part of an effort to quantify the government's efforts.

'Deliverology' goes public

In a few weeks, a second report will attempt to link the government's priorities and actions with metrics that track real-world progress and change.

Since coming to office in the fall of 2015, the Liberals have dwelled on a school of thought known as "deliverology" — an approach, developed by an advisor to Tony Blair's Labour government in the United Kingdom, that aims to prioritize the delivery of policy and the measuring of results.

"A lot of energy is placed on announcements — oh, we're investing $20 million in this project. And the follow-up a year later or two years later — to say, well, X number of people have had their lives affected positively by that investment — isn't always part of the operations or philosophies of government," Justin Trudeau said in May 2016, in response to a question about the government's management philosophy.

In theory, that would be a useful approach.

A "results and delivery" unit has been established in the Privy Council Office and each government department now has a chief results and delivery officer, as well as a chief data officer.

With that second report, "deliverology" will go public. Data might be presented on things like child poverty, housing, retirement security, access to broadband internet or boil-water advisories on Indigenous communities.

"The goal is to put as much information out there and data out there as possible, with clarity around goals," said a senior government official who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Doing the math on more data

At best, this might lead to a better discussion about what government does, what issues it is trying to address and what policies make a difference.

At worst, new reporting could merely give the government new ways to claim success.

Much will depend on what metrics the government chooses to focus on, whether it can reasonably connect government activity with changes in social outcomes, and whether the government is willing to admit failure.

If it were easy or risk-free for the federal government to rigorously report on the actual impacts of its actions, someone probably would have done it by now.

At the very least, the Liberals seem to have realized there are significant gaps in what the government knows — the last federal budget committed more than $400 million to a half dozen data initiatives. Even still, it could take years to determine whether a policy made an impact.

In an interview, Kevin Page and Sahir Khan, formerly of the parliamentary budget office and now leading the Institute of Fiscal Studies at the University of Ottawa, say measuring performance will matter most if it is built into every step of the system: as part of determining how resources are allocated, how public servants are judged and how MPs vote on government spending.

And Page says it should be applied to all spending, not just the shiniest objects.

If you are a conservative who believes in limited government, there is less reason to worry about demonstrating that the government can actively deliver meaningful improvements to society.

But a government that pledges to spend more and involve itself in more areas has some incentive to show that all that money and activity has amounted to substantive change. 

Ultimately, that is what the Liberals are contending with: not only a need to show that they can be trusted to do what they said they would do, but that their vision of government is supported by the evidence.



https://www.canada.ca/en/privy-council/campaigns/mandate-tracker-results-canadians.html?utm_campaign=not-applicable&utm_medium=vanity-url&utm_source=canada-ca_results

*Mandate Letter Tracker: Delivering results for Canadians*	(If you get an Ajax error @ link above, Google this)

Search "Veterans" under the green boxes and this is the result: https://www.canada.ca/en/privy-council/campaigns/mandate-tracker-results-canadians.html?utm_campaign=not-applicable&utm_medium=vanity-url&utm_source=canada-ca_results

One interesting item is:



> Help injured Veterans by re-establishing lifelong pensions and insuring that they all have access to financial advice and support. Status: Underway - on track
> 
> Result Anticipated: Injured veterans have the option of taking a life-long pension, and are provided financial advice and support to assist them in determining the form of compensation that works best for them and their families.



IMHO, above, is NOT the Liberal election promise.


----------



## Jarnhamar (18 Nov 2017)

Travel to Syria, join ISIS, murder and rape people then come back to Canada and don't face any disciplinary action or jail. 



> So, while other countries are working to make sure that ISIS fighters aren’t even alive to return, Trudeau is not only apparently taking zero steps to eliminate them, but is offering “support” when they return.




I wonder if that support includes money. 


https://www.spencerfernando.com/2017/11/17/insanity-trudeau-government-giving-reintegration-support-former-isis-fighters-instead-arresting-eliminating/


----------



## jollyjacktar (18 Nov 2017)

Yup, we're led by pussies.


----------



## ModlrMike (18 Nov 2017)

We don't need, nor dare I say want these people back in Canada. They made their choice to ally with an organization bent on destroying our way of life. Now they get to live with the result of that choice. F*%$ 'em I say!


----------



## Jarnhamar (19 Nov 2017)

I'm sure these sickos who took part in real life Saw-movie style tortures will be upstanding members of our society again. 




> Sajjan told reporters that Canada will deal with threats posed by the Islamic State, whether they come from afar or closer to home.
> 
> He said the military and other security agencies are taking measures to ensure that Canadians who fight with the Islamic State pose no threat if they return to Canada, while abiding by international law.
> 
> ...



http://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/politics/sajjan-trumpets-canada-s-increased-role-on-the-geopolitical-stage-1.3682666


----------



## jollyjacktar (19 Nov 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I'm sure these sickos who took part in real like Saw-movie style tortures will be upstanding members of our society again.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/politics/sajjan-trumpets-canada-s-increased-role-on-the-geopolitical-stage-1.3682666



Wouldn't you with an extra $10.5M!  That seems to be the going Liberal rate.


----------



## Jarnhamar (23 Nov 2017)

Ralph Goodale highlights how we're going to deal with ISIS returnees.



> "What we're doing with the analysis that we've conducted is, in fact, build a series of * podcasts and counter-narratives through art-based pedagogy and poetry* ..."



Some Shakespeare outta work lol


----------



## jollyjacktar (23 Nov 2017)

What a bunch of fucking knobs.   :facepalm:


----------



## McG (23 Nov 2017)

Well, at least we know he is not closely monitoring the internet where, painfully on display, is the remarkable ability of people to not see facts, arguments, narratives, & messaging that are inconsistent with preconceived opinions ... else he might have picked a different recourse.


----------



## larry Strong (23 Nov 2017)

Except their count is 2 years old.....they have no clue to how many are back I would wager..........

http://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/furey-liberals-count-of-60-canadian-jihadists-is-a-two-year-old-number



> *FUREY: Liberals' count of 60 Canadian jihadists is a two-year-old number*
> 
> The terrorist situation in Iraq and Syria is a continually evolving phenomenon. So why is the Liberal government using two-year-old data about terrorists and trying to pass it off as current?
> 
> ...




Cheers
Larry


----------



## Jarnhamar (23 Nov 2017)

I wonder what kind of poems they'll learn.  Maybe Haiku's?

terrorists come home
a raging, feral, creature
liberals slap backs


----------



## FJAG (24 Nov 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I wonder what kind of poems they'll learn.  Maybe Haiku's?
> 
> terrorists come home
> a raging, feral, creature
> liberals slap backs



 :rofl:

 :cheers:


----------



## jollyjacktar (24 Nov 2017)

Or

liberals pay bucks


----------



## Jarnhamar (24 Nov 2017)

Motivating captivating articulate responses to hard questions by our PM.

https://youtu.be/uQ_2vrPG8TU


----------



## jollyjacktar (24 Nov 2017)

The only tools l see are the ones sitting and speaking in that video.


----------



## ModlrMike (25 Nov 2017)

No better example of why they call it Question Period instead of Answer Period.  :facepalm:


----------



## Jarnhamar (25 Nov 2017)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> No better example of why they call it Question Period instead of Answer Period.  :facepalm:



Yup. If the guy can memorize quantum computer theory from a Wikipedia page and regurgitate it to a reporter (who didn't even ask about it) the least he can do is memorize the poetry policy and not read a canned response from a piece of paper.  
What a joke. The stupid poetry & reintegration shit is volunteer too  :

I'm waiting for those murderers to show up at the hospital claiming PTSD and go for some kind of disability.


----------



## Gunner98 (25 Nov 2017)

I have always found it interesting that Question Period is like a badly rehearsed SNL sketch where the participants have to read from prepared notes and not even the feeble facade of teleprompters.  It would be much more convincing if this was a spontaneous Q&A in which the participants had to know what they were talking about and not reading possibly for the first time something their staffers wrote.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (27 Nov 2017)

Using a scenario/Briefing note covering a highly complex issue that is 20 years in the making, summed up by people that don't have a clue about the issue into 3 pages at most. What could possibly go wrong....


----------



## ballz (28 Nov 2017)

I gotta say though, I think that's the first time I've seen a Prime Minister, questioned by the Opposition leader, actually stand up with a piece of paper in the House of Commons and blatantly read a pre-written answer. Something about that seems absolutely perverse to me, but since it's not making more news maybe every PM has done it and I just never saw it?


----------



## Good2Golf (28 Nov 2017)

Folks, QP is entirely scripted.  The opposition and other parties get X questions to ask, and they are written out and provided to the government days before QP itself.  The only thing that goes unscripted is the follow-up portion of the question.

Thus why for me, QP is... op:

G2G


----------



## Colin Parkinson (28 Nov 2017)

Parliament is political theater, the real work takes place in committees and they can be like watching paint dry.


----------



## Journeyman (28 Nov 2017)

> ....first time I've seen a Prime Minister....blatantly read a pre-written answer.


When reading, is his every third word still "uh"?   ;D


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (28 Nov 2017)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Folks, QP is entirely scripted.  The opposition and other parties get X questions to ask, and they are written out and provided to the government days before QP itself.  The only thing that goes unscripted is the follow-up portion of the question.
> 
> Thus why for me, QP is... op:
> 
> G2G



Actually incorrect, G2G.

In Canada, the Question Period is unscripted and no questions are tabled in advance. However, since every body has a pretty reasonable idea of what the questions will likely touch on, the Government participants are briefed in advance on the "talking points" by subject expected to be raised and/or for those they do properly answer (there are some, even though not much) get briefs from their officials in preparation for QP.  

There is a second method to ask questions of the Government that is Written Question, but those are answered in the daily order of business process, not during Question Period.

It's all in here, from the House of Commons own site:

http://www.ourcommons.ca/procedure-book-livre/Document.aspx?sbdid=3F818022-AD6E-411C-B495-EC000CF32935&sbpidx=1&Language=E&Mode=1


----------



## a_majoor (28 Nov 2017)

Moving to immigration, another hot button topic, Margaret Wente has some observations that most people would prefer to ignore. But we either talk about it sensibly now, or have a screaming match (followed by some even more unpleasant events) later:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/the-talk-canada-needs-are-we-importing-inequality/article37098625/



> *The talk Canada needs: Are we importing inequality?*
> Margaret Wente
> 4 hours ago
> November 28, 2017
> ...


----------



## Good2Golf (28 Nov 2017)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Actually incorrect, G2G.
> 
> In Canada, the Question Period is unscripted and no questions are tabled in advance. However, since every body has a pretty reasonable idea of what the questions will likely touch on, the Government participants are briefed in advance on the "talking points" by subject expected to be raised and/or for those they do properly answer (there are some, even though not much) get briefs from their officials in preparation for QP.
> 
> ...



Interesting OGBD. 

If the House were, by its exemplary conduct, to actually follow written on the website (Principles and Guidelines for Oral Questions), then I might take the information provided as presented.  Perhaps you have greater faith than I, that QP is administered with 100% compliance to the information in the website.  Having seen pre-prepared QP questions from an opposition received by a Ministry prior to the date of the QP in question, I am less certain of rigidity to the aforementioned rules/procedures/traditions/trends.

Regards
G2G


----------



## dapaterson (28 Nov 2017)

We need to differentiate between opposition and government questions.  Thus, if a government member asks a Q, you can be pretty certain that the answer will be scripted well in advance.

For opposition questions, the Government is aware of what's in the news, and prepares accordingly, asking departments to prepare replies.  Hence why, often, the answer is not exactly for the question asked- but it's the answer that was prepared for the minister.


----------



## Good2Golf (28 Nov 2017)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> We need to differentiate between opposition and government questions.  Thus, if a government member asks a Q, you can be pretty certain that the answer will be scripted well in advance.
> 
> For opposition questions, the Government is aware of what's in the news, and prepares accordingly, asking departments to prepare replies.  Hence why, often, the answer is not exactly for the question asked- but it's the answer that was prepared for the minister.



Was definitely an opposition question, not one of those hokey, colleague-to-colleague "Will the Honourable member please inform us as to why this [insert description] project was such a success?" clap rap. 

Regards
G2G


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (28 Nov 2017)

Perhaps, G2G. But look at the section I quoted from the Commons rules: There is a process that exists for Written Questions to the Government. 

You may note that the process means that the actual written question, delivered at least 48 hours before hand appears on the regular order of business papers, and that the answer is also provided in writing on the order papers. The answer, when the Commons get to that point on the order, is then also supposed to be read into the record, though by tradition, the parties agree that the written answer in the paper is considered read at the mere request of the minister responsible for that answer. All this, however, takes place during the regular order work of the Commons, not during "Question Period", which remains for oral questions - spur of the moment situations.


----------



## Rifleman62 (30 Nov 2017)

https://globalnews.ca/news/3889576/bill-morneaus-father-sold-200k-shares-capital-gains-tax/

*Bill Morneau’s father (also) sold 200K shares in family company days before tax changes announced* - David Akin - 30 Nov 17

As Finance Minister Bill Morneau is pressed in the House of Commons for details on the circumstances of the sale of shares he held in his family business, Morneau Shepell Inc., Global News has analyzed insider trading reports of the company and discovered that Morneau’s father sold a significant number of shares days before his son announced a major tax policy change.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (30 Nov 2017)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> https://globalnews.ca/news/3889576/bill-morneaus-father-sold-200k-shares-capital-gains-tax/
> 
> *Bill Morneau’s father (also) sold 200K shares in family company days before tax changes announced* - David Akin - 30 Nov 17
> 
> As Finance Minister Bill Morneau is pressed in the House of Commons for details on the circumstances of the sale of shares he held in his family business, Morneau Shepell Inc., Global News has analyzed insider trading reports of the company and discovered that Morneau’s father sold a significant number of shares days before his son announced a major tax policy change that was a significant commitment in the Liberal platform, and a surprise to no one,.



Nothing to see here.  Move along.


----------



## jollyjacktar (30 Nov 2017)

Be that as it may, the optics are shitty nonetheless.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (30 Nov 2017)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Be that as it may, the optics are shitty nonetheless.



One man's optics is another man's coincidence......or conspiracy theory.

I am happy to rely on the more reasonable approach of balance of probabilities.


----------



## jollyjacktar (30 Nov 2017)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> One man's optics is another man's coincidence......or conspiracy theory.
> 
> I am happy to rely on the more reasonable approach of balance of probabilities.



It's a free country mate, fill your boots however you wish to.


----------



## Rifleman62 (30 Nov 2017)

> Nothing to see here.  Move along.


 Where have I heard that before?


----------



## PPCLI Guy (30 Nov 2017)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> It's a free country mate, fill your boots however you wish to.



Thank you for the license to view events through a non-filtered lens.

Much appreciated - now I can go about my business as an informed voter


----------



## jollyjacktar (30 Nov 2017)

Whatever


----------



## PPCLI Guy (30 Nov 2017)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> It's a free country mate, fill your boots however you wish to.





			
				jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Whatever



Thanks for your contribution to the discussion.  Very enlightening.


----------



## jollyjacktar (30 Nov 2017)

It takes two to tango.  Perhaps while you've been cantering around the arena on your high horse it escaped your attention that l have not said the Hon. Minister has been up to any shenanigans.  In fact l conceded your point he is a Stand up guy.  I merely said the optics were shitty.  If you deem to be willfully blind to the thought that it wouldn't appear cool with folks, well as l said.  It's a free country.  And hey,  thanks for the equestrian show, they're always great to watch.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (30 Nov 2017)

You do understand that I may have been leveraging your original comment in order to further the discussion, right?  That it wasn't about you?

Full disclosure - I hate the phrase " whatever", and always rise to its fatuousness.


----------



## jollyjacktar (30 Nov 2017)

Well, apparently l failed to meet with your expectations in that regard.  You're not the first person I've disappointed.  C'est la vie.  

Please, "further on" without me in this particular subject of Ministers and Stocks.


----------



## Lumber (1 Dec 2017)

op:


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (1 Dec 2017)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> It takes two to tango.  Perhaps while you've been cantering around the arena on your high horse it escaped your attention that l have not said the Hon. Minister has been up to any shenanigans.  In fact l conceded your point he is a Stand up guy.  I merely said the optics were shitty.  If you deem to be willfully blind to the thought that it wouldn't appear cool with folks, well as l said.  It's a free country.  And hey,  thanks for the equestrian show, they're always great to watch.



If the act was just but the "optics appear bad" than is the fault with the person who did nothing wrong or the one who doesn't understand the process well enough to understand it? I dont see any reason why someone who did nothing wrong would need to justify themselves to someone who doesn't understand the issue well enough to see that.


----------



## jollyjacktar (1 Dec 2017)

Ok.  He could have sold his shares at any time.  Before or afterwards.  If he had sold his shares well in advance (months or how's about this, when he became Finance Minister) of any changes that might affect their value, there would be no possible stink eye.  He was already under a cloud with the "blind trust" optics of earlier this summer.  To add fuel to the fire, his father up and sells right before the changes came into effect.

Don't misunderstand me as some have.  I'm not saying he did anything wrong.  I don't know if he did or he did not.  And he may very well have done so but neither you nor l know the full story.  

But, he did sail a little too close to the wind or they wouldn't have any ammo to do the evil Family Guy monkey imitation and point at him from the stairs.

His optics are already tarnished by the blind trust kerfuffel.  Lastly, he is not a private citzen anymore he is a Minister of the Crown.  He needs to appear whiter than white, cleaner than clean by virtue of his position.  Being a wealthy individual, some may say even privileged as well, adds to his burden of proof of being so far above board he'll look like he's levitating.  And that is why he needs to justify himself to those people who are apparently too thick to understand all the big words involved.

I'm sorry but l can't be clearer than that and l do apologize if it's not so to you BG45 or others...


----------



## McG (1 Dec 2017)

I have been on several government ethics classes that delivered the message “perception is reality, and so it is every employees responsibility to avoid anything that might create the preception of impropriety.” Is this one of those standards that applies to the plebes but not to the ministers?


----------



## Rifleman62 (2 Dec 2017)

In support of jollyjacktar, in agreement with MCG and somewhat to confirm PPCLI GUY "Nothing to see here.  Move along." (which I disagree with), below is a fair article from CBC.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/morneau-share-sale-opinion-1.4427358

OPINION
*There's zero proof of Morneau's nefariousness. If only the minister still had his credibility* - Robyn Urback - 1 Dec 17

A Senate page could've wet his or her pants on the floor of the House of Commons Thursday, and no one would have noticed.

Amid the routine feckless shouting and heckling, the Speaker of the House had to remind the prime minister to refrain from calling other members liars, before ejecting Conservative MP Blake Richards, who refused to settle down.

About 24 hours earlier, Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer called on Finance Minister Bill Morneau to resign, and 24 hours before that, Morneau threatened to sue members of the Opposition for their not-so-subtle insinuations that he engaged in insider trading with regards to his involvement with Morneau Shepell — the company for which Morneau had previously served as executive chair and from which he did not divest after becoming finance minister, even though everyone thought he did. The Aristocrats!

Tax changes and a price drop

To be clear: there is zero actual evidence that Morneau engaged in insider trading. None.

What the Conservatives have done is latch onto a couple of major unloads of Morneau Shepell shares, which happened days before the Liberal government announced tax changes in 2015, which may or may not have caused Morneau Shepell's price to drop.

To buy the Conservatives' version of events, we'd have to believe that the drop was a consequence of the announcement — for which there is no evidence — and that Morneau had anticipated that result and thus sold off and/or advised his friends and family to dump their shares. For which there is no evidence.

Morneau at centre of fiery debate in Commons
Morneau tries to divest himself of a controversy
The tax changes tabled in the House of Dec. 7, 2015 were hardly a surprise: there was a new 33 per cent income tax rate for high earners and a cut for the middle class. The change, which was slated to take effect the following year, might have compelled some high earners to realize their gains in 2015 to avoid the new bracket, as many financial advisers were advising at the time. Or it might not have. We don't know.

What has the Conservatives squawking to the point of ejection from the House are a couple of conveniently timed sales: someone sold 680,000 company shares on Nov. 30, 2015, a week before the tabled changes. Morneau will not confirm or deny whether that "someone" was him, even though his office told the National Post back in October that the minister sold 680,000 shares after taking office.

A paternal connection

Then on Thursday, Global News reported that Morneau's father sold 100,000 shares on Nov. 23, 2015 and another 100,000 shares on Dec. 1 that year. The implication is that Morneau told his dad of the government's upcoming announcement (which was pretty much written in the Liberals' campaign platform, but never mind), and that his dad sold a bunch of shares in anticipation.

But again, to believe that something nefarious was going on here would be to assume that Morneau knew that his announcement would see that share price drop, and to also accept that the announcement caused the share price to drop, meaning that it wasn't a result of a myriad of other factors. For the record: Morneau denies that he discussed the government's tax changes with his father. This might all look very suspect, but we don't have hard evidence just yet.

All of this said — none of this matters.

*Benefit of the doubt went out the window the day Canadians learned that Bill Morneau still owned millions of dollars worth of shares in Canada's largest human resources firm at the time he controlled the government's purse strings.

His subsequent refusal to answer very legitimate questions about why he failed to correct the record on whether had put his shares in a blind trust, and initial dodges regarding whether he recused himself on a bill that could've helped his family firm's bottom line, have only further eroded his credibility.*

The Conservatives are making some pretty serious allegations here with very little actual evidence. Fortunately for them, the finance minister isn't in the best of standings. Morneau could venture down a path he's been avoiding for the last several weeks and offer a real, unscripted, thorough explanation. Then again, it might already be too late.


----------



## PuckChaser (2 Dec 2017)

There's no proof because there's been no investigation. There's likely enough circumstantial evidence to start that investigation, however. The timing for everything is just to convenient, especially with the non - committal answers and threats of lawsuit.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (2 Dec 2017)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> There's no proof because there's been no investigation. There's likely enough circumstantial evidence to start that investigation, however. The timing for everything is just to convenient, especially with the non - committal answers and threats of lawsuit.



Unless the threat of a lawsuit is because if the accusation is untrue, it is slanderous....


----------



## Jarnhamar (2 Dec 2017)

If the company was private vice public then it could be consider insider trading, no?


----------



## PPCLI Guy (2 Dec 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> If the company was private vice public then it could be consider insider trading, no?



Lord knows I'm not a lawyer, but I think insider trading suggests a piece of information that no one else knows....vice say, a major platform in a political campaign


----------



## PuckChaser (2 Dec 2017)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Lord knows I'm not a lawyer, but I think insider trading suggests a piece of information that no one else knows....vice say, a major platform in a political campaign


However the exact timing of an announcement of a specific piece of market - changing platform promise could be. As the Liberals have shown with their own promise tracker, you can't trust anything said in an election period to not end up something "not being pursued". 

The platform promise is a red herring, intentions never equal actions.


----------



## Altair (2 Dec 2017)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Lord knows I'm not a lawyer, but I think insider trading suggests a piece of information that no one else knows....vice say, a major platform in a political campaign


They said it would take effect on January 1st and he sold the shares between the announcement and January 1st. 

On top of that,  which the shares did tumble that day,  so did the entire market. 

On top of that,  the shares surged since the sale.  So... Horrible insider trading,  he would have made more money holding on to them. 

Still nice to see the CPC act like dicks though.


----------



## PuckChaser (2 Dec 2017)

Altair said:
			
		

> They said it would take effect on January 1st and he sold the shares between the announcement and January 1st.
> 
> On top of that,  which the shares did tumble that day,  so did the entire market.
> 
> On top of that,  the shares surged since the sale.  So... Horrible insider trading,  he would have made more money holding on to them.



Wrong. Shares were sold before and after announcement. It also doesn't matter that the whole market went down, that's usually the effect of a major tax increase on the people who hold a lot of market share. 

https://globalnews.ca/news/3883889/finance-minister-sold-morneau-shepell-stock/

The second part is a red herring and applies 20/20 hindsight.  No one knew the shares would surge.


----------



## YZT580 (2 Dec 2017)

i WONDER IF HE BOUGHT BACK IN AFTER THE MARKET TURNED?


----------



## ModlrMike (2 Dec 2017)

Altair said:
			
		

> Still nice to see the CPC act like dicks though.



If you think things would be any different were the shoe on the other foot, you're delusional.


----------



## Brad Sallows (3 Dec 2017)

Share prices are public information.  If you want, you can look at the share values over the last few months and decide for yourself if anyone was hanging on until the last possible (known) moment in order to take advantage of continuing increases in share price.


----------



## FJAG (6 Dec 2017)

It's articles like this which has me, on a balance, quite like a lot of Blatchford's stuff:



> *Christie Blatchford: Tearful Liberal MP should accept James Bezan's fifth apology and move on
> 
> James Bezan was entitled to assume that he was dealing with an adult who had a sense of proportion, if not a sense of humour. He was grossly mistaken*
> 
> ...



http://nationalpost.com/opinion/christie-blatchford-tearful-liberal-mp-should-accept-james-bezans-fifth-apology-and-move-on

 :cheers:


----------



## Colin Parkinson (6 Dec 2017)

That article had to be written by a woman, a man doing so would be attacked. Christe has already been condemned by the SJW's as "Un-right thinker" and therefore she has little to lose by pointing out the sequence of events and put it into context.


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Dec 2017)

FJAG said:
			
		

> It's articles like this which has me, on a balance, quite like a lot of Blatchford's stuff:
> 
> http://nationalpost.com/opinion/christie-blatchford-tearful-liberal-mp-should-accept-james-bezans-fifth-apology-and-move-on
> 
> :cheers:




This is just (attempted) channel changing ~ after the _Bungle in Beijing_ and, now, Minister Kent Hehr's comments the PMO must be desperate to talk about something, almost anything else ... in light of the ongoing crusade against almost anything even remotely sexual it _might_ be a good political tactic, but i suspect it will not work.


----------



## a_majoor (6 Dec 2017)

Given the Libs seem to copy what the Democrats do in the United States, this could be an opening shot to try to smear, discredit and otherwise defang the Conservative party MP's and the Party brand as a whole using the "sexual harassment" card. Considering how wildly this has backfired on the Dems and Democrat party supporters in the United States, they might want to reconsider if this is the road they want to go down.


----------



## YZT580 (6 Dec 2017)

The greatest potential tragedy will be when someone has a legitimate grievance and are ignored simply because thinking people will have become immured to the constant complaints.


----------



## jollyjacktar (6 Dec 2017)

Yes, the politician/snowflake who cried wolf.


----------



## Altair (6 Dec 2017)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> This is just (attempted) channel changing ~ after the _Bungle in Beijing_ and, now, Minister Kent Hehr's comments the PMO must be desperate to talk about something, almost anything else ... in light of the ongoing crusade against almost anything even remotely sexual it _might_ be a good political tactic, but i suspect it will not work.


wasn't it bezan who brought this up in the first place?


----------



## ModlrMike (7 Dec 2017)

Altair said:
			
		

> wasn't it bezan who brought this up in the first place?



So he did the wrong thing, and then the right thing (five times), but somehow he's still wrong?


----------



## Altair (7 Dec 2017)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> So he did the wrong thing, and then the right thing (five times), but somehow he's still wrong?


 not my point. 

My point is that its hardly a liberal attempt at channel changing when it was the conservative member who brought it up.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (7 Dec 2017)

Perhaps you should re-read the various articles on the topic or review the on-air reports from news stations: The only reason, the Conservative member brought it up - at this time and first in the Commons - is because he got wind of the fact that the Liberal member was about to out it herself, first, to try and embarrass the Conservative party with it in the context of the current #MeToo movement.

As a result of this good strategy by the Conservative member, combined with the feebleness of the actual event - especially in relation to the alleged effects on her life that are so grossly out of proportion to the event - she is being called out for the whiner that she is.

That's it. Everybody: Move on! Nothing to see! Let's keep #MeToo for the truly inappropriate sexual conduct of some men (and women in position of power, BTW) towards women and other men, sometimes.


----------



## PuckChaser (7 Dec 2017)

Tory MP makes flippant joke about a threesome, Liberal MP tries to have him tarred and feathered.

Liberal MP actually harasses someone, then tries to pay her off to keep quiet and the story disappears. https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/08/29/liberal-mp-offered-woman-100k-to-keep-quiet-about-sexual-harassment-claim-father-alleges.html

I guess #MeToo only works when you're trying to score political points.


----------



## Jarnhamar (8 Dec 2017)

> Trudeau Liberals Vote AGAINST Motion Calling For ISIS Fighters To Be Prosecuted




https://www.spencerfernando.com/2017/12/05/disturbing-trudeau-liberals-vote-motion-calling-isis-fighters-prosecuted/


----------



## Colin Parkinson (8 Dec 2017)

A terror related attack before the next election and the Liberals will regret this.


----------



## jollyjacktar (8 Dec 2017)

I'd say we'd all regret this with the exception of the apologists amongst us.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (12 Dec 2017)

The NDP government in BC just approved the continuation of the Site C dam project. Started under the Liberals with a significant amount of progress, it's was very likely they were going to say yes to it, but it will cost them. The Green party is handing them rope to hang themselves with in regards to the environmentally friendly voter. The Green party will use this in the next election to harvest voters who felt betrayed by them. It's likely the NDP will ensure certain bones are thrown to the First Nations and the Labour Unions. http://vancouversun.com/news/politics/ndp-government-decides-to-continue-construction-on-site-c-dam


----------



## jollyjacktar (12 Dec 2017)

I was hoping the Liberals were going to lose ground yesterday with the by-elections, not gain ground.  Sigh....


----------



## Colin Parkinson (12 Dec 2017)

Well hopefully the Conservatives will take stock of why they didn't do as well as hoped and fix those issues.


----------



## jollyjacktar (12 Dec 2017)

Good luck to them, they seem to be dysfunctional as well.  Both flavours are  :turkey:


----------



## Jarnhamar (12 Dec 2017)

Got a hi-larious email from the Conservatives



> Jarnhamar  —
> We are almost ready to close the books on the Erin O’Toole leadership campaign, with just a small debt left from the race, and we greatly appreciate the support you have given us during this time.
> 
> Erin ran a great campaign, thanks to your support, and despite entering the race late finished in a very strong position.
> ...



You mean I can still donate money to the guy who I supported and quit, who's supporting someone I never heard of before who brags about "being a feminist too"?

Let me just send a blank check and have them go ahead and get rid of that little debt lol


----------



## ballz (12 Dec 2017)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Well hopefully the Conservatives will take stock of why they didn't do as well as hoped and fix those issues.



Doesn't look like it... https://globalnews.ca/news/3884108/tories-marijuana-bill-c-45-senate/

The Conservatives are positioning themselves pretty well as the adversary of what Canadians want on this one... they will take a big political hit for it.


----------



## jollyjacktar (12 Dec 2017)

If the Cons want to step on their junk with golf shoes, then they'll reap the whirlwind in 2019.  Scheer lunacy, l guess.  Ah well, I'm not warming up to him anyhow.

Sigh...... 4 more years of selfies, maybe.   :not-again:


----------



## FSTO (12 Dec 2017)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I was hoping the Liberals were going to lose ground yesterday with the by-elections, not gain ground.  Sigh....


I have come to the sad realization that this will be a two term government and we will have to live with the results of these (mainly) moronic decisions as it pertain to defence for years to come.


----------



## FJAG (12 Dec 2017)

FSTO said:
			
		

> I have come to the sad realization that this will be a two term government and we will have to live with the results of these (mainly) moronic decisions as it pertain to defence for years to come.



Ditto.   :brickwall:

 :cheers:


----------



## suffolkowner (12 Dec 2017)

a resurgent NDP might help to drag the Liberals down into minority status


----------



## ModlrMike (12 Dec 2017)

If you look at the results closely, you can see that the Liberals picked up NDP support rather than anything else. If this portends the future, and it may not, then the NDP has a significant uphill battle before them. Of course, it could just as easily represent name recognition on the behalf of the candidates.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (13 Dec 2017)

Here the Liberal candidate was local and focused on local issues. At the end of the day it's the local voters that elect you and how well they are served is what keeps you elected. The CPC forgot that lesson.


----------



## Journeyman (13 Dec 2017)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> ...n the NDP has a significant uphill battle before them....


Probably not helped by their leader campaigning in the wrong riding.   _~d'oh~_     :facepalm:


----------



## Altair (13 Dec 2017)

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> a resurgent NDP might help to drag the Liberals down into minority status


they are going to need to really surge outside of quebec,  because they are a spent force inside la belle province


----------



## Pencil Tech (14 Dec 2017)

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> a resurgent NDP might help to drag the Liberals down into minority status



What's the opposite of insurgent?


----------



## Gunner98 (14 Dec 2017)

Pencil Tech said:
			
		

> What's the opposite of insurgent?



Loyal(ist) (according to the dictionary).


----------



## a_majoor (19 Dec 2017)

The struggle against free speech in Canada continues. Lindsay Shepherd was subjected to a "struggle session" at Laurier University for showing a short video clip in class based on alleged "student complaints". It turns out there were never any complaints, and the "Red Guard", Nathan Rambukkana simply made it up out of whole cloth.

The fallout is an "investigation" which is not being released to the public, a statement which does not fully clear Lindsay Shepherd nor condemn the actions of the Red Guards who caused this and the striking of a "Task Force" for freedom of expression which seems set to be filled by people with anything but pro free speech sentiments:

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/christie-blatchford-investigators-report-into-wilfrid-laurier-universit-vindicates-lindsay-shepherd

and the clip was from this show:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kasiov0ytEc

As a side note, when the story first broke, one of my soldiers, who graduated from Laurier, was furious and told their alumni association they would never see another time from him. This is bound to "improve" his mood. And a search of the academic biography of the Red Guard who fabricated the complaint against Lindsay Shepherd reveals he cannot even articulate his area of study, which is doubly ironic since he is supervising Sheherd as she teaches a course in Communications......


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (19 Dec 2017)

While I don't necessarily agree with the way you are interpreting between the lines of Christie Blatchford's article to read it based on your personal bias, I admit that I looked at the good "professor"'s write up at the University and looked in particular at this part:

_*My new research is on the history of digital intimacies. This project investigates the intimate potentials and problematics of social media forms, drawing critical insights from intimacy theory (a subset of queer theory), but extending its ambit to consider multiple forms of digitally mediated togetherness. This project employs discourse analysis in combination with digital humanities methodologies to investigate past, existing, and emerging forms of digitally mediated intimacy. These include such topics as hashtags as technosocial assemblages; MMOs and avatar infidelity; the politics of race-activist hashtags such as #Ferguson; haptics and digital touching; and the emerging sex robot industry. In conjunction with this project I also edited the collection Hashtag Publics: The Power and Politics of Discursive Networks (Digital Formations series, Peter Lang, 2015). This collection investigates the diversity of publics that hashtags address, with politics and positionalities ranging from subcultural and community maintenance; to speaking back to state, corporate and societal power and privilege.*_

And am left with but one comment:

Why do we even let such people teach our kids instead of leaving them only with serving coffee at Starbuck as a means of earning a living?


----------



## Good2Golf (19 Dec 2017)

What the heck is "avatar infidelity?"  ???

Oh...nevermind...  :not-again:


----------



## Journeyman (19 Dec 2017)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> What the heck is "avatar infidelity?"  ???


Out of all that gibberish, _that_  is all you had trouble with?  Are you a closet artsy?   rly:


----------



## Old Sweat (19 Dec 2017)

Did that bird start out writing CFAOs?


----------



## FSTO (19 Dec 2017)

I just thought he was teaching a course about youporn.


----------



## McG (19 Dec 2017)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> What the heck is "avatar infidelity?"  ???
> 
> Oh...nevermind...  :not-again:


Or google “glinda the troll” for a sitcom reference.


----------



## Good2Golf (19 Dec 2017)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Out of all that gibberish, _that_  is all you had trouble with?  Are you a closet artsy?   rly:



Well...I did also pause mentally for a short bit at "sex robot industry"...  :nod:

The rest?  I just downloaded my private citizen's GBA+ Training completion Certificate from the DM of the Status of Women Canada, so I'm bound to note to you that I saw no incongruous intersectionality with the Professor's description of their current studies.


----------



## Jarnhamar (19 Dec 2017)

Will gba+ help me learn to handle the discomfort of my whiteness?


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Dec 2017)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Well...I did also pause mentally for a short bit at "sex robot industry"...  :nod:
> 
> The rest?  I just downloaded *my private citizen's GBA+ Training completion Certificate from the DM of the Status of Women Canada*, so I'm bound to note to you that I saw no incongruous intersectionality with the Professor's description of their current studies.




You're kidding us, right? Please say it's some kind of _pop-culture_ insider's joke that I wouldn't get because of age or general crochetyness ... please don't make me _*google*_ something that will give me heartburn or make me even more choleric.


----------



## dapaterson (19 Dec 2017)

Nope.  Every CAF member in a leadership rank, and every CAF member deploying has to go to the Status of Women website and complete an online course (or just go directly to the exam and skip the lectures).  At the end, you type in your name & email address and get a certificate.

And anyone, government or non-government, can do it.


----------



## dimsum (19 Dec 2017)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Nope.  Every CAF member in a leadership rank, and every CAF member deploying has to go to the Status of Women website and complete an online course (or just go directly to the exam and skip the lectures).  At the end, you type in your name & email address and get a certificate.
> 
> And anyone, government or non-government, can do it.



I've also noticed that since it rolled out, all Op Orders I've seen, even if it was to organize a group of people to go on TD, had a blurb about it.

I haven't been checking into this thread much recently but when I saw "Red Guard", all I thought of was this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Guards

I'm no history fan (oh wait, I am) but I remember the RGs not ending up too well in the end...


----------



## ballz (19 Dec 2017)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Nope.  Every CAF member in a leadership rank, and every CAF member deploying has to go to the Status of Women website and complete an online course (or just go directly to the exam and skip the lectures).  At the end, you type in your name & email address and get a certificate.
> 
> And anyone, government or non-government, can do it.



Our Unit solved that nuance, as with all great ideas, they just made everyone do it.


----------



## larry Strong (19 Dec 2017)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Nope.  Every CAF member in a leadership rank, and every CAF member deploying has to go to the Status of Women website and complete an online course (or just go directly to the exam and skip the lectures).  At the end, you type in your name & email address and get a certificate.
> 
> And anyone, government or non-government, can do it.




FML. I thought SHARP training was a ridiculous waste of time.......


Cheers
Larry


----------



## dimsum (19 Dec 2017)

ballz said:
			
		

> Our Unit solved that nuance, as with all great ideas, they just made everyone do it.



I thought all units did that?


----------



## Kat Stevens (19 Dec 2017)

Strange how the only three letter acronym military people avoid like the plague is the one for Status Of Women.


----------



## Jarnhamar (19 Dec 2017)

ballz said:
			
		

> Our Unit solved that nuance, as with all great ideas, they just made everyone do it.



I bet they didn't pass around a sheet with all the answers on it right?


----------



## ballz (19 Dec 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I bet they didn't pass around a sheet with all the answers on it right?



If they did, I didn't learn about it. I trained my troops to stop trying to involve me for top cover after we all got charged with drunkenness.


----------



## Journeyman (20 Dec 2017)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Strange how the only three letter acronym military people avoid like the plague is the one for Status Of Women.


:rofl:

And now.... I apologize for seeing the humour in that.


~snicker~


----------



## Rifleman62 (20 Dec 2017)

Didn't know where to post. Here or More and more funnies.. vol: something...

Funny in so many ways. From the G & M Political Briefing 20 Dec 17



> Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says he's embarking on a cross-Canada tour in the new year to get out of the Ottawa bubble. "It's easy to surround yourself with really, really smart people...the top advisers, the top ministers. You can surround yourself with concentric circles of really qualified people and completely disconnect from the folks you're actually supposed to serve," he told a Montreal radio station.


----------



## Good2Golf (20 Dec 2017)

Does he mean to meet the "disqualified people?"


----------



## Journeyman (20 Dec 2017)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Prime Minister Justin Trudeau:  "It's easy to surround yourself with really, really smart people...the top advisers, the top ministers. You can surround yourself with concentric circles of really qualified people and completely disconnect from the folks you're actually supposed to serve"


Gutsy move in acknowledging that his constituents, the people who voted for him, are stupid.   op:


----------



## YZT580 (20 Dec 2017)

The worst thing is that he probably doesn't even realise the implications of his statement.  After all, he was a dance instructor not an English major.


----------



## Jarnhamar (20 Dec 2017)

Justin Trudeau is such a brave leader. Leaving the concentric circles of really smart and qualified people to mix it up with average Canadians. I hope he writes a book about his cross Canada tour. Or dare I say, tour of duty?


----------



## jollyjacktar (20 Dec 2017)

He might be on to something.  After all, he was voted in by folks outside of his uber intelligent peeps.


----------



## McG (20 Dec 2017)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Didn't know where to post. Here or More and more funnies.. vol: something...
> 
> Funny in so many ways. From the G & M Political Briefing 20 Dec 17
> 
> ...


What about all the MPs who are up in Ottawa to represent every corner of the country? Is that not how the house is supposed to function? Get rid of the showmanship that happens there and have rational discussions where MPs present the concerns of their constituents.

Other bits of his quotes disturbed me. Is this about getting a feel for the opinions and concerns of Canadians, or is it tax payer funded campaigning & selling himself ... creating momentum early for the still distant election?


> ... if you’re a politician these days and you’re expecting people to discover you through reading political articles in the political section of a given newspaper or magazine, you’re really limiting your space in terms of actually reaching people who are quite frankly, busy with their regular lives ...


https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/pm-touring-to-escape-concentric-circles-in-ottawa-1.3727746


----------



## McG (20 Dec 2017)

... then again, maybe it is just poor choice of words and I am reading too much into it.


----------



## Jarnhamar (20 Dec 2017)

*Published on Dec 20, 2017 5:21pm*
https://ipolitics.ca/2017/12/20/trudeau-broke-conflict-interest-rules-dawson/


> Prime Minister Justin Trudeau violated several federal conflict of interest rules when he and his family vacationed with the Aga Khan on his private island in the Bahamas in 2016, Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson said Wednesday.
> 
> “When Mr. Trudeau, as Prime Minister, accepted the gifts of hospitality from the Aga Khan and the use of his private island in March and December 2016, there were ongoing official dealings with the Aga Khan, and the Aga Khan Foundation Canada was registered to lobby his office,” Dawson said in a media statement.
> 
> “Therefore, the vacations accepted by Mr. Trudeau or his family could reasonably be seen to have been given to influence Mr. Trudeau in his capacity as Prime Minister.”




Purely coincidental timing on announcing his cross Canada tour I'm sure.


----------



## jollyjacktar (22 Dec 2017)

This video of Mr.  Uhhhh Uhhhhh trying to answer the reporter is hilarious.

https://youtu.be/N_u4pVmEh8s


----------



## PuckChaser (27 Dec 2017)

Moved the political cartoons to the actual political cartoon thread as they were both posted without comment. (https://army.ca/forums/threads/123289.200.html)


----------



## Rifleman62 (27 Dec 2017)

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/blogs/ten-year-end-facts-canadians-need-to-know

*Ten year-end facts Canadians need to know* - 21 Dec 17
   
As we end 2017, here are 10 year-end facts Canadians should understand and consider as we enter 2018:

• The total tax bill for the average Canadian family will exceed $35,000 in 2017, or 42.5 per cent of their income—more than what the average family spends on housing, food and clothing combined.

• While the federal government has claimed it “cut taxes for middle-class Canadians everywhere,” the reality is that 81 per cent of middle-class families in Canada are paying higher federal income taxes under the government’s personal income tax changes—on average, $840 more a year.

• More than 60 per cent of lower-income families (those in the bottom 20 per cent of earners) in Canada now pay higher federal income taxes because of the federal government’s tax changes.

• And that does not include the impact of the federal carbon tax mandate, the coming CPP payroll tax increase, the lowering of tax-free savings account contribution limits, or the proposed changes to the tax treatment of incorporated small businesses.

• Canada’s high and increasing personal income tax rates on its best and brightest workers have made the country uncompetitive compared to other developed countries. The federal government increased the top federal tax rate to 33 per cent from 29 per cent, and increases to top provincial rates have been made in Ontario, Alberta, British Columbia and other provinces. Seven of our 10 provinces now have a top combined federal-provincial rate above 50 per cent.

• The top 20 per cent of income-earners in Canada—families with an annual income greater than $186,875— will pay 64 percent of all personal income taxes and 56 percent of all taxes (i.e. income, payroll taxes, sales taxes and property taxes, etc.).

• As if this isn’t enough, the federal government has failed to achieve its election promise to run $10 billion deficits in its first two years and thereafter balance the budget. Instead, since coming into office, it has run deficits of $18 billion in 2016 and $20 billion this year, additional deficits of almost $80 billion are forecast over the next five years. There’s no immediate plan to balance the budget.

• Large annual deficits mean government debt in Canada is ballooning. Federal net debt increased to $727 billion in 2016-17 with provincial net debt collectively at $633 billion. All told, federal and provincial debt currently stands at $1.4 trillion and has increased by more than 60 per cent in the past decade.

• _*Prime Minister Trudeau is on track to increase per-person federal debt more than any other prime minister in Canadian history who didn’t face a world war or economic recession.*_

• The federal government has claimed deficit spending will help grow the economy through expenditures such as the promised $100 billion in infrastructure investment over the next 10 years. But only $6.6 billion of that will be spent in 2017 (only about a third of the $20 billion deficit), and less than 11 per cent of the $100 billion will be spent on projects that have the potential to strengthen the economy.

As we close off 2017 and look forward to 2018, let’s hope we see a refocus on policies that will actually improve the economy and lives of Canadians.

 Authors: Niels Veldhuis, Charles Lammam, Milagros Palacios


----------



## jollyjacktar (27 Dec 2017)

Annnnnd cue the Liberal GoC apologists, to throw out counter protests.


----------



## Altair (27 Dec 2017)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Annnnnd cue the Liberal GoC apologists, to throw out counter protests.


No need.

The economy speaks for itself.


----------



## ballz (27 Dec 2017)

Altair said:
			
		

> No need.
> 
> The economy speaks for itself.



Only if you're level of thought is extremely shallow.

If the government borrowed 3.5 trillion dollars and used it to give $100,000 to every Canadian, what would happen? A lot of statistics used to try and gauge economic performance would improve. 

You would have to be an incredibly stupid person to look at the GDP and the unemployment rate which would have improved dramatically and try to assert that no further consideration is needed.

But your answer does sound a lot like "The budget will balance itself," "she speaks fluent Russian," and "because it's 2015." Extremely shallow, arrogant, and dismissive.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (27 Dec 2017)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Annnnnd cue the Liberal GoC apologists, to throw out counter protests.



are debates now called "counter-protests"? Like fake news when it's something one's "team" doesn't agree with?


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (27 Dec 2017)

ballz said:
			
		

> Only if you're level of thought is extremely shallow.
> 
> If the government borrowed 3.5 trillion dollars and used it to give $100,000 to every Canadian, what would happen? A lot of statistics used to try and gauge economic performance would improve.
> 
> ...



I don't see your point, so perhaps I'm missing what you're saying. I don't see the connection between the giving of $100,000 and our current economy. The liberals have borrowed a ton (not unlike harper who allowed it to grow over $150 billion) without a doubt, which combined with poor CPC economic policies has placed Canada into a potential future debt issue. But, in terms of economic growth canada increased 4.6% last year, which is the highest in 17 years (even considering harpers almost as bad  borrowing). That can't be simply slugged off as economic factors include more than simple cash exchanges.

I also hope you see the irony in telling someone they're being arrogant, shallow, and dismissive in an extremely arrogant, shallow, and dismissive manner


----------



## jollyjacktar (27 Dec 2017)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> are debates now called "counter-protests"? Like fake news when it's something one's "team" doesn't agree with?


Potato, potato, tomato, tomato.... I see some of the reaction l was expecting to see.


----------



## ballz (27 Dec 2017)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> I don't see your point, so perhaps I'm missing what you're saying. I don't see the connection between the giving of $100,000 and our current economy. The liberals have borrowed a ton (not unlike harper who allowed it to grow over $150 billion) without a doubt, which combined with poor CPC economic policies has placed Canada into a potential future debt issue. But, in terms of economic growth canada increased 4.6% last year, which is the highest in 17 years (even considering harpers almost as bad  borrowing). That can't be simply slugged off as economic factors include more than simple cash exchanges.



The point is, when a government borrows to inject money into the economy, you can't just say "well the numbers improved, case closed everyone." The government did exactly that. There should be no surprise that the GDP increased, after all, it simply measures spending.

Economic growth of 4.6% did not occur. The GDP increased by 4.6% The GDP measures spending, it measures consumption, it is not a measurement of economic growth, simply an indicator. It measures *consumption* and that is a very different thing. There is no specific measurement of economic growth and this obsession with the GDP serves us more harm than good.

GDP is often used as a key figure but it is not the only one nor is it a black and white measurement of "GDP increased, therefore there was economic growth" or vice versa. It just means more consumption occurred. More consumption doesn't necessarily mean anything if you have to input borrowed money into the equation to make it happen. As Peter Schiff responded to the question about increasing the GDP, "yes, but at what cost?" 

If the government borrowed 3.5 trillion dollars and gave $100,000 to every Canadian, consumption would sky rocket and therefore the GDP would sky rocket. That doesn't mean the economy is more productive or more efficient, it does not mean it is more sustainable. In isolation, the GDP just means people spent more money. You need to look at other variables as to "why" to figure out if it's a good thing.

If all other variables remained unchanged, but half the labour force stopped working and the GDP fell by 10%, it does not mean there was economic contraction.... it means the economy almost doubled it's efficiency. People who focus only on consumption (GDP) would argue that the economy is collapsing... I'd be doing back flips with excitement of how much more efficient our economy became.




			
				Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> I also hope you see the irony in telling someone they're being arrogant, shallow, and dismissive in an extremely arrogant, shallow, and dismissive manner



Respect begets respect, and the reverse is often also true.


----------



## Altair (27 Dec 2017)

ballz said:
			
		

> Only if you're level of thought is extremely shallow.
> 
> If the government borrowed 3.5 trillion dollars and used it to give $100,000 to every Canadian, what would happen? A lot of statistics used to try and gauge economic performance would improve.
> 
> ...


Other economic indicators show the economy is doing pretty well.

Unemployment numbers, workplace participation, consumer confidence.

But if you want to go one this whole GDP doesn't tell the whole story in order to undermine the economic performance of the LPC be my guest. As I said, the economy speaks for itself.


----------



## PuckChaser (27 Dec 2017)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> The liberals have borrowed a ton (not unlike harper who allowed it to grow over $150 billion) without a doubt, which combined with poor CPC economic policies has placed Canada into a potential future debt issue.



Whoa now. Harper ran a large deficit in a recession for 6 years http://www.cbc.ca/news2/interactives/canada-deficit/index.html (also dropped in 2015 mid 1980s level as % of GDP if you buy Liberal logic). Don't even try to compare that to the projected 35 year deficit from a party who has no idea how to reign it in other than hoping the economy outgrows their spending. If they continue the current trend, we won't return to surplus until 2050-1 (Harper went from $55B to razor thin surplus in 6 years) and also double the debt levels to $1.55T CAD. You probably didn't see it in the news, Finance Department hid the numbers 2 days before the Christmas break (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/decades-deficits-morneau-1.3923060).


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (27 Dec 2017)

ballz said:
			
		

> The point is, when a government borrows to inject money into the economy, you can't just say "well the numbers improved, case closed everyone." The government did exactly that. There should be no surprise that the GDP increased, after all, it simply measures spending.
> 
> Economic growth of 4.6% did not occur. The GDP increased by 4.6% The GDP measures spending, it measures consumption, it is not a measurement of economic growth, simply an indicator. It measures *consumption* and that is a very different thing. There is no specific measurement of economic growth and this obsession with the GDP serves us more harm than good.
> 
> ...



Indeed, the 4.6% is GDP growth. However, your explanation of GDP requires some refinement. GDP can be calculated in 3 ways, being the production approach (sum of gross product of all enterprises), income approach (GDP= Compensation of Employees+Gross Operating Surplus+Gross Mixed income+(taxes-subsidies on imports and production), and expenditure approach (GDP = Consumption + Investment + Government Spending + (Exports − Imports). The IMF definition states that, "GDP measures the monetary value of final goods and services - that is, those *that are bought by the final user - produced in a country *in a given period of time (say a quarter or a year). As exports account for about 31% of our GDP and imports 33%($389,071,103,128 in 2016) the effects of export purchases has to be put into the final calculations as well. 

In your example, yes, if we gave everyone $100,000 GDP would go up, assuming that they all buy only Canadian made goods and services. If they go out and buy, say, a Lamborghini than the GDP of Italy would go up as the final product was produced there (assuming they're all made in Italy... I didn't actually research that last part). There is more than just Canadian consumption involved, though I agree that the GDP is an imperfect measure of economic success. Your assertion that GDP only measures spending is therefore, incorrect.

Also, I would also argue that your assertion that if half the labour force stopped working but GDP only fell by 10% it wouldn't mean anything negative was occurring. Aside from the obvious effect on unemployment numbers and therein government spending, if we use the income approach for this example, than the factors that would need to change to create the 10% drop would be compensation of Employees, Gross Operating Surplus, Gross Mixed income, or the taxes-subsidies on imports and production. We can assume that the halving of the work force would reduce the compensation of employees, meaning that you would have more wealth held by fewer people with more people unemployed or underemployed.

In the Harper era, GDP grew about 1-1.5% per annum, or from $1.46 trillion in 2007 to $1.55 trillion in 2016. At the same time debt (total debt - total assets, not straight debt) grew from $516 Billion in 2007 to $727 billion in 2015, a rise of $211 billion, or an average of $21 billion/year. So, the GDP grew about $80 billion during that time, or at a rate of 38 cents for every dollar of debt. In 2008, when the CPC took on $58 billion in debt the GDP rose 1% only, a terrible Return on Investment if just taken in the context of consumption.

Since Trudeau came in, the debt has rise to $759 billion this year, a rise of $64 billion, of which $32 billion was accumulated this year. The GDP grew from $1.53 trillion to the anticipated $1.6 billion (last year x 1.046) 

If the factor of GDP were only government spending that led to consumption than each dollar of debt should be equal regardless of whether it was CPC or Liberal. So, why does the $70 billion increase for 2017 equate to a $2.19 increase to GDP for every dollar of tax debt incurred? The reason is that GDP is not solely a consumption factor and that many factors, including overall world economic health, which was as true in the days of the Social Credit party of Alberta in the depression as it is today.

There are a myriad of factors as to why the economy is improved this year of which the LPC has control over as many as the CPC had (very few). However, Altairs comment is factual and for more than the rationale you presented.

https://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/13-607-x/2016001/174-eng.htm

https://www.statcan.gc.ca/eng/trade/data

https://www.bnn.ca/imf-raises-2017-canada-growth-forecast-1.880306

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/federal-fiscal-history-canada-1867-2017.pdf


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (28 Dec 2017)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Whoa now. Harper ran a large deficit in a recession for 6 years http://www.cbc.ca/news2/interactives/canada-deficit/index.html (also dropped in 2015 mid 1980s level as % of GDP if you buy Liberal logic). Don't even try to compare that to the projected 35 year deficit from a party who has no idea how to reign it in other than hoping the economy outgrows their spending. If they continue the current trend, we won't return to surplus until 2050-1 (Harper went from $55B to razor thin surplus in 6 years) and also double the debt levels to $1.55T CAD. You probably didn't see it in the news, Finance Department hid the numbers 2 days before the Christmas break (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/decades-deficits-morneau-1.3923060).



Why not compare them? Is LPC debt somehow different than CPC debt and have different debt serving fees? Harper grew the debt by about $211 billion in 9 years, which is not insignificant in terms of real debt minus real assets as per my last post. Trudeau is on pace to blast those numbers out of the water, you are correct. However, because person A does one thing doesn't mean than person B gets a free pass. Harper might even be worse as the CPC ran on financial prudence and failed while at least Trudeau and the LPC stated openly they would go into debt, though the amounts were higher than advertised. Even with the $1.4 billion surplus they purportedly would have had for FY 15/16, they would have accrued about $210 billion. This is hardly financial stewardship or prudence in the way it is presented. As for the "but the Liberals and NDP made them!" argument, I say that's an excuse. They didn't *have* to do anything- in 2008 they could have stuck to their guns as they had planned and faced the music with an election in which they could make their case and when they had a majority they could have done so too.

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/federal-fiscal-history-canada-1867-2017.pdf  (page 92)


----------



## ballz (28 Dec 2017)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Indeed, the 4.6% is GDP growth. However, your explanation of GDP requires some refinement. GDP can be calculated in 3 ways, being the production approach (sum of gross product of all enterprises), income approach (GDP= Compensation of Employees+Gross Operating Surplus+Gross Mixed income+(taxes-subsidies on imports and production), and expenditure approach (GDP = Consumption + Investment + Government Spending + (Exports − Imports). The IMF definition states that, "GDP measures the monetary value of final goods and services - that is, those *that are bought by the final user - produced in a country *in a given period of time (say a quarter or a year). As exports account for about 31% of our GDP and imports 33%($389,071,103,128 in 2016) the effects of export purchases has to be put into the final calculations as well.



I think you need to re-read what I wrote, or maybe understand what you are copying and pasting... you just wrote me an essay to explain to me that the GDP is measurement of spending / consumption.... which is exactly what I asserted... so I'm not exactly sure why you wrote that. Let us not forget that I only asserted that the GDP measures spending / consumption because you asserted that it measured economic growth...

1. GDP measures the monetary value of final goods and services - that is, those _*that are bought*_ by the final user -
In other words, the sum of spending... the sum of what people spent money on (bought / purchased / spent money on)

2. produced in a country 
In other words, adjusted for net exports

3. in a given period of time (say a quarter or a year)
Self-explanatory, I hope so anyway...



			
				Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> In your example, yes, if we gave everyone $100,000 GDP would go up, assuming that they all buy only Canadian made goods and services. If they go out and buy, say, a Lamborghini than the GDP of Italy would go up as the final product was produced there (assuming they're all made in Italy... I didn't actually research that last part). There is more than just Canadian consumption involved, though I agree that the GDP is an imperfect measure of economic success. Your assertion that GDP only measures spending is therefore, incorrect.



Holy crap, what are you just trying to argue here? Or you can't see the forest because of the trees?

The point wasn't that the GDP would go up because the government borrowed 3.5 trillion and "spent it," the point was that the Canadians would receive a free $100,000 and spend it, causing the GDP would to go up, and we can't just automatically rejoice simply because the GDP went up. I guess I didn't realize I had to spell out every step of a relatively simple hypothetical example of the GDP increasing not necessarily equating to good governance.



			
				Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Also, I would also argue that your assertion that if half the labour force stopped working but GDP only fell by 10% it wouldn't mean anything negative was occurring. Aside from the obvious effect on unemployment numbers and therein government spending, if we use the income approach for this example, than the factors that would need to change to create the 10% drop would be compensation of Employees, Gross Operating Surplus, Gross Mixed income, or the taxes-subsidies on imports and production. We can assume that the halving of the work force would reduce the compensation of employees, meaning that you would have more wealth held by fewer people with more people unemployed or underemployed.



I guess you missed that part where I said, "If all other variables remained unchanged" before you wrote an entire paragraph about a whole bunch of other variables changing.... Again, a very simple, hypothetical example that was designed to demonstrate the very simple point that GDP growth does not measure economic growth, but is just one of many indicators.... which you seem to have agreed with so why are you arguing?



			
				Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> In the Harper era, GDP grew about 1-1.5% per annum, or from $1.46 trillion in 2007 to $1.55 trillion in 2016. At the same time debt (total debt - total assets, not straight debt) grew from $516 Billion in 2007 to $727 billion in 2015, a rise of $211 billion, or an average of $21 billion/year. So, the GDP grew about $80 billion during that time, or at a rate of 38 cents for every dollar of debt. In 2008, when the CPC took on $58 billion in debt the GDP rose 1% only, a terrible Return on Investment if just taken in the context of consumption.



Since Trudeau came in, the debt has rise to $759 billion this year, a rise of $64 billion, of which $32 billion was accumulated this year. The GDP grew from $1.53 trillion to the anticipated $1.6 billion (last year x 1.046) 

If the factor of GDP were only government spending that led to consumption than each dollar of debt should be equal regardless of whether it was CPC or Liberal. So, why does the $70 billion increase for 2017 equate to a $2.19 increase to GDP for every dollar of tax debt incurred? 

Where did I say "GDP is only government spending that leads to consumption" ?



			
				Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> The reason is that GDP is not solely a consumption factor and that many factors, including overall world economic health, which was as true in the days of the Social Credit party of Alberta in the depression as it is today.



I'm not sure what you are trying to say here... but the GDP measures consumption... I don't know how to explain that to you when you're the one that posted the IMF definition in which it says exactly that.... Yes, there are all kinds of factors that affect the GDP outside of government spending.... but what are they affecting that is causing the GDP to go up or down? They are affecting the end-user who is consuming (spending money on) goods and/or services. That is what the GDP measures, how much money gets spent on goods and/or services. That is consumption, that's why they call the people spending the money "consumers!"



			
				Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> However, Altairs comment is factual and for more than the rationale you presented.



Sorry, but what comment is "factual" or "rational" exactly? He didn't actually provide anything to assess except a completely arrogant remark which I assessed accordingly.


----------



## Jed (28 Dec 2017)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Why not compare them? Is LPC debt somehow different than CPC debt and have different debt serving fees? Harper grew the debt by about $211 billion in 9 years, which is not insignificant in terms of real debt minus real assets as per my last post. Trudeau is on pace to blast those numbers out of the water, you are correct. However, because person A does one thing doesn't mean than person B gets a free pass. Harper might even be worse as the CPC ran on financial prudence and failed while at least Trudeau and the LPC stated openly they would go into debt, though the amounts were higher than advertised. Even with the $1.4 billion surplus they purportedly would have had for FY 15/16, they would have accrued about $210 billion. This is hardly financial stewardship or prudence in the way it is presented. As for the "but the Liberals and NDP made them!" argument, I say that's an excuse. They didn't *have* to do anything- in 2008 they could have stuck to their guns as they had planned and faced the music with an election in which they could make their case and when they had a majority they could have done so too.
> 
> https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/federal-fiscal-history-canada-1867-2017.pdf  (page 92)



Now you are just being obtuse. The unneeded massive debt by the Liberals does not compare with the PC debt.


----------



## ballz (28 Dec 2017)

Altair said:
			
		

> Other economic indicators show the economy is doing pretty well.
> 
> Unemployment numbers, workplace participation, consumer confidence.
> 
> But if you want to go one this whole GDP doesn't tell the whole story in order to undermine the economic performance of the LPC be my guest. As I said, the economy speaks for itself.



You're not getting it. I'm not saying the economy hasn't grown, I'm questioning *at what costs?*

It's easy to make an economy grow if you just borrow the money to do it. Why don't we just borrow enough money to employ the remaining unemployed people?

Seriously, the unemployment rate is 5.9%, the labour force is about 19,440,500 people according to Stats Canada... why don't we just borrow more money and hire 1,360,600 unemployed people? The unemployment rate would be 0%, the GDP would most definitely grow as they now have more money and begin consuming, labour force participation would increase since employers would offer higher wages to try and meet the growing demand, consumer confidence would sky rocket...

So, come down from the clouds and tell me, why don't we just borrow the money required and hire an extra 1,360,600 federal employees?


----------



## Altair (28 Dec 2017)

[quote author=ballz] 
Sorry, but what comment is "factual" or "rational" exactly? He didn't actually provide anything to assess except a completely arrogant remark which I assessed accordingly.
[/quote]What?  The economy does speak for itself. 

GDP growth,  employment numbers,  consumer confidence,  debt to GDP ratio,  standards of living,  consumer debt,  and most important for a politician,  how Canadians think the economy is doing and how the party in power is managing it, these all speak for themselves. 

I don't need to make a long winded post and counter arguments to complaints about taxes and deficits. 

Everyone knows how the economy is doing. Case in point,  I simply said,  and I quote " no need.  

 the economy speaks for itself"

Now that could have been taken as a negative statement about the state of the economy or a statement in support of riflemans and jolly jacktars comments,  but you knew that I was taking about the economy in a positive way.


----------



## ballz (28 Dec 2017)

Altair said:
			
		

> I don't need to make a long winded post and counter arguments to complaints about taxes and deficits.



Don't worry, I didn't have such high expectations of you to actually think you might provide anything of value.


----------



## Altair (28 Dec 2017)

ballz said:
			
		

> You're not getting it. I'm not saying the economy hasn't grown, I'm questioning *at what costs?*
> 
> It's easy to make an economy grow if you just borrow the money to do it. Why don't we just borrow enough money to employ the remaining unemployed people?
> 
> ...


because that would be a very unwise and unaffordable investment. 

Very unlike our current fiscal situation that you and others keep lamenting about. 

Fact of the matted is our current deficit spending is around 1.5 percent of GDP.  That's pushing the federal debt to GDP ratio to around 33 percent. 

Compared to the 90 and the deficits in the 8 percent and federal debt to GDP ratios pushing 65 percent our current situation is positively rosy. 

So is 4.5 percent annual GDP growth worth 1.5 percent percent of GDP in federal deficit spending? 

Maybe,  maybe not.  But its certainly not the end of the world and Canadians are only really going to care about the former.


----------



## Altair (28 Dec 2017)

ballz said:
			
		

> Don't worry, I didn't have such high expectations of you to actually think you might provide anything of value.


Happy holidays to you as well. 

 :subbies:


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (28 Dec 2017)

Jed said:
			
		

> Now you are just being obtuse. The unneeded massive debt by the Liberals does not compare with the PC debt.



Sure it does... debt all goes into the same lump and is "mostly" bad regardless of the party who created it.


----------



## Rifleman62 (30 Dec 2017)

*Rex Murphy: Justin Trudeau's year-long descent from celebrity selfie-prince to typical politician*- 29 Dec 17
_2017 was not kind to the PM nor his government. And that last press conference? In Star Wars Yoda-tongue: Ill, it will bode for him_

What’s true about first impressions — that you never get a second chance to make them — is logically symmetrical with the truth about last ones. No do-overs for them either, by definition. The last impression many Canadians have of Justin Trudeau in this year of Our Lord, 2017, was of him, shock-faced, rattled and babbling incoherently for a TV eternity of a minute and a half. 

For all the sense he made, he could have been speaking Njerep ( I have a Masters in Google search) a language that survives only on the tongues of four people in the entire world, the youngest of whom is already 60.

It’s not because the question was tough, nor could it possibly have been unforeseen. He had been found guilty by the ethics commissioner of, not one, but four provisions of the conflict of interest law.

And, naturally, he was asked, how could a prime minister not have known that hopping on private helicopters on a “vacation” to the Aga Khan’s private island, with buddies and Liberal party personnel in tow, was not — to use a word much in favour at Wilfrid Laurier U — problematic?

This was not quantum mechanics. It was a hot issue for the PMO for all of 2017. Yet there he was in the Commons foyer, having been asked the inevitable question, looking gobsmacked and wounded, stammering like an old outboard motor on the last pint of gas, and stacking up enough non sequiturs and platitudes to fill a Costco warehouse. How bad was he? For that 90 seconds, he made George Bush look like the oratorical son of Martin Luther King Jr. and Margaret Thatcher.

That was the last impression for public view Mr. Trudeau left for the year now gliding into its final hours. In the Star Wars Yoda-tongue: Ill, it will bode for him. Not smart, it will seem.

The year 2017 was not kind to the PM nor his government. It began with his attempt to hide the Aga Khan vacation and ended with a demonstration of why he tried to hide it. The course of the year marked his descent from a celebrity selfie-prince to an all too typical politician, equipped with a genetic sense of entitlement and personal exceptionalism. The press, here and abroad, were no longer half-worshippers. His initiatives were seen by all critics, and some friends, too, as less policies than postures.

Next year's slogan will be more modest: Can I take a rain cheque on that?
   
On NAFTA, for example, the eerie attempt to inject his “feminist” proclivities and adoration of the green gods into trade negotiations did nothing for trade, greenism or feminism. He bungled mightily on trade with the Asian countries, too — not showing up, embarrassing Japan and angering the members of the TPP. The international press was starting to get a touch dismissive. Rightly so. After all, the “The world needs more Canada” sloganism, not showing up at all and ticking off a half-dozen world leaders was a curious choice. Next year’s slogan — “Can I take a rain cheque on that” — will be more modest.

His Number 2, Finance Minister Bill Morneau, made a perfect and protracted hash on the Trudeau tax policy — the one that was supposed to win the hearts of Mr. T’s beloved middle class. That ticked off almost everyone in the middle class or aspiring to it, from dentists to sales clerks. The finance minister’s campaign to sell the policy was a disaster, the climactic moment of which came with having the minister himself being, like his boss, under investigation for conflict of interest from the ethics commissioner.

A government that spent a fortune on deliverology (which I personally think of as the Scientology of spin doctors) proved itself incapable of getting cheques out to its employees. The Canada 150 celebrations were, in the main, a dull bomb. There was more fervour and kick in the Chase the Ace phenom in the small town of Goulds outside St. John’s.

The most sensitive cabinet position, the minister for disabled persons, was filled by the most insensitive person in the cabinet, Kent Hehr — a politician in the Don Rickles mode.

The MMIW inquiry is on yet another reset. The Energy East pipeline was, naturally, cancelled — another sacrifice to Mr. Trudeau’s woeful attachment to the ignis fatuus of global warming.  

Meantime, south of us, the Trump kingdom is both more successful in reducing the dreaded carbon dioxide emissions and simultaneously leading a revival in the U.S. energy industry and putting a shredder to the EPA’s cat’s cradle of over-reaching regulations. And Trump has just passed a monumental change in the U.S. tax code, which will inevitably — just as his energy policies — place Canada at a massive industrial and economic disadvantage.

And so Mr. Trudeau leaves this year with a bundle of negotiations unsettled, wounded ministers, pledges undelivered, in violation of the law governing conflict of interest, at odds with the UN economy, and no single major policy achievement. He caps that with that parting press conference horror, signalling a prime minister struggling, anxious and incoherent — an image which, if it takes, will be fatal for an administration that has made the prime minister’s image its only ace. Much like the Goulds, only in reverse.

A bad year, it was.

177 Comments


----------



## Journeyman (30 Dec 2017)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> *Rex Murphy: Justin Trudeau's year-long descent from celebrity selfie-prince to typical politician*


He's _still_  not ready.

Unfortunately, it's not going to matter.  The Conservatives and the NDP seem to be actively trying to throw the next election away.  Between choosing leaders that no one has heard of, who seem unable to connect to voters, scratching around for policy statements that appeal almost exclusively to the more extreme elements of their political spectra.... it's like they don't want to seriously contest the next election.

Love him or hate him, as things stand, Team Trudeau will likely be given another mandate to bumble from one photo op to another, spending like a drunken sailor on shore leave majority Liberal government. 

It's a self-inflicted wound.


----------



## Jarnhamar (30 Dec 2017)

Our countries leader.
Expectation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eak_ogYMprk

Reality
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15-5O4UPM0U

That's never going to get old.





[quote author=Journeyman]
Unfortunately, it's not going to matter.  The Conservatives and the NDP seem to be actively trying to throw the next election away.  
[/quote]

I have a sneaking suspicion Mr Scheer will have a comfortable position with the Liberals somewhere after he's done doing his conservative stint.


----------



## jollyjacktar (30 Dec 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Our countries leader.
> Expectation
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eak_ogYMprk
> 
> ...



 :rofl:  no, it won't.  What a maroon...


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (30 Dec 2017)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> :rofl:  no, it won't.  What a maroon...



That's not a nice thing to say about Rex Murphy... sure,  he's old and out of touch and makes lots of unsubstantiated claims, but....


----------



## SeaKingTacco (30 Dec 2017)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> That's not a nice thing to say about Rex Murphy... sure,  he's old and out of touch and makes lots of unsubstantiated claims, but....



Yeah- Rex Murphy. That crazy, uneducated bumpkin of a Rhodes Scholar...


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (30 Dec 2017)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Yeah- Rex Murphy. That crazy, uneducated bumpkin of a Rhodes Scholar...



Quite right. An educated out of touch old guy.

As many note, education doesn't always equal intelligence, though I don't think rex is stupid. Just out of touch in general. More like the grumpy old guy that yells at kids on his lawn.


----------



## PuckChaser (30 Dec 2017)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Just out of touch in general. More like the grumpy old guy that yells at kids on his lawn.



He's as out of touch as a trust-fund rich kid clamoring on about championing the middle class while vacationing on private islands with billionaire friends.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (30 Dec 2017)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> He's as out of touch as a trust-fund rich kid clamoring on about championing the middle class while vacationing on private islands with billionaire friends.



Not incorrect. Theres something to be said for knowing the basics of confkic of interst laws too. 

I never mentioned Trudeau though, unless you mean the other trust fund turned champion of the middle class, Donald J. Trump who spends a ton of time golfing and not signing legislation.


----------



## jollyjacktar (30 Dec 2017)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> That's not a nice thing to say about Rex Murphy... sure,  he's old and out of touch and makes lots of unsubstantiated claims, but....



If only it was Rex, someone worthy of my respect, l was speaking of.  Sadly, for you, it was your hero I was thinking of.


----------



## Jarnhamar (30 Dec 2017)

Sure would like me some of that non-legislation signing golfers tax breaks. Buy me sum guns n groceries. 

Instead my taxes are buying a bunch of murderers and rapists some poetry classes and welfare.


----------



## PuckChaser (30 Dec 2017)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> I never mentioned Trudeau though, unless you mean the other trust fund turned champion of the middle class, Donald J. Trump who spends a ton of time golfing and not signing legislation.



Your championing of the left is blending together, this is the Canadian politics thread.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (30 Dec 2017)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> If only it was Rex, someone worthy of my respect, l was speaking of.  Sadly, for you, it was your hero I was thinking of.



My hero? I defy you to find a post where I deify Trudeau or even give him more than Luke warm support on specific issues. Because I disagree with poorly thought out proposals by the CPC doesn't mean I support Trudeau. Same as because I think Trump's an idiot doesn't mean I supported Obama or Clinton.

If you need to see someone who blindly follows people than a mirror is what you're looking for.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (30 Dec 2017)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Your championing of the left is blending together, this is the Canadian politics thread.



Where do  champion the left specifcally? I agree with some left and some right proposals


----------



## SeaKingTacco (30 Dec 2017)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Quite right. An educated out of touch old guy.
> 
> As many note, education doesn't always equal intelligence, though I don't think rex is stupid. Just out of touch in general. More like the grumpy old guy that yells at kids on his lawn.



Out of touch- in what way?

Please, be specific. I will wait.


----------



## Altair (30 Dec 2017)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Where do  champion the left specifcally? I agree with some left and some right proposals


Being a moderate or centrist is the worst place to be.

You get attacked by both sides. Have fun, wear a helmet.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (30 Dec 2017)

Altair said:
			
		

> Being a moderate or centrist is the worst place to be.
> 
> You get attacked by both sides. Have fun, wear a helmet.



Bullshit. Birdgunner is the one who implied that anyone who is not a Trudeau fanboy, is therefore, automatically, a Trump fanboy.

That is not particularly centrist behaviour. 

He is earned the dogpile, fair and square.


----------



## jollyjacktar (30 Dec 2017)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> My hero? I defy you to find a post where I deify Trudeau or even give him more than Luke warm support on specific issues. Because I disagree with poorly thought out proposals by the CPC doesn't mean I support Trudeau. Same as because I think Trump's an idiot doesn't mean I supported Obama or Clinton.
> 
> If you need to see someone who blindly follows people than a mirror is what you're looking for.



I think you protest too much.


----------



## Rifleman62 (31 Dec 2017)

BG45 





> ....... Donald J. Trump who spends a ton of time golfing and not signing legislation.



Golfing, I believe 60 games so far including http://dailycaller.com/2017/12/29/trump-spends-friday-golfing-with-coast-guard-video/ 
closing Mar-A-Lago on Friday to golf and lunch with 60 Coasties.

Not signing legislation. BS. You just threw crap out without substantiation.

Yeah, I know topic is Cdn politics. I just wish Trump would kick Trudeau in the ass and tell him to start defending Canada immediately as the US will only do whats necessary to protect the US.


----------



## Infanteer (31 Dec 2017)

:waiting:

You guys need to go to a New Years party or something....


----------



## Halifax Tar (31 Dec 2017)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Not incorrect. Theres something to be said for knowing the basics of confkic of interst laws too.
> 
> I never mentioned Trudeau though, unless you mean the other trust fund turned champion of the middle class, Donald J. Trump who spends a ton of time golfing and not signing legislation.



You loose debates in support of the Canadian left when your go too retort is a foreign president.  

It reminds me of Canadian Anti gunners using American stats to support Canadian beliefs.


----------



## PuckChaser (1 Jan 2018)

Happy 2018 everyone!


----------

