# Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy



## Edward Campbell (21 Oct 2015)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> We'll be UNing it for sure within 12 months....in Africa.




I agree, this, rather than CF-18s in Iraq ...

                    
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





                         ... plus throwing a wee bit of money and lots and lots of warm words at climate change, seems to be the likely first "foundation stones" of a new Liberal foreign policy.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (21 Oct 2015)

Why fight this....






When you can fight this  ;D


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Oct 2015)

_Foreign Policy_ takes a look at Canada's new, Liberal, foreign policy in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from that journal:

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/10/21/justin-trudeau-liberal-canadian-foreign-policy-syria-climate-change/?utm_content=buffer28616&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer


> ARGUMENT
> Justin Trudeau Is Putting the ‘Liberal’ Back in ‘Canadian Foreign Policy’
> *After nine years of Stephen Harper’s neocon act, a new, inexperienced prime minister is going to dial back Canada’s hard power ambitions on the world stage.*
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Oct 2015)

In an article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Glove and Mail_, Derek Burney and Fen Osler Hampson look at the foreign policy challenges facing our new, Liberal government:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/trudeau-to-get-a-quick-lesson-in-global-realities/article26912779/


> Trudeau to get a quick lesson in global realities
> 
> DEREK BURNEY AND FEN OSLER HAMPSON
> Contributed to The Globe and Mail
> ...




I wish we had a leader with more "bottom," but ...


----------



## a_majoor (22 Oct 2015)

> Trudeau’s four “core principles” on military deployments should provide some insight into his approach once he fully takes the reins of power.
> 
> Per his statement on the vote:
> –One, Canada has a role to play in confronting humanitarian crises in the world.
> ...



Since point four will be mostly vapourware, limited manpower and time expired equipment, this makes points one through three moot.


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Oct 2015)

British journalist and Member of the European Parliament (MEP) Dan Hannan, writing in the _Washinton Examiner_, says that, "The free world has lost its leader. In the absence of a vigorous American foreign policy, Canada's Stephen Harper supplied his own. For the better part of a decade, he energetically championed Western interests. He was serious about fighting terrorism, keen on free trade and prepared to deploy proportionate force in defense of freedom ... His defeat in last week's Canadian general election will be felt far beyond that sparse, chilly country. When other Western leaders fretted about Israel's 2006 Lebanon war, he gave his full backing to the Jewish state. When others dithered over Putin's invasion of Ukraine, he led international condemnation. Obliged to meet Vladimir Putin at a summit meeting, he was admirably curt ..."

We'll have to wait to see how the _world_, the big one outside of the beautiful young people in Montreal' and Toronto's _café society_, like Prime Minister designate Trudeau's foreign policies.


----------



## a_majoor (2 Nov 2015)

They like "Virtue Signalling", which is what most of the promises amount to.

They are much less interested in actual results, or the resources and work that needs to be done to achieve results, so long as they can always _say_ they are for doing the right thing. So long as they can remain isolated from the results of their actions (or inactions in this case), they can continue to virtue signal their purity and belonging to the "correct kind" of people.

I wonder what they will do when George Orwell's "rough men" are no longer around to insulate them from the results of their choices?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Nov 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> British journalist and Member of the European Parliament (MEP) Dan Hannan, writing in the _Washinton Examiner_, says that, "The free world has lost its leader. In the absence of a vigorous American foreign policy, Canada's Stephen Harper supplied his own. For the better part of a decade, he energetically championed Western interests. He was serious about fighting terrorism, keen on free trade and prepared to deploy proportionate force in defense of freedom ... His defeat in last week's Canadian general election will be felt far beyond that sparse, chilly country. When other Western leaders fretted about Israel's 2006 Lebanon war, he gave his full backing to the Jewish state. When others dithered over Putin's invasion of Ukraine, he led international condemnation. Obliged to meet Vladimir Putin at a summit meeting, he was admirably curt ..."
> 
> We'll have to wait to see how the _world_, the big one outside of the beautiful young people in Montreal' and Toronto's _café society_, like Prime Minister designate Trudeau's foreign policies.




Things that make you go Hmmmmmm.

Why is that so much of the world's political pundits & MSM (outside Canada) voice similar prose? Yet the Canadian MSM says opposite? ???

Must be that the world view is wrong :


----------



## Colin Parkinson (3 Nov 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> They like "Virtue Signalling", which is what most of the promises amount to.
> 
> They are much less interested in actual results, or the resources and work that needs to be done to achieve results, so long as they can always _say_ they are for doing the right thing. So long as they can remain isolated from the results of their actions (or inactions in this case), they can continue to virtue signal their purity and belonging to the "correct kind" of people.
> 
> I wonder what they will do when George Orwell's "rough men" are no longer around to insulate them from the results of their choices?



I always tell people; "The Liberals were always much better liars than the Conservatives"


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Nov 2015)

In this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, John Ibbitson looks at how the new ministers might shape Canada's new, Liberal foreign policy:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/what-trudeaus-cabinet-appointments-signal-for-canadas-foreign-policy/article27102079/


> What Trudeau’s cabinet appointments signal for Canada’s foreign policy
> 
> SUBSCRIBERS ONLY
> 
> ...




So, more of this, which is inexpensive and low risk ...

     
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




          ... and of this, which is a good thing ...

               
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




                  ... but less of this ...

                       
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  _and this:_


----------



## a_majoor (4 Nov 2015)

Since few people understand the relationships between the first two pictures and the second two, they will be left astonished at why there is a decline in all four of them together.....


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Nov 2015)

Former Canadian diplomat (1967 to 2003), scholar and Liberal activist* Michael Bell offers a _Liberal triumphalist_ view of Canada's new foreign policy in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/canadas-new-foreign-policy-the-end-of-ideological-fantasies/article27248484/


> Canada’s new foreign policy: the end of ‘ideological fantasies’
> 
> MICHAEL BELL
> Special to The Globe and Mail
> ...




In my opinion ~ worth exactly what you're paying for it ~ Mr Bell exemplifies a 'school of thought' that one former senior civil servant and university fellow characterised as having "a soft heart and a head to match."

His view of Prime Minister Harper's policy ~ "[he] viewed the international community, most markedly characterized in his eyes by the United Nations, as a threat to his deeply held but exclusionist ideology. For him, the very concept of accommodation with others constituted moral relativism: a sellout," ~ is, in fact pretty accurate, but how I wonder should one view an organization, like the UN, that allows a Saudi Arabian delegate to lead a key human rights panel? Is it consistent with Canadian values? Or is it just plain crazy and proves only that we should we keep the UN at arm's length?

His view of Prime Minister Trudeau is that he is a "self-confident, socially adept and thoughtful Prime Minister with a feel for issues and a commitment to socially enlightened change." And that may be both fair and accurate, time will tell.

But his hope that "Canada will re-embrace its most natural calling of multilateralism. Whether over climate change, a policy that the Conservative government had gutted, or the work of the G20, where Mr. Harper defied consensus decision-making, or the United Nations, which he regularly castigated," is premature.

____
* Mr Bell was a member of Prime Minister Trudeau's campaign foreign affairs advisory team.


Edit: format


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (13 Nov 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Former Canadian diplomat (1967 to 2003), scholar and Liberal activist* Michael Bell offers a _Liberal triumphalist_ view of Canada's new foreign policy in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/canadas-new-foreign-policy-the-end-of-ideological-fantasies/article27248484/
> 
> ...



Sort of like Barack Hussein Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize.

The past few weeks have felt like I've been watching a Daytona 500 victory ceremony, you know, the part where Jeff Gordon gets covered in champagne.

There is so much self-flagellation going on it isn't even funny.


----------



## GAP (13 Nov 2015)

Lloyd Axworthy Ver. 2


----------



## Jed (14 Nov 2015)

GAP said:
			
		

> Lloyd Axworthy Ver. 2




 :boke:


----------



## Brad Sallows (14 Nov 2015)

Bell's thoughts basically affirm my thought that it's back to "go along to get along".  Making the right, hard choices is beside the point.

>For the first time in our history, and to our great shame, Canada was voted down for a seat on the UN Security Council, so much had we lost the respect of others.

Apparently that really got up the nose of the palace courtier establishment.  I suppose they'll be admitted back into the circle of cool kids again, which is the really important thing.


----------



## Infanteer (14 Nov 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ... but less of this ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That was Mackenzie King's plan in 1938-39 as well.  Events in Paris, or something similar, may not give anyone the choice....


----------



## FSTO (14 Nov 2015)

Events my dear boy, events.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Nov 2015)

In this column, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, Lawrence Martin, no friend to Prime Minister Stephen Harper or the Conservatives, suggests that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau may need to abandon or, at least, modify some of the polices on which he campaigned and move closer to the Harper/Conservative foreign policy:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/after-paris-attacks-trudeaus-soft-power-already-under-fire/article27264347/?click=sf_globefb


> After Paris attacks, Trudeau’s soft power already under fire
> 
> LAWRENCE MARTIN
> Special to The Globe and Mail
> ...



Yes, indeed, _"events, dear boy, events."_


----------



## The Bread Guy (14 Nov 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Yes, indeed, _"events, dear boy, events."_


And, as you've said elsewhere, a week can be a looooooong time ....


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Nov 2015)

There is some worry in the Liberal/Laurentian Elites anti-Harper camps about these events forcing Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to back-peddle on his promises to make Canada, once again the peaceable, peace loving and peacekeeping country some dream it was, including, even, that staunch critic of Prime Minister Harper Terry Milewski who wrote this, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from _CBC News_, for the CBC:

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/politics/paris-attacks-trudeau-isis-1.3319277


> Trudeau and ISIS: Is the bombing still a bad idea?
> *After Paris, prime minister ponders his pledge to end the air war on Islamic State*
> 
> Terry Milewski · Politics
> ...



So the hope ~ and, yes, boys and girls, _hope_ is a viable COA for political analysts ~ is that those _"events"_ will only pressure the prime minister to see this "roto" of the mission through, for a few more months, and that other _"events"_ will occur that will give him reasons to return to the days of yore, from ...






   
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



                                                          This                                                                                          to                                                            this
                    Which has been a staple of Canadian foreign policy                                               which is what Canadians imagine their foreign policy might have been
                          since Jean Chrétien was prime minister


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Nov 2015)

But, Bill Curry, writing in the _Globe and Mail_, says, quite categorically that: "The deadly terror attacks in Paris will not lead Canada to change course on its two main policies in relation to Syria: welcoming 25,000 refugees this year and ending Canada’s bombing campaign in Iraq and Syria." He quotes a "senior official" from the PMO as saying that "the government stands by its refugee plan and its position on the role Canada should play in the Syrian conflict."


----------



## The Bread Guy (15 Nov 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> He quotes a "senior official" from the PMO as saying that "the government stands by its refugee plan and its position on the role Canada should play in the Syrian conflict."


But that's what PMO's will say until The Boss decides otherwise - wait & see ....


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Nov 2015)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> But that's what PMO's will say until The Boss decides otherwise - wait & see ....




Yes, but as I said elsewhere: 

     The promise was and remains politically important: it's about _hope_ and _change_ ... the reason so many people voted for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau; but

     Keeping the promise _could_ unleash a political disaster ~ a terrorist admitted under the programme sets off a bomb in Montreal, killing Canadians ~ which Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his government cannot hope to survive.

If I had to _guess_, at this very moment, I would _suspect_ that he _might_ (can I be any less indefinite?) delay the refugee thing (maybe for quite a long time, hoping that the fickle public will forget the promise) and blame the security services but, still, pull the CF-18s out when this "roto" is finished.


----------



## The Bread Guy (15 Nov 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> If I had to _guess_, at this very moment, I would _suspect_ that he _might_ (can I be any less indefinite?) delay the refugee thing (maybe for quite a long time, hoping that the fickle public will forget the promise) and blame the security services but, still, pull the CF-18s out when this "roto" is finished.


And for maxiumum "we're not walking away effect," have plans firmly in place (and shared w/the public) about cranking up the training part of the mission against ISIS, also as promised:


> .... We will refocus Canada’s military contribution in the region on the training of local forces ....


Meanwhile, David Akin has this from on the road w/PMJT:


> We’d love to ask him that but 2nd day in a row: Trudeau not talking to travelling press here.


New boss, same as the old boss(es), when it's convenient?


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Nov 2015)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> And for maxiumum "we're not walking away effect," have plans firmly in place (and shared w/the public) about cranking up the training part of the mission against ISIS, also as promised:




Yes, it is _politically_ possible to put "boots on the ground" in a _low risk_ situation and still claim to be part of the allied coalition. My guess is that the Canadian media and public would like that solution: _training_ and _winter coats_ and _food for refugees_.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Nov 2015)

So, here he is at the G-20 meeting in Turkey:






This G20 summit is "totally overshadowed by events in Paris, immediate security concerns and the fight against terrorism."

But, Katie Telford, the prime minister's chief of staff _tweets_:

     Katie Telford ‏@telfordk  42m42 minutes ago
     Proud to see @JustinTrudeau argue that climate change is a serious economic issue. #G20 #realchange cc @katepurchase 
.
.
.
.
:sarcasm:
I'm just soooooo proud that Justin Trudeau is my prime minister.  :cdnsalute:


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (15 Nov 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> So, here he is at the G-20 meeting in Turkey:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I can't exactly put my finger on it, but the PM almost seems detached from the Paris attacks. His speech on friday seemed to lack the normal performance value (he almost seemed shell shocked) and the response since then has been muted. Then this about him talking about global warming, which I can only imagine got a big "who cares". It almost seems as if he is desperate to stay on message and unable to adapt to a changing situation. Maybe it's not the case, but it certainly seems that the PM is having difficulty adapting.

Note- this is not to say that we should "whip out our cf-18s" irrationally, but some discussion on refugees (details on the plan, or reassurance that security checks, etc, will be taken) to reinforce why bringing refugees here is important in light of the attack on Paris would seem to be a prudent action to address real concerns. What is happening appears to be akin to the officer who has to stick to the time line and details vice understanding the intent and end state.


----------



## cavalryman (15 Nov 2015)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> I can't exactly put my finger on it, but the PM almost seems detached from the Paris attacks. His speech on friday seemed to lack the normal performance value (he almost seemed shell shocked) and the response since then has been muted. Then this about him talking about global warming, which I can only imagine got a big "who cares". It almost seems as if he is desperate to stay on message and unable to adapt to a changing situation. Maybe it's not the case, but it certainly seems that the PM is having difficulty adapting.
> 
> Note- this is not to say that we should "whip out our cf-18s" irrationally, but some discussion on refugees (details on the plan, or reassurance that security checks, etc, will be taken) to reinforce why bringing refugees here is important in light of the attack on Paris would seem to be a prudent action to address real concerns. What is happening appears to be akin to the officer who has to stick to the time line and details vice understanding the intent and end state.


I wouldn't be surprised if he was experiencing the sweet joys of cognitive dissonance right now, i.e. the world isn't measuring up to his lofty ideals and expectations, and climate change isn't what's preoccupying folks.  I do hope the Canadian electorate are proud of their PM.  :


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Nov 2015)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> I can't exactly put my finger on it, but the PM almost seems detached from the Paris attacks. His speech on friday seemed to lack the normal performance value (he almost seemed shell shocked) and the response since then has been muted. Then this about him talking about global warming, which I can only imagine got a big "who cares". It almost seems as if he is desperate to stay on message and unable to adapt to a changing situation. Maybe it's not the case, but it certainly seems that the PM is having difficulty adapting.
> 
> Note- this is not to say that we should "whip out our cf-18s" irrationally, but some discussion on refugees (details on the plan, or reassurance that security checks, etc, will be taken) to reinforce why bringing refugees here is important in light of the attack on Paris would seem to be a prudent action to address real concerns. What is happening appears to be akin to the officer who has to stick to the time line and details vice understanding the intent and end state.




I _think_ I might understand the politics of it ...

The Paris attacks came just as prime Minister Trudeau was about to leave for Turkey; the G20 speech was written. His immediate remarks were drafted, very, very quickly by his staff ~ they were OK, not bad, sympathetic but non-committal.

On the airplane some staffers, maybe the prime minister himself, said "What now? Do we need to reboot our policies? Should we keep bombing IS** in Syria? Should we really take 25,000 refugees?"

Gerald Butts (my guess) said something like: "Everyone sit down and take a deep breath. We don't _know_ what's going on ... yet. Lee Hsien Loong* and David Cameron* don't really matter; they don't vote, but _Lyin' Brian_ Mulroney was right, you know: in politics _"ya dance with the fella what brung ya."_ In our case, the "fellas what brung us" to power don't want to hear about bombing ~ they don't like bombs nor do they like the people who drop bombs. They do like to hear about climate change and they want us to say and do things about climate change ... that matters, not Syria or Paris. We need to stay the course on getting out of the bombing business ... maybe we need to stay there for a bit longer, but sometime after Christmas we need to bring the CF-18s home. Refugees? I don't know. I've head the security briefs given to the prime minister; it may be prudent to slow the process a bit. Our base will not like it but we can blame the security services ... we're being forced to err on the side of caution, and all that. But, for now: we press on as we planned, as we _promised_ ~ we do not commit to any new military adventures; we can offer some aid and lots and lots of words but we don't want to actually have to do anything ... yet. Remember after 9/11? Canadians demanded that we do something, and we, Liberals, did ~ we sent troops to Afghanistan and in just a few months Canadians were disillusioned with that mission. They wanted out. Our first step is to not commit to going in ... then our second step is get what we already have 'in' out again. Global warming is good; war is bad ... keep telling yourselves that because it is what will get us re-elected. Who knows? Maybe by Christmas _El Niño_ will be causing havoc in all sorts of places and Canadians will think we were really prescient here."

_____





* Lee Hsien Loong, Prime Minister of Singapore is at the right end (other end from Prime Minister Trudeau) of the second row; UK Prime Minister David Cameron is 3rd from the left in the middle row.


----------



## The Bread Guy (15 Nov 2015)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> I can't exactly put my finger on it, but the PM almost seems detached from the Paris attacks.


Let's not rule out a case of this ....


----------



## Old Sweat (15 Nov 2015)

I watched the PM's remarks Friday evening and was disturbed at what I saw. Hopefully I saw inexperience in the face of a rude awakening and not something worse like panic or paralysis of will. After all he had had a pretty good (wild understatement) three or four months and then all at once, virtually as he was getting into the limo to go to the airport, three major terrorist attacks in Paris. Any one of them would have hijacked the news cycle and demanded a major part of his attention attention for the next several days, but three!!

I'm speculating here, but he and his inner circle just got a short, sharp seminar on major crisis management. One can only hope they do better next time, and also apply some sober second thought to their response.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Nov 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I _think_ I might understand the politics of it ...
> 
> The Paris attacks came just as prime Minister Trudeau was about to leave for Turkey; the G20 speech was written. His immediate remarks were drafted, very, very quickly by his staff ~ they were OK, not bad, sympathetic but non-committal.
> 
> ...




It appears that I have guessed wrong. Bill Curry, reporting for the _Globe and Mail_ from the G20 summit says:

     "Mr. Trudeau stood by the target at a leaders summit where the official agenda has been sidelined by the Paris attacks.

      “On the Syrian refugee crisis and the refugee crisis writ large, I’m pleased to say that Canada has tremendous examples of having integrated people fleeing for their lives from very difficult situations to become not only citizens but
      active contributors to Canada’s success,” Mr. Trudeau declared Sunday morning in response to an audience question following a speech to business leaders on the sidelines of the summit.

      “We will be accepting 25,000 Syrian refugees between now and January 1st and investing and ensuring that we will be empowering and integrating them into success and the paths for success that people around the world are hoping to see,” he said.

     Mr. Trudeau’s speech largely focused on his election campaign promises to boost economic growth through infrastructure spending, which he said fits with the international priorities of the G20."


----------



## Brad Sallows (15 Nov 2015)

"An argument for Mr. Trudeau sticking to his pledges is that is that by a larger engagement against IS Canada becomes a higher priority target for its terror."

IOW, feed the crocodile, lest he eat us first.


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Nov 2015)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> I watched the PM's remarks Friday evening and was disturbed at what I saw. Hopefully I saw inexperience in the face of a rude awakening and not something worse like panic or paralysis of will. After all he had had a pretty good (wild understatement) three or four months and then all at once, virtually as he was getting into the limo to go to the airport, three major terrorist attacks in Paris. Any one of them would have hijacked the news cycle and demanded a major part of his attention attention for the next several days, but three!!
> 
> I'm speculating here, but he and his inner circle just got a short, sharp seminar on major crisis management. One can only hope they do better next time, and also apply some sober second thought to their response.




Campbell Clark, in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, suggests that the foreign policy path just got "darker" and "more tangled" for our "rookie PM" and his team:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/paris-violence-makes-path-darker-more-tangled-for-the-rookie-pm/article27267325/


> Paris violence makes path darker, more tangled for rookie PM
> 
> SUBSCRIBERS ONLY
> 
> ...




I agree with Campbell Clark that it will be painfully difficult, practically impossible, to turn away from popular campaign promises so early in the mandate.

I also agree with many Conservative critics that those popular positions were ill-considered, even unconsidered: being designed, off the cuff, only to take _progressive_ votes away from the NDP. But those opportunistic campaign promises worked, and now 40+% of Canadians expect Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to follow through. Let's be clear, most Canadians neither know nor care about bombing campaigns; even some members here, in a military forum, have expressed the view that our, Canadian, bombing was ineffective and will not be missed. Why should we have expected Candidate Trudeau and advisors Gerlad Butts and Katie Telford to have known differently. But, the fact is that _he did promise_, and a great many, arguably most Canadians want or expect him to keep his promises.

For the moment I am inclined to give Prime Minister Justin Trudeau all the possible benefits of all my many doubts; he's a smart guy with smart advisors; he now has access to expert advice which was unavailable to him prior to 4 Nov 15; I _hope_ he and his whole team will find politically acceptable ways to square the new circle which "events" have just redrawn.


----------



## GAP (16 Nov 2015)

> I watched the PM's remarks Friday evening and was disturbed at what I saw. Hopefully I saw inexperience in the face of a rude awakening and not something worse like panic or paralysis of will.



Someone, anyone, needs to teach the silver pony proper diction and speachmaking.......

Standing up to the microphone like a breathless debutant, er ing and ah ing all through his speech makes him seem like a 13 year old asking for a date....it may be endearing to some of his supporters, but it does not come across as mature for a country's leader.....


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Nov 2015)

David Akin, of _Sun Media_, reports, from Turkey that "At G20, Trudeau gets a warm welcome from China."

He writes that:

     "China has welcomed Justin Trudeau into the international family of world leaders like a long-lost son.

      Trudeau and Xi Jinping, China’s president, met Monday morning on the margins of the G20 Summit being held here.

      Xi started off by saying China was grateful for what Pierre Trudeau did in 1970, when Canada became one of the first countries in the West to officially recognize the Communist government in mainland China.

      “That was an extraordinary political vision," Xi told Pierre’s son. "China will always remember that.”

      Xi’s extraordinarily warm greeting to Justin Trudeau, coming less than two weeks after he’d been sworn into the job, is in sharp contrast to Stephen Harper, who had to wait more than three years for a nice word from a Chinese president."


Trust me, this is a gift, one the Chinese perceive as being valuable, and China wants something in return.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (16 Nov 2015)

ERC, I tend to agree with Campbell Clark also, but personally, I think he missed one mark: Yes, most leaders are out of their depth in Foreign Affairs at first. But Trudeau senior never got out of this depth in my estimation. 

And, I am very afraid Trudeau junior will be worse. He may have been a drama teacher, but he obviously can't act. When I saw him on TV from Ottawa just before flying out, I was dismayed: He looked  like he was smiling, happy to be in front on camera and his whole attitude seemed to be: Look I am going on this nice trip and this little Paris thing is not going to sour my mood.

Then I thought, OK, he got caught off guard - that happens -But no, he had that same look when we saw him in Ankara. Every other world leader look somber, even downcast, but here he was looking like a kid in a candy store, and being the only person there still peddling his "infrastructure for the world" economic development plan (which people who briefed him at Foreign Affairs before the trip must have told him did not interest the world, and that he should stick with what DFAIT developed for any PM in advance of this meeting).


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (16 Nov 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Trust me, this is a gift, one the Chinese perceive as being valuable, and China wants something in return.



The first thing they'll insist on is probably for Canada to  stop bringing their human rights record up at every opportunity their was.


----------



## dapaterson (16 Nov 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> David Akin, of _Sun Media_, reports, from Turkey that "At G20, Trudeau gets a warm welcome from China."
> 
> He writes that:
> 
> ...



China reaching out is a tremendous opportunity for Canada.  But the question of what they want is one we (the royal we) need to assess and understand before launching off.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 Nov 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> David Akin, of _Sun Media_, reports, from Turkey that "At G20, Trudeau gets a warm welcome from China."
> 
> He writes that:
> 
> ...





> *“Real change”? Why Power Corp, China (and maybe even Jean Chretien) are “back in the drivers seat” after Trudeau win*.
> 
> http://www.ezralevant.com/real-change-why-power-corp-china-and-maybe-even-jean-chretien-are-back-in-the-drivers-seat-after-trudeau-win/
> 
> ...



Now, many don't like Mr Levant and that's fine. However, *possibly* with the exception of the last sentence, he is stating nothing here that is not fact. I have always surmised that Power Corporation was always the real power behind recent Liberal governments(and possibly a Conservative one). Paul Desmarais helped prime minister Pierre Trudeau open up relations with China by becoming a founding chairman of the Canada China Business Council in 1978 and kept in close touch with succeeding prime ministers, no matter their political affiliation, including Brian Mulroney, Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin.

Methinks the familial ties to the Trudeau clan have never been stronger.

But that's just my  :2c:


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (16 Nov 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> David Akin, of _Sun Media_, reports, from Turkey that "At G20, Trudeau gets a warm welcome from China."
> 
> He writes that:
> 
> ...



How can PM Trudeau, with his stance on global warming, possibly get into bed with China, one of the worst (if not the worst) offender of CO2 emissions? Also, how does he square this relationship with China's human rights record when we are currently bringing in 25,000 refugees based on a humanitarian crisis? 

Some will say that Harper engaged heavily in China, which is true. However, the Conservatives  heavily criticized the HR record of China and pulled out of Kyoto as it became apparent that without China, India, and the US signing on that Kyoto was pointless. I also wonder what a warming of relations means for previously blocked attempts by the Chinese to buy Canadian resources...


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Nov 2015)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> ERC, I tend to agree with Campbell Clark also, but personally, I think he missed one mark: Yes, most leaders are out of their depth in Foreign Affairs at first. But Trudeau senior never got out of this depth in my estimation.
> 
> And, I am very afraid Trudeau junior will be worse. He may have been a drama teacher, but he obviously can't act. When I saw him on TV from Ottawa just before flying out, I was dismayed: He looked  like he was smiling, happy to be in front on camera and his whole attitude seemed to be: Look I am going on this nice trip and this little Paris thing is not going to sour my mood.
> 
> Then I thought, OK, he got caught off guard - that happens -But no, he had that same look when we saw him in Ankara. Every other world leader look somber, even downcast, but here he was looking like a kid in a candy store, and being the only person there still peddling his "infrastructure for the world" economic development plan (which people who briefed him at Foreign Affairs before the trip must have told him did not interest the world, and that he should stick with what DFAIT developed for any PM in advance of this meeting).





			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> The first thing they'll insist on is probably for Canada to  stop bringing their human rights record up at every opportunity their was.




Agree, fully with both posts, OGBD.

I have, often, used Isaiah Berlin's famous fox vs. hedgehog analogy to suggest that Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau was true hedgehog: he decided, back in the mod to late 1940s, that _nationalism_ was the cause of _all_ the world's ills and he seemed to believe that Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Castroist communism was the leading edge of a "post-nationalist" world. I have also said, too many times to repeat, that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau lacks _gravitas_, what the Brits call "bottom." I stick by that analysis.


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Nov 2015)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> China reaching out is a tremendous opportunity for Canada.  But the question of what they want is one we (the royal we) need to assess and understand before launching off.




Agreed, again ... they will want something besides not being hectored about human rights.

Just because it's China doesn't mean, _a priori_, that what they want will be bad for us; but, equally, just because it's China doesn't mean it will be a good deal, either.


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Nov 2015)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> How can PM Trudeau, with his stance on global warming, possibly get into bed with China, one of the worst (if not the worst) offender of CO2 emissions? Also, how does he square this relationship with China's human rights record when we are currently bringing in 25,000 refugees based on a humanitarian crisis?
> 
> Some will say that Harper engaged heavily in China, which is true. However, the Conservatives  heavily criticized the HR record of China and pulled out of Kyoto as it became apparent that without China, India, and the US signing on that Kyoto was pointless. I also wonder what a warming of relations means for previously blocked attempts by the Chinese to buy Canadian resources...




And I agree a third time ...

I also agree, in large part, with you recceguy; _Power Corp_ and the Desmarais clan and a few others (think _Onex_ as a CPC supporter) wield great, too great, behind the scenes influence in Canadian politics and policy.


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Nov 2015)

David Akin, _Sun News_, says, in an internet post from Turkey:

     "Just finished a press conference with the PM. He was pressed over and over and over to reconsider shutting down Canada's anti-ISIS combat mission. But over and over and over again he said, ain't gonna do it."


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Nov 2015)

In an article in the _Ottawa Citizen_ Lee Berthiaume says that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said, "the government has committed to“step up” its training efforts in the fight against the Islamic State and will withdraw Canadian warplanes from Iraq and Syria before March.

     Speaking at the tail end of the annual G20 summit, where leaders from the world’s 20 richest countries had gathered for the past two days, Trudeau said Canadians “have expressed, certainly over the past months and within the election, that
     they wanted to see a ceasing of the bombing mission.”

     But he said they also want to see Canada continue to “engage robustly” in the fight against ISIL, which is why the government is planning to ramp up its efforts to train Kurdish and other local forces in the region to take on the extremist group.

     “We have made the commitment to step up our efforts training local troops, and that’s something that by all accounts is an important part of the military efforts against ISIL,” Trudeau said. “And I know Canada will continue to, and be seen
     to be continuing to, do its part in the fight against this terrorist scourge.”"

Many people, including Rosie DiManno in the _Toronto Star_ think that "The world cannot stand shoulder to shoulder with Paris while standing down in Syria.

     That barefaced message must surely now have been brought home to nouveau Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, whose first act after winning office was to call off Canada’s military participation in the airstrike coalition against Islamic State
     in Syria and the swath of Iraq the group controls.

     A half-dozen aging CF-18s may be a paltry contribution to the U.S.-led operation but joining in the bombing sorties was still something of substance, of integrity. Not merely symbolic, either, though symbolism matters; being on the
     right side matters. That demands more than mouthed platitudes.

     That right side still includes opening doors to the miserable exodus of refugees fleeing civil war-ravaged Syria. It’s not their fault Islamic State has exported terror beyond the caliphate of its dreams to a precious and beloved European
     capital that had already once this year been targeted by agents of death."

The pressure to "stay the course" will grow stronger ... for a while. The pressure to keep campaign promises will also remain strong ... for a while. It will be interesting to see which prevails.


----------



## Kirkhill (16 Nov 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Agreed, again ... they will want something besides not being hectored about human rights.
> 
> Just because it's China doesn't mean, _a priori_, that what they want will be bad for us; but, equally, just because it's China doesn't mean it will be a good deal, either.



I wonder how China feels about oil exports being restricted from Alberta due to a tanker ban in the North?



> rime Minister Justin Trudeau has called for a moratorium on crude oil tanker traffic for B.C.'s North Coast.
> 
> Trudeau outlined the directive in a mandate letter to Canada's transport minister, Marc Garneau, on Friday. In it, he asked Garneau to formalize the agreement with three other ministries: fisheries, natural resources and environment.
> 
> ...



http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/crude-oil-tanker-traffic-moratorium-bc-north-coast-1.3318086


Tangential Comment: 

One way around pipeline bans is long trains, short tracks.

Use pipelines to go where jurisdicition permits.  Use trains to jump the gaps - as in the US-Canada border.  AFAIK XL is cleared to the border in Canada and, internally, from the border in the US.  The issue is permission to build a pipeline across the border.   But know such restriction is in place on Warren Buffet's BNSF.


----------



## Journeyman (16 Nov 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Many people, including Rosie DiManno in the _Toronto Star_.....


DiManno now thinks Canada should even _have_  a military, yet alone use it (for anything besides shoveling out her snowed-in Toronto bus stops)??!    


I certainly don't remember doing any hallucinogens today.  :stars:


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Nov 2015)

Michael Den Tandt, writing in the _National Post_ suggests that, on this foreign policy issue, anyway, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is "oddly tone deaf." I disagree. I think it is, right now, just a matter of to whom he is listening.

He is not listening to the national media _commentariat_ or the Conservatives, even the rational ones, he is, I think, listening to ...

               
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




                    ... and Prime Minister Chrétien is telling him that:

                         1. Military operations do not remain popular for long;

                         2. Campaign promises matter, you cannot keep them all but keep the ones you can; and

                         3. Canadians want to sleep, safe and warm, in their beds at night ~ principled foreign policy doesn't keep you warm.


----------



## Kirkhill (16 Nov 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ....
> 
> 3. Canadians want to sleep, safe and warm, in their beds at night ~ principled foreign policy doesn't keep you warm.



And it is easy to sleep safe and warm when you pull the blankets up over your head.....


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 Nov 2015)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> And it is easy to sleep safe and warm when you pull the blankets up over your head.....




.......or you have a .38 Special Eskimo carving to threaten intruders with.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (16 Nov 2015)

Ha only us old farts will know what you are talking about.  8)


----------



## Kirkhill (16 Nov 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> .......or you have a .38 Special Eskimo carving to threaten intruders with.



And a wife with the will to use it?


----------



## a_majoor (16 Nov 2015)

> Canadians want to sleep, safe and warm, in their beds at night ~ principled foreign policy doesn't keep you warm



George Orwell:



> People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.



Less rough men, less sleep......


----------



## Kirkhill (16 Nov 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> George Orwell:
> 
> Less rough men, less sleep......



Problem:  If the rough men are effective the sleepers are ignorant of their activities and figure the rough men are an unnecessary expense and a social embarrassment.


----------



## dimsum (16 Nov 2015)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Problem:  If the rough men are effective the sleepers are ignorant of their activities and figure the rough men are an unnecessary expense and a social embarrassment.



    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.


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Nov 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Africa is China's problem now. They want to develop it, they can take care of it.




Be careful what you wish for ...

Several of the world's leading economists and entrepreneurs are saying that Africa is the "next frontier" for global economic growth. Do we really want to leave it to China?

http://www.cnbcafrica.com/news/special-report/2014/10/13/afrasia-james-benoit-mauritius/
http://www.ibtimes.com/africa-poised-unprecedented-long-term-economic-growth-seven-drivers-could-transform-africa-worlds
http://www.g7g20.com/comment/emilie-dock-africa-an-engine-of-future-global-growth
https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/sppl_e/sppl283_e.htm
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/africa-future-global-automotive-sales-engine-growth-vaidyanathan
http://www.siasat.com/news/africa-india-can-become-engine-growth-world-says-jaitley-858422/

Now, you don't need to agree with any of those opinions~ and I, for example, would discount anything Pascal Lamay says (4th link), but can they all be wrong? The Indian finance minister (last link) doesn't think so ... he (India) wants in on the action.

Maybe some military/_peacekeeping_ support to Africa is not a bad (economic) idea ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (17 Nov 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Maybe some military/_peacekeeping_ support to Africa is not a bad (economic) idea ...


Wait for it ....


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Nov 2015)

Even the _Globe and Mail_'s Jeffrey Simpson cannot quite figure out _why_ Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has decided to keep his campaign promise to withdraw from the air war against _Daesh_ just now. His column is reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/jeffrey-simpson-as-allies-gear-up-trudeau-ramps-down/article27287248/


> As allies gear up, Trudeau ramps down
> 
> SUBSCRIBERS ONLY
> 
> ...




When a senior member of the _Laurentian Elites_ says that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was "unable to explain coherently why Canada’s six C-18 fighter jets should be withdrawn from the fray," then you know that the Liberal base is unsure of what's happening.

I continue to believe that one man's advice is paramount:

               
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




                    ... and Prime Minister Chrétien is telling Prime Minister Justin Trudeau that Canadians will forgive him for not bombing people sooner than they will forgive him for breaking a popular campaign promise.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (17 Nov 2015)

Written by Las of PolitiBrew.com His column is reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act

http://politibrew.com/politics/3503-le-dauphin-justin-trudeau-exclusive-article-by-las-canada


Part 1


> Le Dauphin...Justin Trudeau: Exclusive Article by Las (Canada)
> Written by Las
> 82 Comments
> 11-7-15 9:07 AM EST: Former Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau and the young Dauphin Justin Trudeau
> ...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (17 Nov 2015)

Part 2



> Numerous scandals surround Ontario's Liberal government to the tune of over a billion dollars. In classic Hillary Clinton fashion Wynne also is alleged to have scrubbed government computers of incriminating emails regarding the billion dollar gas plant scandal when she worked for former Premier McGuinty. Ontario's Liberals are also alleged to have paid millions of dollars to teachers unions to support Liberals against the Ontario Progressive-Conservative leadership of Tim Hudak. Liberal corruption also extends to bribing unfavoured Liberal candidates in favour of preferred candidates for the Liberal Party of Ontario. There is also the cozy relationship between the Ontario Liberals and the Ontario Provincial Police who have campaigned for Wynne against the Ontario Progressive-Conservatives. The corruption of the Ontario Provincial Police force has brought Ontario to a new low in politics. Of course all of this is not really covered by the mainstream media who act as Liberal Party Central when it comes to Liberal politicians.
> 
> Next, in this photo is Ben Levin. (Mug shot)
> 
> ...



Pretty well sums it up.


----------



## jmt18325 (17 Nov 2015)

The thing is, the jets aren't being withdrawn - now.  In fact, they've stepped up their bombing.  This is Trudeau's way of satisfying his promise and our allies.  He'll probably keep the jets there until very close to the end of March.


----------



## George Wallace (17 Nov 2015)

Looked at that article.  Speaking of "National Debt", wtf are we getting all this money:

http://pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2015/11/15/prime-minister-announces-infrastructure-funding-indonesia


----------



## PuckChaser (17 Nov 2015)

Could buy a lot of stuff in Canada for $14.5 million.


----------



## dapaterson (17 Nov 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Could buy a lot of stuff in Canada for $14.5 million.



Or, in another view, it'a about 0.7% of our annual trade with Indonesia.  Building goodwill with customers is generally a good idea.  And some of the funding will make its way back to Canada as Indonesia hires Canadian advisors and purchases Canadian equipment - these sorts of things are never "no strings attached".


----------



## PuckChaser (17 Nov 2015)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Or, in another view, it'a about 0.7% of our annual trade with Indonesia.  Building goodwill with customers is generally a good idea.  And some of the funding will make its way back to Canada as Indonesia hires Canadian advisors and purchases Canadian equipment - these sorts of things are never "no strings attached".



Bailing them out of their last Typhoon with the DART probably bought a lot more "goodwill" than a token amount of cash.


----------



## The Bread Guy (17 Nov 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Looked at that article.  Speaking of "National Debt", wtf are we getting all this money:
> 
> http://pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2015/11/15/prime-minister-announces-infrastructure-funding-indonesia


Likely the same place as this ....
http://www.acdi-cida.gc.ca/cidaweb/cpo.nsf/vWebProjByPartnerEn/830A291C0D2DA5EA85257E140035ADB8
.... and all these other projects.


			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> .... more than just some of the funding will make its way back to Canada as Indonesia hires Canadian advisors and purchases Canadian equipment - these sorts of things are never "no strings attached".


FTFY - 't'was ever thus, Team Red or Team Blue @ the wheel ....


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Nov 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> Seems like Hollande is serious about building a coalition to fight isil. Talking to  Russia Iran and the usa.
> 
> _Disappointed he doesn't look like he's going to invoke article 5 of NATO_ but some action from Paris Moscow and Tehran is better than no action from Washington.
> 
> Wonder if he's looking at using ground troops. God I hope so.




I suspect that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is not, at all, "disappointed" ~ gleeful is, in fact, my _guesstimate_ of his reaction. Our prime minister wants "out," he doesn't want to be dragged farther "in," not, at least, without an explicit, unanimous UNSC call for direct action as cover.

Remember, please, who I think is whispering in his ear, showing him "the way" ...
.
.
.
.
.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (18 Nov 2015)

I saw that picture and the first thought I had was this


----------



## Fishbone Jones (19 Nov 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I suspect that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is not, at all, "disappointed" ~ gleeful is, in fact, my _guesstimate_ of his reaction. Our prime minister wants "out," he doesn't want to be dragged farther "in," not, at least, without an explicit, unanimous UNSC call for direct action as cover.
> 
> Remember, please, who I think is whispering in his ear, showing him "the way" ...
> .
> ...




Looks like Le Petite Thug is taking him for ice cream to reward him after another good performance.


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Nov 2015)

According to a story in the _National Post_, "Canada will soon sign onto the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, U.S. President Barack Obama said, going further than the country’s new prime minister has committed.
     ...
     “We are both soon to be signatories of the TPP agreement,” Obama said. “That’s another area we can continue to have important discussions,” he said.

    “I know Justin has to agree with what’s happened, but we think that after that process has taken place, Canada, the United States and the other countries that are here can establish the high-standards agreement that protects labor,
     protects the environment, protects the kind of high value-added goods and services that we both excel in,” Obama said."


----------



## Fishbone Jones (19 Nov 2015)

He's calling him Justin, not PM Trudeau, in the national press? And speaking for 'Justin'? Why do I picture him patting 'Justin' on the head while he's doing this?


----------



## a_majoor (19 Nov 2015)

This brings us right back to Edward's comment on lack of Gravatis. I'm sure the Young Dauphin is already being dismissed by others as well, and it is a bit shocking to see how quickly Canada's reputation as a "middle power", repurchased through years of blood and treasure, is evaporating.

For the Laurentian Elites this isn't perhaps an issue, their concern is to ensure economic and political power remains within the Montreal-Toronto corridor, so unless those pesky foreigners actually do something to Canada and Canadians, they probably won't care too much.


----------



## Jed (19 Nov 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> This brings us right back to Edward's comment on lack of Gravatis. I'm sure the Young Dauphin is already being dismissed by others as well, and it is a bit shocking to see how quickly Canada's reputation as a "middle power", repurchased through years of blood and treasure, is evaporating.
> 
> For the Laurentian Elites this isn't perhaps an issue, their concern is to ensure economic and political power remains within the Montreal-Toronto corridor, so unless those pesky foreigners actually do something to Canada and Canadians, they probably won't care too much.



Isn't that the truth.


----------



## jmt18325 (19 Nov 2015)

Jed said:
			
		

> Isn't that the truth.



Is that like how George Bush always called Harper Stephen?  I take it that it's meant as endearment, not mockery.

Conservative partisans will see it otherwise, of course.


----------



## Jed (19 Nov 2015)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Is that like how George Bush always called Harper Stephen?  I take it that it's meant as endearment, not mockery.
> 
> Conservative partisans will see it otherwise, of course.



I guess you see the glass as half full.  [


----------



## cavalryman (19 Nov 2015)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Is that like how George Bush always called Harper Stephen?  I take it that it's meant as endearment, not mockery.
> 
> Conservative partisans will see it otherwise, of course.


I'm sure Stevie called him Dubya...

Both GWB and PMSH were replaced by overgrown frat boys who promised hope and change.  The US have had to live with their choice for the last seven years, we've got four years of the APEC "Hottie" before us (Pace Enrique).  The people have spoken, and as usual, the people have shown the wisdom of Winston Churchill's quip about democracy.   :


----------



## jmt18325 (19 Nov 2015)

Jed said:
			
		

> I guess you see the glass as half full.  [



I usually do.  I was a Harper supporter through most of his time in office, but that started to waver in 2013.  He disappointed me in so many files.  I hope Trudeau does better.


----------



## jmt18325 (19 Nov 2015)

cavalryman said:
			
		

> Both GWB and PMSH were replaced by overgrown frat boys who promised hope and change.



Because both of them did a pretty bad job in the eyes of the people.  Harper was evidence allergic, and despite all of his talk, left DND funding at the same level that PMPM left it at (higher than Chretien, but less than he promised).  Trudeau needs to be given a chance, just as Harper was.  So far, he seems like far less an idiot than I thought he was at the beginning of the campaign.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (19 Nov 2015)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Because both of them did a pretty bad job in the eyes of the people.



Some of the people. George W won 2 elections with roughly Obama's level of support


----------



## PuckChaser (19 Nov 2015)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I hope Trudeau does better.



Hope is not a COA.


----------



## cavalryman (20 Nov 2015)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> So far, he seems like far less an idiot than I thought he was at the beginning of the campaign.


I'm going to take a wild guess that your expectations were pretty low if you think his performance at the G-20 and APEC were anywhere near adult-sized.  Sure, he deserves his chance, but you'll permit me to cringe while he turns this country into a frat-boy mockery on the international stage.  At this point, all I can hope is that the backroom boys keep a tight rein on him.  Statesman-like he ain't.  You can blame Harper for many ills besetting the Conservative party, but at least he came across as a statesman on the international stage, not a boy barely out of short pants.


----------



## jmt18325 (20 Nov 2015)

cavalryman said:
			
		

> I'm going to take a wild guess that your expectations were pretty low if you think his performance at the G-20 and APEC were anywhere near adult-sized.



What exactly did he do that alarmed you so much, exactly?  He was praised at the G-20 for his infrastructure program.  At APEC, he had very productive meetings.  The fact that people like him personally and that there is a certain celebrity to him doesn't make him a 'frat boy'.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (20 Nov 2015)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> He was praised at the G-20 for his infrastructure program.  At APEC, he had very productive meetings.  The fact that people like him personally and that there is a certain celebrity to him doesn't make him a 'frat boy'.



$10 billion is an election promise, nothing meaningful.  Alberta gives Quebec $10 billion per year in equalization because we like them so much.  I see nothing but a frat boy - no substance.  You will rarely see hem answering questions in the House or even spoon fed media questions because of the Bozo eruption problem.


----------



## Brad Sallows (20 Nov 2015)

>He was praised at the G-20 for his infrastructure program.

It's going to achieve SFA.   About $2B of the proposed $10B "deficit" can be attributed to nuts-and-bolts infrastructure, which was all the talking heads talked about - a smokescreen for the other $8B ($2B "social" infrastructure, $2B "green" infrastructure, and $4B unattributed - doubling the CPC program accounted for only 6 of the 10).

$2B on top of what is already being spent is a rounding error; the other $4B of "infrastructure" has white elephantosis, and the remaining slush fund is most likely to wind up in a pork barrel.


----------



## Kirkhill (20 Nov 2015)

Hey Brad, don't sweat it.

The youngster has got a brand new, never before used excuse.  The cupboards are bare and it is all the last guys fault.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/morneau-fiscal-update-1.3327571


----------



## Brad Sallows (20 Nov 2015)

The Liberals own the current FY for four months, which is long enough to own the resulting balance.


----------



## jmt18325 (20 Nov 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> a smokescreen for the other $8B ($2B "social" infrastructure, $2B "green" infrastructure, and $4B unattributed - doubling the CPC program accounted for only 6 of the 10).



First of all, your numbers are off.  The Liberal program sets aside new money for only 3 things - transit, green, and social infrastructure.

Second, it's 1.6B for each of those 3 things next year and the year after, and 1.1B for the each of the next two years after that.

Third - social infrastructure is things like hospitals, jails, schools, social housing, etc, etc.  Green infrastructure relates power projects and retrofits of existing infrastructure to make it more energy efficient.  Nice try though.

As for owning the current fiscal year (the Liberals actually own approx 5 months of it) - the projections provided today contain only spending and tax measures introduced by the Conservatives.  Almost none of the Liberal spending program, other than refugees and tax changes, starts until April 2016.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Nov 2015)

The FACT being, according to the PBO, is that we are in a surplus, a small one, but a surplus. I await the Trudeau Liberals answers to the Official Oppositions questions on how they managed to jig the numbers into a deficit.


----------



## jmt18325 (20 Nov 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> The FACT being, according to the PBO, is that we are in a surplus, a small one, but a surplus. I await the Trudeau Liberals answers to the Official Oppositions questions on how they managed to jig the numbers into a deficit.



The PBO, as it currently stands, has access to less info than Finance.  The Conservatives made sure of that when they created the office.


----------



## Brad Sallows (20 Nov 2015)

My numbers are on.  The CPC program called for roughly $65 billion in infrastructure spending over 10 years and the Liberals promised to (almost) double it - $125B over 10 years was the figure repeated during the campaign.  The CPC spending was planned within a balanced budget; ergo, if the Liberals proposed to increase the commitment by $60B over 10 years the average deficit should not really be more than $6B even if the budget balance was on a razor edge.

So right away there is a question - which was studiously ignored by the press - as to why the Liberals might need an extra $4B each year.  Given the desperation of the LPC and NDP to find money to buy good will, "slush fund" is the most reasonable hypothesis.

When "social" infrastructure was mentioned, the most common examples were "affordable housing" and "seniors centres".  You don't get to fill in the list of what you think it means; the LPC already stated their aims.  And in particular, "affordable housing" didn't mean "social housing" - when I searched for some details, I found the Liberal scheme was to somehow make housing more affordable for the middle class.  For example, one of their ideas was to free up federally owned land for development.  (As I wrote earlier on these boards, it'll be a neat trick if they can figure out how to release federally owned land for development in the Vancouver area without it immediately coming under several land claims.)

"Green" referred to airy-fairy generalizations which included "climate change" and "smart cities".  You may attach your own interpretation to those of course; to me, they mean "boondoggle" and "subsidies to otherwise non-viable businesses" and unwelcome future operating costs to whichever political jurisdiction is unfortunate enough to receive them (hence, white elephant).

The pre-election projections were for a surplus.  If the mood of the country has changed since the election, that is the new government's coat to wear.  Governments are responsible for the economic morale of the country in terms of what they say and do, even if they don't touch a page of legislation.  If trash-talking the economy and proposing deficits has persuaded Canadians to shrink their spending and thereby sent projections down, that is the Liberals' own fault.


----------



## jmt18325 (21 Nov 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> My numbers are on.  The CPC program called for roughly $65 billion in infrastructure spending over 10 years and the Liberals promised to (almost) double it - $125B over 10 years was the figure repeated during the campaign.  The CPC spending was planned within a balanced budget; ergo, if the Liberals proposed to increase the commitment by $60B over 10 years the average deficit should not really be more than $6B even if the budget balance was on a razor edge.



No, they're not on:

https://www.liberal.ca/files/2015/09/The-Liberal-fiscal-plan-and-costing.pdf

Page 13



> When "social" infrastructure was mentioned, the most common examples were "affordable housing" and "seniors centres".  You don't get to fill in the list of what you think it means;



Social Infrastructure is a subset of the infrastructure sector and typically includes assets that accommodate social services. As set out in the table below, examples of Social Infrastructure Assets include schools, universities, hospitals, prisons and community housing.

https://www.google.ca/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=definition%20social%20infrastructure

Words have meanings.

"Green" referred to airy-fairy generalizations which included "climate change" and "smart cities".  You may attach your own interpretation to those of course; to me, they mean "boondoggle" and "subsidies to otherwise non-viable businesses" and unwelcome future operating costs to whichever political jurisdiction is unfortunate enough to receive them (hence, white elephant).

Yes, those things are included:

http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/greeninfrastructure/gi_what.cfm

So are windmills and energy retrofits, especially in a Canadian context dealing with cold.

The Liberals then went on to say this- dedicating this specific amount of money to these particular things allows you to use the rest of the money (the money already allocated by the Conservatives) for traditional infrastructure projects.



> The pre-election projections were for a surplus.



And the economy changed from April to now.  That's no government's fault.

  





> If the mood of the country has changed since the election, that is the new government's coat to wear.  Governments are responsible for the economic morale of the country in terms of what they say and do, even if they don't touch a page of legislation.  If trash-talking the economy and proposing deficits has persuaded Canadians to shrink their spending and thereby sent projections down, that is the Liberals' own fault.



You do a lot of assuming for someone with so little in the way of facts on your side.


----------



## Brad Sallows (21 Nov 2015)

In the summary provided here we find:

"Liberals: Promise largest new infrastructure investment in Canadian history. Plan would nearly double federal infrastructure investment to almost $125 billion — from current $65 billion — over the next decade."

and:

"New, dedicated funding to provinces, territories and municipalities for public transit infrastructure; social infrastructure (including affordable housing and seniors facilities, early learning and child care, and cultural and recreational facilities); and green infrastructure (including local and waste water facilities, climate resilient infrastructure and clean energy)."

Here we find:
"The Liberal Party is promising to run deficits of up to $10-billion a year over the next three years, touting a new infrastructure program as the best way to create economic growth and help balance the books by 2019.

Justin Trudeau’s pledge is putting the Liberal Party in a starkly different position than the Conservative Party and the NDP, which are both promising balanced budgets. Over all, the Liberals would boost federal infrastructure spending by $60-billion over the next decade, on top of the currently planned spending of $65-billion."

Confirmation here:
"Aug. 27: Increase federal infrastructure investment to almost $125 billion, from the current $65 billion, over the next decade. Provide new, dedicated funding to provinces, territories and municipalities for public transit, social infrastructure and green infrastructure."

Some descriptions here:
"Provide infrastructure funding for affordable housing, public transit, transportation, climate change and “smart cities.”"

Lots about social infrastructure here, including:
"We will conduct an inventory of all available federal lands and buildings that could be repurposed, and make some of these lands available at low cost for affordable housing in communities where there is a pressing need."

You'll have noted that I cited what the Liberals said about "social" infrastructure, not someone else's definition.  What anyone else thinks doesn't matter; what the Liberals think does matter.

There are no "facts" about why fiscal projections have changed; only facts about what the projections are.  I'll stick to blaming it on human behaviour, which is always subject to influence by changes in incentives and anticipated outcomes.


----------



## Brad Sallows (21 Nov 2015)

BTW: I have no problem accepting the cited $1.675B figures for each of the "big 3".  My "$2B" was always a rough estimate based on the idea that there were 3 categories divided across $60B across 10 years.  That leaves $5B in each of the first couple of years' projected deficits to be explained, rather than $4B.  That might be somewhere in the "plan", but the point is this: the campaign humbug was essentially "the Liberals will go into deficit $10B in the first couple of years to fund infrastructure investment".  So now we're down to $1.675 on nuts-and-bolts, ROI-type infrastructure investment, as a smokescreen for much of what is either outright misallocation of capital or plain old pork and promises.

[Add]And you may have the last word, if you wish, since this is off-topic for the thread.


----------



## Kirkhill (21 Nov 2015)

Much was made of PM Harper "pandering" to his base.  As much as PM Trudeau claims a mandate, in fact his adherence to his electoral promises in the face of stiff opposition from the populace at large, equally, could be described as "pandering" to his base.


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 Nov 2015)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Much was made of PM Harper "pandering" to his base.  As much as PM Trudeau claims a mandate, in fact his adherence to his electoral promises in the face of stiff opposition from the populace at large, equally, could be described as "pandering" to his base.


No matter what colour the Team, Blue, Red or Orange, pandering to the base "our most loyal supporters" is part of the MO.  

What intrigues me is the feel of PMJT walking through molasses as he defends policy promise x (pick one) in light of new factors y and z.


----------



## Kirkhill (21 Nov 2015)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> No matter what colour the Team, Blue, Red or Orange, pandering to the base "our most loyal supporters" is part of the MO.
> 
> What intrigues me is the feel of PMJT walking through molasses as he defends policy promise x (pick one) in light of new factors y and z.



Light on his feet, he isn't.


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Nov 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I suspect that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is not, at all, "disappointed" ~ gleeful is, in fact, my _guesstimate_ of his reaction. Our prime minister wants "out," he doesn't want to be dragged farther "in," not, at least, without an explicit, unanimous UNSC call for direct action as cover.
> 
> Remember, please, who I think is whispering in his ear, showing him "the way" ...
> .
> ...




And this, a UNSC Resolution that, explicitly and unanimously “calls upon member states that have the capacity to do so to take all necessary measures ... on the territory under the control of Isil [Isis]" coplicates matters. It would make it easier to stay in the coalition _if_ that is what Prime Minister Justin Trudeau wanted to do ... it makes it harder _if_, as I suspect, he and his advisors and most of his base really want out. I believe that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was serious in expressing his own sincere views (and those of his closest advisors) when he excoriated Prime Minister Harper for "whipping out his CF-18s."


----------



## Cloud Cover (21 Nov 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Lots about social infrastructure here, including:
> "We will conduct an inventory of all available federal lands and buildings that could be repurposed, and make some of these lands available at low cost for affordable housing in communities where there is a pressing need."



well, one unanticipated outcome of the above will be slum housing on Federal lands, something the Federal government already cannot deal with competently on First Nations lands. It is this type of thing that created the large Muslim ghetto's in France, where miscontent and malfeasance, in fact downright hatred of indigenous French people, is part of the social culture. Way to go Pierre Justin.    

edit to add, just to get this back on track, if one thinks these things will not affect Canadian foreign policy, they better get their head out of the sand. it will be immigrants who settle on these developments. These places could be breeding grounds for a large future problem where the disaffected and unsatisfied rise up and strike here and at home.


----------



## George Wallace (21 Nov 2015)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> well, one unanticpated outcome of the above will be slum housing on Federal lands, something the Federal government already cannot deal with competently on First Nations lands. It is this type of thing that created the large Muslim ghetto's in France, where miscontent and malfeasance, in fact downright hatred of indigenous French people, is part of the social culture. Way to go Pierre Justin.



That would also be reminiscent of the Somali slums we created here in Canada.  No Lessons Learned there.


----------



## mariomike (21 Nov 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> That would also be reminiscent of the Somali slums we created here in Canada. No Lessons Learned there.



Dixon City?
http://www.condomadness.info/contents-YCC42.html


----------



## Cloud Cover (21 Nov 2015)

Yeesh. Dixon City Bloods? Why cant we put them in 24 Sussex, it is unoccupied and in better shape....


----------



## mariomike (21 Nov 2015)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Yeesh. Dixon City Bloods?



Even have their own Wiki page with references:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixon_Bloods


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Nov 2015)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> well, one unanticipated outcome of the above will be slum housing on Federal lands, something the Federal government already cannot deal with competently on First Nations lands. It is this type of thing that created the large Muslim ghetto's in France, where miscontent and malfeasance, in fact downright hatred of indigenous French people, is part of the social culture. Way to go Pierre Justin.
> 
> edit to add, just to get this back on track, if one thinks these things will not affect Canadian foreign policy, they better get their head out of the sand. it will be immigrants who settle on these developments. These places could be breeding grounds for a large future problem where the disaffected and unsatisfied rise up and strike here and at home.




See this long piece by Doug Saunders in the _Globe and Mail_. I don't agree with everything he says but, based on my own observations and, admittedly limited experience, I agree that ghettos are a very bad idea and they create more social problems than they solve. Again, based on just my own observations, the Dutch are light years ahead of the rest of us in this regard.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Nov 2015)

John Ibbitson, in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, argues that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau both wants to and is, already, managing to change the _tone_ but not the _substance_ of Canadian foreign policy:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/trudeau-seeks-to-shift-canadian-foreign-policy-with-world-debut/article27422112/
My emphasis added


> Trudeau seeks to shift Canadian foreign policy with world debut
> 
> SUBSCRIBERS ONLY
> 
> ...




Style matters. Prime Minister Harper was respected but not, I suspect, much "liked" by his confrères in e.g. the G7, APEC, NATO, G20 etc. Being "liked" can pay big dividends and it comes at a small cost ... but not everyone is "likeable," are they?

The key, however, is the substance. And the real substance is the Canada EU trade deal and the TPP. Yes, the fight against _Daesh_ etc matters, and so does being a leader in dealing with refugees, but, in the long term peace is more likely to be secured by trade and investment than by force of arms.

My personal opinion is that Canada should look for ways to do more, not less, in the battles against _Daesh_, but I suspect that issue will be overshadowed by other "events" before too long.


----------



## suffolkowner (22 Nov 2015)

Just watched Chrystia Freeland on Bill Maher and all I can say is wow. Is that a government position, just seemed to be a little clueless, living in fairytale land. I guess that's the danger of not staying on talking points


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Nov 2015)

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> Just watched Chrystia Freeland on Bill Maher and all I can say is wow. Is that a government position, just seemed to be a little clueless, living in fairytale land. I guess that's the danger of not staying on talking points




Here is a link to the video. I agree with some of what Minister Freeland says; she and Sen King are more right than wrong ... Sen King is a bit more "right" than Minister Freeland. My concern is less with what Minister Freeland says than with the fact that a Minister of the Crown is an a US TV show. Is she speaking on behalf of the government? She's the Minister of International Trade, is what she is saying an expression of Canadian government policy?

I suspect Minister Freeland might have some sort of contractual arrangement with Mr Maher, if so then she ought to cancel it, even if it costs the government some money. This is, _in my personal opinion_, inappropriate. She's entitled to her views but now that she's a minister she needs to give Canada, and the world, the views of her government ... or resign from the cabinet.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (22 Nov 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Here is a link to the video. I agree with some of what Minister Freeland says; she and Sen King are more right than wrong ... Sen King is a bit more "right" than Minister Freeland. My concern is less with what Minister Freeland says than with the fact that a Minister of the Crown is an a US TV show. Is she speaking on behalf of the government? She's the Minister of International Trade, is what she is saying an expression of Canadian government policy?
> 
> I suspect Minister Freeland might have some sort of contractual arrangement with Mr Maher, if so then she ought to cancel it, even if it costs the government some money. This is, _in my personal opinion_, inappropriate. She's entitled to her views but now that she's a minister she needs to give Canada, and the world, the views of her government ... or resign from the cabinet.



Not just any TV show either, a satirical comedy show.


----------



## The Bread Guy (22 Nov 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Is she speaking on behalf of the government? She's the Minister of International Trade, is what she is saying an expression of Canadian government policy?


Very good question - although what she's saying still sounds like it fits inside the government messaging aide-memoire.



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I suspect Minister Freeland might have some sort of contractual arrangement with Mr Maher, if so then she ought to cancel it, even if it costs the government some money.


Methinks she's just one of "the usual suspects", based on how often she's listed on the hbo.com page, and she's appeared as an MP, so I suspect she doesn't have a "contract" per se.  If there _is_ any kind of deal, though, I agree.  Available as a guest is OK, but linked, not so much.  

All that said, the "Real Time" staff should have identified her as a Minister, not just an MP.



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> This is, _in my personal opinion_, inappropriate. She's entitled to her views but now that she's a minister she needs to give Canada, and the world, the views of her government ... or resign from the cabinet.


Nothing she said is far enough outside the lines to put her in conflict with the Team Red master lyric sheet.  Besides, selfie-worthiness notwithstanding, even PMJT would have SOMETHING to say (or even do) to her if she was playing too far outside the fence - or at least the whip, anyway  ;D


----------



## ballz (22 Nov 2015)

I actually wish more of our politicians would go on shows like this (I very much wish we had a Canadian equivalent of Real Time) and The Hour, etc. Bill Maher may identify as a comedian but Real Time is much more of a politics show with a flavour of comedy than it is a comedy show with a flavour of politics.

I find these shows really expose the person, their strengths, their weaknesses, their principals, their logical flaws, etc. This show in particular has a way of unmasking the person. I'd be real interested to see someone like Stephen Harper, someone whom I think most Canadians always felt they didn't quite connect with or understand, go on Real Time. I always wished he would go on The Hour.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Nov 2015)

The only problem I have, ballz, is that she's a minister and when she speaks in public or on the air we must assume she is speaking as a minister and enunciating government policy. I did not have HUGE problems with what she said, although I think she got led into a couple of rhetorical traps by Mr Maher, but I am abou 99% sure that a DM and a couple of ADMs and two or three directors general are parsing her every word, right now, on a Sunday, to see if they have to issue some _policy_ guidelines tomorrow.

I know American politicians do this on a regular basis, and Prime Minister Harper did things with e.g. Rick Mercer, but our _system_, cabinet government in a Westminster type parliament, gives ministers great powers and makes their every public word subject to question and analysis.


----------



## The Bread Guy (22 Nov 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> .... I am abou 99% sure that a DM and a couple of ADMs and two or three directors general are parsing her every word, right now, on a Sunday, to see if they have to issue some _policy_ guidelines tomorrow.


1)  If that's the case, then we have _more_ evidence of not exactly great comms from Fearless Leader & Co. on down.
2)  If I had to bet a loonie, this isn't the _only_ Minister whose every public word is sifted by The Machine for guidance re:  what happens next - take the refugee thing, for example.


----------



## Cloud Cover (22 Nov 2015)

I really hope PMHairstyle has a long lasting policy of letting his ministers go on shows like this. This video of Freeland with Maher is a keeper. (The dumbness of Americans", her inability to distinguish between culture and religious law, dismissing the dangers of radical Islam, somehow thinking that can be mixed into the scheme of diversity.) These are foolish, naive,  dangerous people we now have in power.


----------



## a_majoor (22 Nov 2015)

But just remember the criterion that she and every other minister of the Crown was selected on....."Because 2015!"

If there is a backlash or any questioning on what she said (or why such an obvious dud was chosen for such an important position), expect the questioner to be shut down quickly and savagely with a "_because 2015_" type of response.


----------



## cavalryman (22 Nov 2015)

I give it 6 months at best before the Trudeau PMO goes into full message control mode on the Liberal caucus members, just like the Conservative PMO did.  :nod:


----------



## OldSolduer (22 Nov 2015)

cavalryman said:
			
		

> I give it 6 months at best before the Trudeau PMO goes into full message control mode on the Liberal caucus members, just like the Conservative PMO did.  :nod:



And the MSM will most likely play right along. 

Because we know they are unbiased.....


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Nov 2015)

Look, I don't think there were many people less pleased than I when Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's Liberals won a majority. I doubt his "bottom," his fitness to lead a G7 nation, and I seriously doubt the ethical fibre of the party apparatus behind him.

That being said, he enunciated some pretty clear foreign policy objectives during the campaign. I don't agree with his priorities but they are well within what I would call the _political centre_ in Canada: no to bombing; yes to helping to train anti-_Daesh_ forces; yes to refugees; no to slowing the (overly) ambitious schedule; no to the F-35, but yes to some new fighter; yes to a renewed navy; and climate change is the No. 1 challenge of the day. There's nothing dangerous about those policies; I might think they're misguided, even ill-conceived but I will not brand them dangerous.

For better or worse, a plurality of Canadians who bothered to vote, 40% of 69% of our fellow citizens, chose Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's Liberals. Yes, we ought to examine and critique his policies _on their merits_ but Prime Minister Justin Trudeau deserves our respect, as a person, as our prime minister, and he deserves a chance to show us that his policies make sense.

My  :2c: anyway ...


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (22 Nov 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The only problem I have, ballz, is that she's a minister and when she speaks in public or on the air we must assume she is speaking as a minister and enunciating government policy. I did not have HUGE problems with what she said, although I think she got led into a couple of rhetorical traps by Mr Maher, but I am abou 99% sure that a DM and a couple of ADMs and two or three directors general are parsing her every word, right now, on a Sunday, to see if they have to issue some _policy_ guidelines tomorrow.
> 
> I know American politicians do this on a regular basis, and Prime Minister Harper did things with e.g. Rick Mercer, but our _system_, cabinet government in a Westminster type parliament, gives ministers great powers and makes their every public word subject to question and analysis.



 I am with ERC on this one, you youngsters out there may not remember this but in the early 60's, a new Finance minister made an innocuous reply to a question about the value of the Canadian dollar in a scrum in Ottawa and answered "Personally, I'd like to see it lower", or words to that effect, and the dollar plunged by almost 10 cents overnight. What ministers of the crown say matters. It matters to those charged with carrying out policy (remember the line from the documentary Yes Minister!: You can't change government policy once it's been announced.) and it matters to those who have their fingers on the Canadian economy.

In the present case, however, I note one thing: She was introduced as a "member of parliament" only (in fact, they didn't specify which parliament and she first speaks after a quote from PM Cameron, which could lead some people to think she was from England, until they heard her). As such, she is entitled to her opinions and views and was she not a minister, her attendance would be perfectly legitimate. But, since she accepted to become a minister of the crown, and since she is attending an American (foreign) talk show in the USA, she is presumed to present the foreign policy position of Canada, and foreign affairs usually takes the view that ANY foreign affair statement must be vetted almost word for word to make sure it conforms to current positions. 

Now somebody here commented on American politicians attending these type of shows, and it is true. However, I note that they are usually attended by politicians that are part of the legislative branch, i.e. the senators and representatives. And these people do not "run" the US - the executive branch does. And the executive branch attends the serious "talking head" shows, but rarely the lighter fare ones such and M. Mayer's show. When they do (rare, and usually just the president/vice-president or governors) it is because they are running for reelection, and there is an understanding that they will only speak on the upcoming election and what they intend to do in their next mandate.


----------



## George Wallace (22 Nov 2015)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> I really hope PMHairstyle has a long lasting policy of letting his ministers go on shows like this. This video of Freeland with Maher is a keeper. (The dumbness of Americans", her inability to distinguish between culture and religious law, dismissing the dangers of radical Islam, somehow thinking that can be mixed into the scheme of diversity.) These are foolish, naive,  dangerous people we now have in power.



Definitely did not show any moral or ethical backbone.


----------



## quadrapiper (22 Nov 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ...yes to helping to train anti-_Daesh_ forces...


As a naif - good opportunity to gain influence/contacts/persistent presence in the _less crazy_ circles in that part of the world, _without_ the you-bombed-a-hospital/wedding party/whatever risks of the aerial campaign? Hasn't the UK made a long-standing practice of advisory and exchange personnel with various east-of-Suez states, as well as running their officer candidates through Sandhurst?


----------



## Good2Golf (22 Nov 2015)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> ...I am with ERC on this one, you youngsters out there may not remember this but in the early 60's, a new Finance minister made an innocuous reply to a question about the value of the Canadian dollar in a scrum in Ottawa and answered "Personally, I'd like to see it lower", or words to that effect, and the dollar plunged by almost 10 cents overnight. What ministers of the crown say matters. It matters to those charged with carrying out policy (*remember the line from the documentary Yes Minister!: You can't change government policy once it's been announced*.) and it matters to those who have their fingers on the Canadian economy...



...and the corollary: A decision's a decision, isn't it? (around 2:30, but the lead up is rather good.)


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Nov 2015)

And now the MND joins in, enunciating government policy. CTV's _Question Period_ is a much more appropriate forum than Bill Maher's _Real Time_ show on a US cable network, and the MND is closer to this sort of _policy_ issue (Assad must go) than International Trade Minister Freeland is to the very broad social issue of tolerance and socio-cultural values.

We must assume, if there is any validity to our Westminster style of parliamentary government and accountability, that this ~_ Assad must go_ ~ is Canadian Government Policy (writ large) and not just the opinion of the MND. In our system ministers speak for the entire government unless, on some social issue like "right to life" or even "toleration/accommodation" (s)he specifically says "this is my own, personal, view and not something I am saying on behalf of the government" (or even on behalf of the official opposition or my party).


----------



## mariomike (23 Nov 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> That would also be reminiscent of the Somali slums we created here in Canada.  No Lessons Learned there.



Regarding lessons learned, or not learned, I read this,

In the late 1980's  political strife in Somalia lead to a flight of refugees, so that Somalia was the source of the second-largest number of refugee claimants in Canada in the early 1990's. By 1991 there were 9,000 Somali's living in Canada with the majority in Toronto and by the end of 1993, 13,872 Somalis were permanent residents in Canada.

Little Mogadishu
 It is well known that Toronto's Somali population clustered in the Dixon Road and Islington Avenue area of Etobicoke which was referred to as “Little Somalia.” What is not well known is that the six condominium buildings on Dixon Road were targeted by the City of Etobicoke.

 City officials need housing for the large influx of Somali refugees so they contacted all the condo owners who were renting their units for approximately $900 a month and promised them $1200 a month f they would rent to the Somalis refugees. An added sweetener was that the owners would receive their rent money directly from the city so the monthly rent payments were guaranteed.

 The owners dumped their existing tenants as quickly as they could to make room for the refugees. A large number of Somalians moving into these three condominium buildings. This immediate area, named Dixon City, provided a sense of community for the Somali immigrants.

 They did not mix well with the established owner-residents who resented their presence.

Social tensions
 The low-income Somalis shared their apartments with extended families and other immigrants so that an estimated 4,500 Somalis were living in a third of YCC #42s almost 900 apartments.

 The three buildings which were designed to hold 5000 grew to 9000 residents. The children played in the hallways and the Somali community would gather in the open courtyard in the late evenings to socialize.

 There were complaints of noise, vandalism, petty crime and overcrowded elevators. Owner-residents complained that the Somalis were urinating, defecting and smoking khat in the staircases.

 In return, the Somalis complained of harassment, based on racism, which they felt was intended to drive them out of the area.

A Place Called Dixon
 The social and economic tensions within YCC #42 were recorded in a CBC documentary, "A Place Called Dixon" that was aired on television in 1993.

 While it is true that there was a deep divide between the original white, European owner-residents and the brown skinned, Muslim newcomers, the documentary was criticized for showing extremists on both sides and unfairly portraying the owner-residents as racists.

Economic costs
 The overcrowding and led to complaints from building managers and property owners. The common element fees soared as the condo corporation had to pay for huge increases in utility bills, garbage pickups, maintenance costs, vandalism and repairs and replacements to the common areas.

 Security was increased and the guards had two police dogs, which they claimed were needed for their safety but were seen as an affront by the Somali residents.

 The unexpected economic burden created by the over-crowded units had to be shared by all of the unit owners. Property values plunged.

 I contend that the real problem at YCC #42 was not racial, cultural or religious but economic. The condo was overwhelmed by a low-income population who needed inexpensive housing. The absentee landlords, who rented their units, accommodated them. The owner-residents who had their life savings tied up in their units and could not afford to cut their losses and sell, would never be happy with how their dream homes turned out.
http://www.condomadness.info/YCC42-Dixon-City.html


----------



## Jed (23 Nov 2015)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Regarding lessons learned, or not learned, I read this,
> 
> In the late 1980's  political strife in Somalia lead to a flight of refugees, so that Somalia was the source of the second-largest number of refugee claimants in Canada in the early 1990's. By 1991 there were 9,000 Somali's living in Canada with the majority in Toronto and by the end of 1993, 13,872 Somalis were permanent residents in Canada.
> 
> ...



Back to the Future IV.


----------



## The Bread Guy (23 Nov 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> We must assume, if there is any validity to our Westminster style of parliamentary government and accountability, that this ~_ Assad must go_ ~ is Canadian Government Policy (writ large) and not just the opinion of the MND. In our system ministers speak for the entire government unless, on some social issue like "right to life" or even "toleration/accommodation" (s)he specifically says "this is my own, personal, view and not something I am saying on behalf of the government" (or even on behalf of the official opposition or my party).


And another practice under our system is that if a Minister of the Crown speaks out of turn, or speaks outside the government's lines, sanctions follow.  We'll see if such sanctions follow ....

Also, methinks she wouldn't have done that without Team Red's "child soldiers with Crackberries"*** giving the nod.


			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> .... In the present case, however, I note one thing: She was introduced as a "member of parliament" only ....


I thought the yellow bit, too, but I now stand corrected.  I listened to the whole segment this morning, and she was introduced as MP (first) _and_ Minister (second).  

She doesn't sound bad (although I'm guessing media would have jumped on her more-than-hinting at Americans being dumb a LOT more if she was from Team Blue), but she's far from ministerial yet.

*** - A term I've heard people far more cynical than me apply to political staff.


----------



## jmt18325 (23 Nov 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> And now the MND joins in, enunciating government policy. CTV's _Question Period_ is a much more appropriate forum than Bill Maher's _Real Time_ show on a US cable network



In defence of Minister Freeland, she has been appearing on Real Time for years, long before becoming an MP.


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Nov 2015)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> In defence of Minister Freeland, she has been appearing on Real Time for years, long before becoming an MP.




Fair enough and, _in my opinion_, completely irrelevant. She's now a minister of the crown: that's a HUGE change in status and responsibility and appearing on a US cable channels political-news-comedy programme shows, _in my view_, again, poor judgement on her part and on the part of the PMO. I have never thought much of Minister Freeland ~ not as a "journalist" and not as a politician: she is a very well educated and 'smart' woman but I think her _instincts_ are wrong. I _suspect_ that Minister Freeland really _might_ not understand that what she's doing is wrong, but the PMO needs to reign her in ... or move her to the back-benches where, _I think_, she belongs.


----------



## George Wallace (23 Nov 2015)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> In defence of Minister Freeland, she has been appearing on Real Time for years, long before becoming an MP.



Hate to say it; but that is NOT A DEFENCE.


----------



## Brad Sallows (23 Nov 2015)

People old enough to know better are losing their grasp of propriety.  Being modern doesn't mean being a teenage buffoon searching for popular celebrity.  There is much to be said for the deportment and circumspection of earlier generations.


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Nov 2015)

Greg Perry, drawing in the _Ottawa Citizen_, got the issue of bombing IS**/_Da'eah_, in particular, and the new Liberal foreign policy in general, just about right:






Source: http://ottawacitizen.com/gallery/editorial-cartoons-2


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Nov 2015)

Can someone, a Liberal supporter or apologist perhaps, translate this for me, please?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (25 Nov 2015)

Certainly 
“The recent incident does not fit our world view and party platform. We really have not thought about it and we love turkey, because yes well it’s yummy and filling, oh right yes we love that Turkey as well. We don’t really know what happen and still don’t know what to do other than move forward on a political promise made in a vacuum, I know I just smile and hope you notice the hair…..”


----------



## PPCLI Guy (25 Nov 2015)

It was relatively fine until the last 20 seconds.....then gibberish


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (25 Nov 2015)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> It was relatively fine until the last 20 seconds.....then gibberish



Relatively fine? Good lord, that was the most rambling attempt at a response I've heard in a long time.


----------



## Journeyman (25 Nov 2015)

He was just like the rest of us -- he had absolutely no idea how that sentence was going to turn out once he started it.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (25 Nov 2015)

Pardon me for butting in. Did the PM say (at the end) that we are in a "_mission to stabilize Syria_" ?

My understanding (albeit obviously limited) was that we were part of a coalition that is intent on "degrading ISIL's fighting capability with a view to ultimately defeat them".

Did I miss something ???


----------



## Kirkhill (25 Nov 2015)

Canada now walking the centre line between Russia and Nato with a view to stabilizing Syria.  It is his dad's policy revisited.  Better a stable dictatorship than an unpredictable regime. 

He and Junckers will get along famously, I am sure.


----------



## AmmoTech90 (25 Nov 2015)

Well we can't de-escalate Russian style since we ditched the Starfighters.



> ... Russia's embrace of what it calls a "de-escalation" nuclear strike in the case of a conventional military conflict that poses an existential threat to the country. The doctrine calls for Russia to respond with a nuclear strike. Russia's answer, in the case of such a conflict, is to drop a single nuclear weapon — one from the family of smaller, battlefield-use nukes known as "tactical" weapons, rather than from the larger, city-destroying "strategic" nuclear weapons. The idea is that such a strike would signal Russia's willingness to use nuclear weapons, and would force the enemy to immediately end the fight rather than risk further nuclear destruction.


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Nov 2015)

_The Economist_, in an article from the print edition (which is free to read) suggests that "we" need to fight IS**/_Da'esh_ "on every front."

_The Economist_ says:

     First: know your enemy; and it suggests that ~

          The starting-point for a safer world is at home, with the right legal powers. Jihadists are often radicalised online, in small groups. They communicate electronically. When they travel, they leave a trail. The intelligence services need
          controlled access to these data. Terrorists thrive on secrecy, yet the security services may abuse their powers. The solution is a legal framework subject to political and judicial scrutiny.

     Don't scapegoat real, legitimate refugees ~

          The logic of turning away refugees is deeply flawed, practically and morally. Clearly, there is a risk of infiltration, and Europe should monitor new arrivals. But at least five of the Paris terrorists were European citizens, not refugees.
          Someone determined to blow himself up in a terrorist attack could always pay a people-smuggling network to get him in. Some of the refugees arriving on Greek islands were themselves the victims of jihadist violence, occasionally
          at the hands of Europeans who went to Syria to join IS. For Europe to put up a wall to Muslims would suggest that, as IS says, Europeans despise them all. That could be a pathway to terrorism, too.

     Fight IS**/_Da'esh_ where it lives ~

          The case for military action, then, is that the alternative is worse. And yet, partly because it has been a low priority, progress in America’s campaign to “degrade and ultimately destroy” IS has been agonisingly slow ...
          ... [but] the case for military action, then, is that the alternative is worse. And yet, partly because it has been a low priority, progress in America’s campaign to “degrade and ultimately destroy” IS has been agonisingly slow.

     Finally, "Talk, too" ~

           Military force is not enough on its own, though. It will make the rest of the world safer in the short run, but the critics are right that Islamic terror will end only when the Middle East lives in peace. The parallel aim, therefore,
          must be for regional powers to stop fighting through their proxies ... The diplomacy will not be easy and military action should not be forestalled by its lack of progress. But the pursuit of political settlements must be earnest and
          involve all the parties, including Russia and Iran.

By that measure Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's emerging foreign policy is only half right. It appeals to the left wing part of the Liberal base but it is out of step with geo-strategic reality in 2015.


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Nov 2015)

In _my opinion_, this report from the _Ottawa Citizen_ is another foreign policy _fail_ for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau:

     "PARIS – Prime Minister Justin Trudeau plans to meet with India’s prime minister on Sunday at the Paris climate conference to try to persuade him to get on board with the rest of the world on an ambitious plan to reduce
      greenhouse gas emissions.
      ...
      India and its population of more than one billion people is one of the world’s largest emitters, but it remains one of the countries that has been balking at hard emissions caps or absolute reductions ahead of the Paris conference
      because it’s worried about crippling its growing economy."

India is still in the process of moving from this ...

                         
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 and this: 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




                              ... to this:

                                          
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is_ appearing_ to ask Indians to stop progressing so that we, in the rich, industrialized West need not pay the full price for climate change ... assuming that human industrial activity is, indeed, the primary driver. Of course, that not what he is asking ... but that's how it will look in Asia. Canada will look like it wants India to pay for _our_ past mistakes. I'm not sure what the right answer is to all this climate change business, but I'm pretty sure that asking China and India to forgo the sort of "powered" _lifestyle_ we take for granted cannot and will not be part of it.


----------



## Good2Golf (28 Nov 2015)

Mr. Campbell, respectfully, I think there is a difference between "forego" and 'accept that while developing, your country has to consider that climatic responsibility is an aspect of a developed country's responsibility' and that both India and China cannot play both sides of the issue (we're still developing, we shouldn't bear the same burden -- we are developed, respect us).

I don't think that Canada is playing the 'tough guy on the block' here, Canada has recently committed to greater engagement in climate issues, and so could be seen in a "we're getting better on the issue, so too should you [India/China].

Regards,
G2G


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Nov 2015)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Mr. Campbell, respectfully, I think there is a difference between "forego" and 'accept that while developing, your country has to consider that climatic responsibility is an aspect of a developed country's responsibility' and that both India and China cannot play both sides of the issue (we're still developing, we shouldn't bear the same burden -- we are developed, respect us).
> 
> I don't think that Canada is playing the 'tough guy on the block' here, Canada has recently committed to greater engagement in climate issues, and so could be seen in a "we're getting better on the issue, so too should you [India/China].
> 
> ...



G2G

From a map ERC reproduced on the PMJT - 100 days thread.

A problem that JT has is that Canada has already out performed all of its Kyoto, Copenhagen and Rio signing brethren. - And that with that eco-dinosaur (NB Humour Attempt) Harper in charge. 

Canada is down 9.5% on emissions beating everybody in the Americas (North and South), everybody in Europe, Japan and Australia and Russia.  And working against the trend of the Middle East, Africa and all parts of Asia except Japan and Taiwan.

Canada's success has come not from government policy but from business investing in new plants with new processes and new equipment that are more efficient and increase profits.  This is most evident in the oilsands directly but is also evident in supporting industries like manufacturing, railway and road transportation.  



http://army.ca/forums/threads/120785.175.html


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Nov 2015)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Mr. Campbell, respectfully, I think there is a difference between "forego" and 'accept that while developing, your country has to consider that climatic responsibility is an aspect of a developed country's responsibility' and that both India and China cannot play both sides of the issue (_we're still developing, we shouldn't bear the same burden_ -- we are developed, respect us).
> 
> I don't think that Canada is playing the 'tough guy on the block' here, Canada has recently committed to greater engagement in climate issues, and so could be seen in a "we're getting better on the issue, so too should you [India/China].
> 
> ...




That is precisely the card prime Minister Modi played, today, in Paris ~ sorry, I lost the link and I'm too lazy to go search ~ when he said something like: we want to help but the higher priority must be that we continue to industrialize at a rapid rate because we need to lift millions out of poverty ~ he means as many millions as there are (rich and poor alike) in America and Europe combined, by the way.

India, especially is playing "catch up" with China which, given its abundant coal supplies is ten to twenty years ahead in rural electrification.

Anyway, why should Modi agree to _anything_? China will not sign on to much of anything in the way of binding targets or quotas, neither will America ... who cares what Canada says and does?

But, take a look at this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/world-insider/beijings-crazy-bad-smog-cloud-could-have-a-silver-lining/article27525738/


> Beijing’s ‘crazy bad’ smog cloud could have a silver lining
> 
> SUBSCRIBERS ONLY
> 
> ...




I have long maintained that "global climate change" is not a 'good' political issue ~ the merits of the case don't matter: it is too abstract, too far away, too frightening and too expensive.

Killer smog and pollution, on the other hand, are 'good' issues: people can see, smell and taste them and they can relate, directly to them. 

Some of the answers may be politically sensitive: like allowing Chinese companies to buy up Canadian uranium mines to meet what will, of necessity, be an urgent demand for nuclear power in the not too distant future.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (30 Nov 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> That is precisely the card prime Minister Modi played, today, in Paris ~ sorry, I lost the link and I'm too lazy to go search ~ when he said something like: we want to help but the higher priority must be that we continue to industrialize at a rapid rate because we need to lift millions out of poverty ~ he means as many millions as there are (rich and poor alike) in America and Europe combined, by the way.
> 
> India, especially is playing "catch up" with China which, given its abundant coal supplies is ten to twenty years ahead in rural electrification.
> 
> ...



Technology to burn coal cleanly is there already, it's just expensive and will require higher electric bills.  The goal in China should be to guide them towards using scrubbing technology already available.  I wonder how many Chinese coal plants have precipitators or FGDs?  Or are they all firing on 1950s technology?

The only other option is Nuclear as their energy needs are too great for the economically unsustainable green technology we've hitched ourselves to.


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Nov 2015)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Technology to burn coal cleanly is there already, it's just expensive and will require higher electric bills.  The goal in China should be to guide them towards using scrubbing technology already available.  I wonder how many Chinese coal plants have precipitators or FGDs?  Or are they all firing on 1950s technology?
> 
> The only other option is Nuclear as their energy needs are too great for the economically unsustainable green technology we've hitched ourselves to.




Is this what you mean?


How "clean" is clean enough? Is any level of "clean coal" acceptable to the climate activists?

China can pay a huge price, doesn't want to, but can ... and people ~ ordinary people ~ in Beijing are starting to get restless, I think.

India cannot pay ... I have this from 2013: India's total primary energy consumption from crude oil (29.45%), natural gas (7.7%), coal (54.5%), nuclear energy (1.26%), hydro electricity (5.0%), wind power, biomass electricity and solar power is 595 Mtoe.

India needs to shift from coal to nuclear, to avoid the mess China now faces, but that's expensive, too.


----------



## a_majoor (30 Nov 2015)

If we had serious people working the problem rather than virtue signalling, then the Canadian response would be to sell as many Canadian nuclear reactors to India as possible (along with 20 year contracts for Uranium supply) to boost India's electrical output, raise millions out of poverty, establish trading relationships with Canada to a large, regional Anglosphere power and give us a new partner in an increasingly complex and hostile world.

Perhaps someday the Liberal Government will be "ready"; they only had over two years to prepare for this day....


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (30 Nov 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Is this what you mean?
> 
> 
> How "clean" is clean enough? Is any level of "clean coal" acceptable to the climate activists?
> ...



Disclaimer,

Before I decided to pursue a career in Her Majesty's Canadian Armed Forces, I worked as a coal handler for the New Brunswick Power Corporation, so lets just say I know a thing or two about making power with Coal  ;D.  If I hadn't decided on a military career I would have definitely pursued a career in Power Engineering and I may yet do so.

If they want to lower the amount of emissions produced from Coal-burning there are a number of things they could do:

1.  Use a higher quality coal as their fuel.  Not all coal is created equally, and some burns cleaner than others.  They should also stop combining coal with other fuels (petroleum coke for instance).  A lot of companies do this as a way to save money but it's terrible for the environment.

2.  Use a number of different technologies to improve their processes: electrostatic precipitation, flue gas desulfurization/decarbonation, etc...

3.  Improve the efficiency of their other systems i.e. build a better boiler system so you use less coal/fuel to generate the same amount of heat/steam.  Efficiency is a big thing, some of the most modern plants only really get around 34-35% fuel efficiency (meaning they only harness 34% of the total energy of the fuel they are using).

The process behind making electricity with fossil fuels is quite simple.  You pump water through a boiler, the boiler is heated using (insert whatever fossil fuel here), the heat generated from the boiler turns the water in to high pressure steam that is used to spin a turbine that generates electricity.  Want to really reduce carbon emissions?  Attack the disease, not the symptom and build a better boiler system!



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> If we had serious people working the problem rather than virtue signalling, then the Canadian response would be to sell as many Canadian nuclear reactors to India as possible (along with 20 year contracts for Uranium supply) to boost India's electrical output, raise millions out of poverty, establish trading relationships with Canada to a large, regional Anglosphere power and give us a new partner in an increasingly complex and hostile world.
> 
> Perhaps someday the Liberal Government will be "ready"; they only had over two years to prepare for this day....



This is what happens when you let lawyers and political "scientists" make decisions that are best left to engineers and real scientists  :nod:


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Nov 2015)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Disclaimer,
> 
> Before I decided to pursue a career in Her Majesty's Canadian Armed Forces, I worked as a coal-handler for the New Brunswick Power Corporation, so lets just say I know a thing or two about making power with Coal  ;D.  If I hadn't decided on a military career I would have definitely pursued a career in Power Engineering and I may yet do so.
> 
> ...




I was in Datong, in China's Shanxi Province, where one of China's larger coal mines is located. The production is impressive, to say the least, and so are the side effects: there is coal dust everywhere, it is all pervasive ... and it will be for generations, even after the mines are closed. Over 35 years ago I was stationed in the Netherlands, at AFCENT HQ in Brunssum. We had a lovely home in an idyllic little town called Hoensbroek ... the only thing was that every morning we had to wipe the coal dust off our white lawn furniture, there were little black spots (coal dust in the dew) everywhere and that was more than 20 years after the Dutch coal mines had all closed! I'm told that now, over 60 years, two generations, since the mines closed the coal dust still covers everything.

I am somewhat skeptical about "clean coal," despite its promise.

I'm not arguing against it ... I'm just unsure if 'clean coal" is not, perhaps, an oxymoron.

But, if it can be made to work at reasonable costs then the social benefits ~ jobs ~ of mining and using coal are enormous.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (30 Nov 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I was in Datong, in China's Shanxi Province, where one of China's larger coal mines is located. The production is impressive, to say the least, and so are the side effects: there is coal dust everywhere, it is all pervasive ... and it will be for generations, even after the mines are closed. Over 35 years ago I was stationed in the Netherlands, at AFCENT HQ in Brunssum. We had a lovely home in an idyllic little town called Hoensbroek ... the only thing was that every morning we had to wipe the coal dust off our white lawn furniture, there were little black spots (coal dust in the dew) everywhere and that was more than 20 years after the Dutch coal mines had all closed! I'm told that now, over 60 years, two generations, since the mines closed the coal dust still covers everything.
> 
> I am somewhat skeptical about "clean coal," despite its promise.
> 
> ...



Coal Mining is dirty, no question, but so is uranium mining or any other mining for that matter.  When I say "clean coal" though, what I mean is a coal that burns better.  Think about it like a camp fire.  If I throw a bunch of softwood in to a fire, it's going to burn very hot but the wood is going to burn very quickly which means I will end up having to use a tonne of wood to keep the fire going.  Compare this to if I were to burn a hardwood, hardwood burns for a long time and once the fire is going, it stays very consistent.

The same principle applies when burning fossil fuels.  If you use a crappy source of coal, oil, natural gas, etc... you will need to burn more of the stuff to generate the same amount of energy which drastically increases the amount of emissions you generate.  You need to use a higher quality fuel supply or find a way to improve your boiler's ability to trap heat.

China is the industrial bread basket of the world and heavy industry has a huge energy requirement.  Fossil Fuels and Nuclear are the only real economically feasible options to meet that requirement, unless you're Canada and have an abundance of uninhabitable land and water for hydro-electric projects.


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Nov 2015)

Thanks, HB, so there is "hard" (cleaner burning) and "soft" (dirty) coal .. is that right?

Which does China have in such abundance? (Two of the world's largest coal mines are in Inner Mongolia.) What about Alberta?


----------



## Old Sweat (30 Nov 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Thanks, HB, so there is "hard" (cleaner burning) and "soft" (dirty) coal .. is that right?



We were taught the difference between types of coal with some explanation re what was mined where, but that was back in public school circa 1950-1952. Anthracite, or hard coal, produced more heat per ton and less pollution than its soft counterpart, which, however, was cheaper. This was at just about the time London, England was hit with a massive "smog" bank that killed a lot of people and pretty well shut down the city. It was attributed to the near universal use of soft coal for heating in the UK, along with the presence of a longterm low pressure system that settled on the British Isles.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/learning/learn-about-the-weather/weather-phenomena/case-studies/great-smog


----------



## a_majoor (30 Nov 2015)

One thing about using any thermal cycle for energy generation is you run up against "Carnot's theorem", which essentially places a hard cap on the amount of energy that can be extracted by a thermal process. In rough terms, this means that most engines, boilers etc. can generally only extract @ 33% of the energy from the fuel. This limit is somewhat flexible, if you add other stages to the process (essentially adding another "Carnot cycle" to extract some of the left over heat energy), but there are cost and practical limits to what can be done to extract more energy.

Batteries and fuel cells are not limited by the Carnot theorem, since they are electrochemical systems, but since the energy density of hydrocarbon fuels is 20-25X that of even the most advanced batteries, we will be seeing hydrocarbons and coal in service for a long time to come. If it were somehow possible to use coal directly in a fuel cell, then you would see much higher conversion efficiencies.

Since we want to stay warm and ensure Canadians are not living in poverty, then *we* need to embrace mature, low cost energy sources, of which coal is number one in terms of energy density, versatility (you can build a coal plant anywhere) and cost, and not try to punish other people who are doing the same. Yes, coal is dirty and has lots of issues, but then freezing in the dark is not an acceptable COA either....


----------



## GAP (30 Nov 2015)

If they used the basic Geothermal initial heating, THEN used supplementry heat eg: coal, gas, etc.....then the overall used would reduce. 

There was an article a long while back about using exchangers ("Carnot theorem"? ) in the stacks, to the point the boiler was up over 60% effective....


----------



## Good2Golf (30 Nov 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ...India needs to shift from coal to nuclear, to avoid the mess China now faces, but that's expensive, too.



Well, we did give them a Chalk River-like breeder in the 50's and CANDU 200's in the 60's, so it's not like we weren't helping them.  

Well played by PM Modi to put the 'helping escape the binds of poverty' flavour on putting emissions controls off for his grand children to deal with.

Regards
G2G


----------



## Kirkhill (30 Nov 2015)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> We were taught the difference between types of coal with some explanation re what was mined where, but that was back in public school circa 1950-1952. Anthracite, or hard coal, produced more heat per ton and less pollution than its soft counterpart, which, however, was cheaper. This was at just about the time London, England was hit with a massive "smog" bank that killed a lot of people and pretty well shut down the city. It was attributed to the near universal use of soft coal for heating in the UK, along with the presence of a longterm low pressure system that settled on the British Isles.
> 
> http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/learning/learn-about-the-weather/weather-phenomena/case-studies/great-smog



Actually, as a resident of those London Fogs, remembered fondly (I still enjoy the smell of diesel fumes and soot), the issue in London was never about Hard Coal (Anthracite) versus Soft Coal (any grade down to and including lignite or Brown Coal).

No British boiler man would have tolerated Brown Coal in his boilers - far too much water and tar.  That is the stuff that is used to fire Saskatchewan and German coal plants.  British power plants were fired by various grades of Anthracite mined in the North of England and the South of Scotland.  They were marginally poorer than the Pennsylvania coals.

The problem in London was just the sheer volume of coal fires.  Take a look at an English city scape and count the chimney pots.  Everyone of those had a fire place attached - one per room.  All of them burning coal inefficiently.

The problem was partly solved by converting people from coal to coke, created as a co-product with coal gas from coal.  The real solution came with the electric heater.

Even now, to my knowledge, central heating is a minority solution in the UK.

Centralizing the burning of coal so that the burning can be managed efficiently and the wastes/byproducts also managed is a perfectly feasible solution.

Steam technology really is the heart of the heat and power industry - whether it is coal, diesel, gas, uranium or geo-thermal that is the primary heat source.  The one industry that hasn't figured that out yet is the renewable industry.  

You can also boil water with windmills and solar panels - and you can store that energy as hot water under pressure - just like geothermal energy.

If I am going to be stuck with these ruddy windmills cluttering up my sightlines and killing birds then for gawdsake somebody make them worthwhile and attach them to a proper steam plant and create a renewable geothermal facility.

Aaargh - nudder sore point found.


----------



## Kirkhill (30 Nov 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> One thing about using any thermal cycle for energy generation is you run up against "Carnot's theorem", which essentially places a hard cap on the amount of energy that can be extracted by a thermal process. In rough terms, this means that most engines, boilers etc. can generally only extract @ 33% of the energy from the fuel. ....



With respect:

Boiler efficiencies typically run in the 85% range for carbon fuel boilers and >95% for electrically fired boilers.

The 33% applies to converting thermal energy into motion.  Diesel engines for example.

If you give me a supply of hot water under high pressure from any source, I can find a turbine that will use the steam generated when the hot water goes from the high pressure source to low pressure.  And I will find a use for the low grade heat in the water after it has condensed in the low pressure zone.  That water can be recycled and reheated to create high pressure hot water by any fuel known to man - including by turning a windmill into a simple boiler by taking the electrical wires from the generator on top of the mast and attaching them at the bottom of the mast to either a resistance coil, or even just a couple of electrodes, immersed in a closed container of water.

This stuff isn't rocket science - it is just that most folks seem to have forgotten who the Watt was named for.

Wind to turbine - 25% efficient
Turbine to electricity - 95% efficient
Electricity to boiler - 95% efficient
District electric CHP plant - 70 to 90% efficient.

You could just as easily find the heat by burning the coal in-situ and leaving all the carbon underground.

http://swanhills-synfuels.com/  - insitu coal gasification
https://www.google.com/patents/US3379248 - insitu coal combustion


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Dec 2015)

Canada's new, Liberal Foreign Policy is rather neatly summed up by Rick McKee in the _Augusta Chronicle_:

          
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



          Source: http://chronicle.augusta.com/opinion/cartoons/2015-11-19/rick-mckee-editorial-cartoon-0


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Dec 2015)

I think the Liberals, but also the Conservatives and the NDP and their confrères across the political spectra from Australia to Zambia, have missed the foreign policy boat ... it isn't climate change, although that's one driver, nor is it terrorism, although that, too, is a driver, it is the prospect of another historic, world changing, _great migration_.

The migrants are going to come, in HUGE numbers, from the world's 75 or so poorest and most vulnerable countries ~ from the Central African Republic, which is at the bottom of everyone's list through to, say, Fiji, which might suffer a lot from climate change ~ and they are going to aim to settle in the 30 or so richest and most _liberal_ places like Luxembourg, Norway, the USA, Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the Czech Republic.

The people in the 75 'worst off' countries are, overwhelmingly, poor, dark skinned, culturally unsophisticated (to put it mildly), poorly educated and willing and able to work hard. They are not, by and large, Muslim, although some are. Some, perhaps many will have socio-cultural _customs_ that range from strange, to us, to abhorrent. (Female genital mutilation and "honour killings," for example, are not, by and large, Muslims things: they are African and (sometimes) Asian customs that transcend religions.)

Dealing with climate issues might offer some very temporary, stop gap "relief" to a few countries ~ but famines are more likely to be caused by bad governments than bad climates. But, I suspect that the 100,000 people in small, poor (162 of 185 on the World Bank's list (where 185 is the poorest)), low lying Kiribati are going to need resettlement when the sea levels rise ...

               
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Dealing with terrorism and despots might help stem the tide of refugees from some countries, but we need to be clear that many so-called political refugees seeking protection from wars and insurrections are, in reality, just ordinary people who have had enough, who have given up on Afghanistan and Benin and Chad and Djibouti and so on ... and want to come to Australia and Belgium and Canada and start again.

In the past 50 years the US led West has focused on, first, dealing with the USSR, and, now, dealing with the Middle East. In the process we, the West, have given China nearly _carte blanche_ in Africa which is a treasure house of resources and wealth that we all need.

In the next 25 years China and India will add another 750 million people (about the entire populations of North America and the EU, combined) into the global "middle class." Those people will want to consume resources. Who will control the resources? Australia and Canada and the USA are well positioned, ditto Brazil and some other South American countries, but Africa is the mother lode.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (1 Dec 2015)

New foreign policy?  Not sure about that.  The bureaucracy at External Affairs was at war with the Conservative government.  It was a sad day when they removed capital punishment for treason and replaced it with lashes with a wet noodle.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/clinton-email-canada-foreign-affairs-1.3344920


----------



## The Bread Guy (1 Dec 2015)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> New foreign policy?  Not sure about that.  The bureaucracy at External Affairs was at war with the Conservative government.  It was a sad day when they removed capital punishment for treason and replaced it with lashes with a wet noodle.
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/clinton-email-canada-foreign-affairs-1.3344920


Trying to get foreign politicians to change your politicians' minds?  *NOT* on, no matter how much you don't like the bosses.  

Treason, though?  The Criminal Code talks more about trying to kill the Queen, overthrow governments or assisting an enemy at war with Canada - not _all_ disloyal f**ks are treasonous.


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Dec 2015)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> New foreign policy?  Not sure about that.  The bureaucracy at External Affairs was at war with the Conservative government.  It was a sad day when they removed capital punishment for treason and replaced it with lashes with a wet noodle.
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/clinton-email-canada-foreign-affairs-1.3344920




Neither issue ~ middle level civil service _hatred_ of the Conservatives (hate is not too strong a word) and going to the Americans asking them to "lobby" our government ~ was a big secret in _official Ottawa_, but it wasn't talked about very much. The Conservatives and the senior ranks of the civil service were slightly embarrassed, and the middle ranks were dismayed to find that their superiors didn't support them. 

     (My impression, as an outsider, was that, by and large, the senior ranks of the civil service (ADMs and DMs) were, generally, happy to see Prime Minister Harper and a (maybe slight) majority of his policies. The middle ranks,
      on the other hand, were most unhappy ~ and that includes all those scientists who complained about being "muzzled.") 

Foreign Affairs used to matter, in the 1940s, '50s and '60s, but it no longer does. The _policy centre_ in official Ottawa is the _troika_ of PCO, Finance and TB ... Foreign Affairs, like Defence, Health and Transport, is just another line department that is more likely to screw things up than make a real, meaningful contribution. Foreign policy is made in the PMO/PCO and in the office of the Minister of Foreign Affairs ... not by officials in the department.


----------



## dapaterson (1 Dec 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Foreign Affairs used to matter, in the 1940s, '50s and '60s, but it no longer does. The _policy centre_ in official Ottawa is the _troika_ of PCO, Finance and TB ... Foreign Affairs, like Defence, Health and Transport, is just another line department that is more likely to screw things up than make a real, meaningful contribution. Foreign policy is made in the PMO/PCO and in the office of the Minister of Foreign Affairs ... not by officials in the department.



Alan Gotlieb wrote a piece in the Globe a week or so ago, calling for the restoration of the Foreign Affairs mandarins as senior diplomats (vice political appointments to Washington, London and Paris).  It was (to be charitable) a rather shallow, self-important piece of puffery.  I suspect Canada's friends would rather an ambassador who can call the PM to address an issue of mutual concern over a well-rounded career diplomat whose connections may reach the level of the DM.


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Dec 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Neither issue ~ middle level civil service _hatred_ of the Conservatives (hate is not too strong a word) and going to the Americans asking them to "lobby" our government ~ was a big secret in _official Ottawa_, but it wasn't talked about very much. The Conservatives and the senior ranks of the civil service were slightly embarrassed, and the middle ranks were dismayed to find that their superiors didn't support them.
> 
> (My impression, as an outsider, was that, by and large, the senior ranks of the civil service (ADMs and DMs) were, generally, happy to see Prime Minister Harper and a (maybe slight) majority of his policies. The middle ranks,
> on the other hand, were most unhappy ~ and that includes all those scientists who complained about being "muzzled.")
> ...



If you can't trust the water-bearer to carry water where and when you want it why on earth would you give them any water to carry or keep them on strength?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (5 Dec 2015)

Ministers don't run the department, so they can only do so much. Proving absolute disloyalty may be difficult and an issue the Union will contest for sure. frankly if your not willing to obey the lawful directions of your elected government, then your in the wrong business.


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Dec 2015)

So you are saying that Harper was right all along?  That his dominance of the House did not eliminate the Opposition?

Or - putting it another way:  Even paranoiacs have enemies.


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Jan 2016)

What BGen (ret'd) Jim Cox wrote on the CDAI website ought ot be required reading in Ottawa for ministers and the _commentariat_. The key point he makes, and one that bears repeating, over and over, is that Canada needs coherent foreign and defence_ policies_, not Minister Dion's abstract _plans_.


----------



## Journeyman (6 Jan 2016)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> What BGen (ret'd) Jim Cox wrote....


 :goodpost:

From the summary paragraph:


> Canadians will want to know if government is inclined to slide back into aimless soft power and naïve liberal internationalism, or whether they have a more realistic world view and notion of modern conflict management.


I suspect that the Liberals want 'a' (because it feels good), with any dabbling in 'b' (because it's necessary) being due more to Allies' pressure than to any understanding of modern international conflicts.  Time will tell.



> Whatever the decision, it must be derived from a coherent hierarchy, topped by a clear policy, leading to a credible strategy with achievable objectives. In the end, it must all be sufficient to justify putting Canadians in harms way.


This, as highlighted by ERC, is the critical, currently absent, bit.  It's also the piece I feel will be the most disappointing if/when the government gets to it. Annunciating concrete policy, amongst its other purposes, facilitates holding the government accountable.  Avoiding that... awkwardness... suggests that amorphous foreign and defence policy "plans" may be the more likely way ahead.


----------



## Old Sweat (6 Jan 2016)

Well said, JM, except that you may attribute a clarity of thought and purpose to them that I fear is far too optimistic. I may be cynical, but to my mind the overriding Liberal international affairs objective is to win another Nobel Peace Prize.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (6 Jan 2016)

On the topic of Naive Liberal Internationalism, here is an excellent piece from renowned South African private military contractor, Eeben Barlow:

http://eebenbarlowsmilitaryandsecurityblog.blogspot.com/2015/12/africa-must-stop-demilitarising-its_2.html


> AFRICA MUST STOP DEMILITARISING ITS MILITARIES
> 
> Having sat through numerous debates and discussions on ‘peacekeeping’, I have always been surprised and disappointed that this costly and failed approach to security and stability is, for some very (not so) strange reason, still being advocated and encouraged.
> 
> ...



You could probably replace African with Canadian and this piece wouldn't need to be altered very much.


----------



## Journeyman (6 Jan 2016)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> .....the overriding Liberal international affairs objective is to win another Nobel Peace Prize.


Hey Obama got one just for showing up and not being _that last guy_, and Trudeau has much more awesome hair.  The Prize is likely just lost in the holiday postal rush.    :nod:


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (6 Jan 2016)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Hey Obama got one just for showing up and not being _that last guy_, and Trudeau has much more awesome hair.  The Prize is likely just lost in the holiday postal rush.    :nod:


----------



## Journeyman (6 Jan 2016)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Sadly, many African governments have allowed themselves to be cajoled and hoodwinked into training their armed forces for peacekeeping missions—a euphemism for demilitarising and emasculating the armed forces



I haven't seen any cajoling or hoodwinking; African nations are becoming "peacekeepers" for the simple reason that it's a massive cash cow for the African dictators troop-contributing nations.






There are the added benefits of having your potentially problematic fighting-aged males dealing with their testosterone in someone else's country.  

And for the UN, Africans patrolling Africans is a much better image than having those 'white, colonial oppressors' doing it....regardless of the chronic scandals, malfeasance, and incompetence.


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Jan 2016)

Humphrey & JM:

There is an illuminating discussion in the comments attached to that article that Humphrey posted.

The author of the blog is going out of his way not to name names and keep to generalities.   It is a dark art, reading between the lines, but the discussion between Barlow and "Unknown" references some of the driving forces.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (6 Jan 2016)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I haven't seen any cajoling or hoodwinking; African nations are becoming "peacekeepers" for the simple reason that it's a massive cash cow for the African dictators troop-contributing nations.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The part you noted in yellow is exactly what I think he meant when he said "cajoled and hoodwinked"

I see peacekeeping and the money that comes with it as basically another form of bribery.  Of course Mr. Barlow and his company are also in direct competition with the UN for business from African governments so his viewpoint ins't completely altruistic.  

He is indirectly telling African governments their money would be better spent hiring him and his cohorts (actual Africans) to solve their problems rather than a bunch of unproven outsiders.  Given some of his successes, I think he has a pretty good business case.



			
				Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Humphrey & JM:
> 
> There is an illuminating discussion in the comments attached to that article that Humphrey posted.
> 
> The author of the blog is going out of his way not to name names and keep to generalities.   It is a dark art, reading between the lines, but the discussion between Barlow and "Unknown" references some of the driving forces.



Chris,

I'm glad you picked up on that  

There is also an interesting little message he gave to a CBC reporter who requested an interview with him  ;D.

I'll say it now, I'm a big fan of Mr. Barlow.  I've been following his blog for a number of years and have read pretty much every post he has ever made.  I also own his first book "Against all odds" and have pre-ordered his upcoming book "Composite Warfare".  I'm particularly interested in his views on the _profession of arms_ and the concept of warfare he calls _relentless pursuit_.


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Jan 2016)

The one thing I find curious about that graph, given the imprecision of the x-axis, is that the UN budget appears to have shot up circa 1992-1994 - or roughly the time that Jean Chretien decided to get Canada out of the Peace-Keeping business.

Can I infer that prior to 1992 Canada, amongst others, contributed standing forces to meet emergency situations when and as necessary?  And that after 1994 they started chucking dollars at the problem, effectively buying "indulgences" and leaving the locals to their own devices?

That UN Aid money would, in my humble opinion, be much better employed, in putting the capabilities back into the forces of the contributing nations.

I believe the UK is coming around to that position.

Foreign Aid money used to fund British military operations abroad
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/379139/David-Cameron-keen-to-give-foreign-aid-to-war-zones

Foreign Aid money used to resettle refugees in Britain
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/refugee-crisis-uk-foreign-aid-budget-to-be-spent-housing-people-in-britain-george-osborne-says-10488561.html

Britain is using the 0.7% of GDP model which results in a budget of some 12 Bn UKP  vice a defence budget of 2.0% of GDP.

In Canada with a Defence budget of 1.0% of GDP a "Foreign Aid Budget" of 0.7% would supply a pool of funds from which military operations could be financed.

And if the government/military knew that those funds were available then projects like air transport, logistics ships, truck fleets, communications, IMPs, shelters - all of which benefit the ability to react immediately to international disasters - could be funded.  The fact that, in time of war, they could also be commandeered for combat purposes - is entirely immaterial and a happy coincidence.


----------



## Good2Golf (7 Jan 2016)

Mr. Pook, I'm not sure "standing force" would be the best description.  Perhaps 'forces available to support IGO sabilization activities' would be more accurate.  Although I have in the past, pointed out data (UNPK itself) that shows a fundamental reduction in Canada's contributions to UN PK ops after PM Chretien assumed power (IIRC, dropping from #1 under Mulroney to, by memory, #32 when Chretien left), I will note that much of Canada's 'available PK forces' were otherwise engaged in UNSCR-supported, BUT, NATO-executed peace-making ops (IFOR, SFOR, etc...).  So, troops were assigned in numbers not far off the late 80s/very-Ealy-90s, just not firefly under the UN's 'operational' mandate.

Regards,
G2G


----------



## Kirkhill (7 Jan 2016)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Mr. Pook, I'm not sure "standing force" would be the best description.  Perhaps 'forces available to support IGO sabilization activities' would be more accurate.  Although I have in the past, pointed out data (UNPK itself) that shows a fundamental reduction in Canada's contributions to UN PK ops after PM Chretien assumed power (IIRC, dropping from #1 under Mulroney to, by memory, #32 when Chretien left), I will note that much of Canada's 'available PK forces' were otherwise engaged in UNSCR-supported, BUT, NATO-executed peace-making ops (IFOR, SFOR, etc...).  So, troops were assigned in numbers not far off the late 80s/very-Ealy-90s, just not firefly under the UN's 'operational' mandate.
> 
> Regards,
> G2G



Would those "UNSCR-supported, NATO executed peace-making ops" have been funded under UN peace-keeping budget though?  

Another coincidental event of the era would have been the formation of the African Union in 1999 and the concomitant funding of the African peace-keeping efforts.


----------



## Good2Golf (8 Jan 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Would those "UNSCR-supported, NATO executed peace-making ops" have been funded under UN peace-keeping budget though?
> 
> Another coincidental event of the era would have been the formation of the African Union in 1999 and the concomitant funding of the African peace-keeping efforts.



Only if the op is a UN-op.  IFOR and SFOR, while supported mandate-wise by a UN Security Council Resolution, were not funded by the UN.

Some (primarily Western) nations will pass a significant portion of the UN's per-soldier payment to the nation(s), through to the soldiers.  The trend with other nations, however, is that the soldier gets very little additional stipend, and the majority of the money from the UN is retained by the particular nation's government.

Regards,
G2G


----------



## Journeyman (8 Jan 2016)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> ....the soldier gets very little additional stipend, and the majority of the money from the UN is retained by the particular nation's government.


*Kleptocracy* is such an awkward term....but's it's how much of the 'third world' works.


Nigeria, as a light-hearted romp through the heart of darkness:

Percentage of Nigerians earning less than $1/day rose from 55% (2004) to 61% (2014), while millionaires have increased by 44% to 16,000 -- overwhelmingly government and military leaders.  Yet Boko Haram continues to run amok, while the UN says " :tsktsk: "


Globe & Mail, 17 June 2014.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (8 Jan 2016)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> *Kleptocracy* is such an awkward term....but's it's how much of the 'third world' works.
> 
> 
> Nigeria, as a light-hearted romp through the heart of darkness:
> ...



Nigeria is an interesting case, in that corruption and criminal activity is pretty much considered a legitimate form of business there.

Going back to my earlier post for a minute:

http://army.ca/forums/threads/120802/post-1409759.html#msg1409759

I believe Eeben Barlow's message I posted was largely directed at the Nigerian government and military establishment.  His company, STTEP, has some recent history with them and he worked closely with them when he was involved in Sierra Leone in the 90's.

Another good book to read, if you're interested in learning about the Nigerian military corruption is a book called "Gunship Ace: The Wars of Neall Ellis, Helicopter Pilot and Mercenary"

See book here:  http://www.amazon.com/Gunship-Ace-Neall-Helicopter-Mercenary/dp/1612000703

Although not specifically about Nigerians, Ellis ended up having to work with the Nigerian Army in Sierra Leone, so his dealings with them are detailed extensively in the book.  My takeaway from it all was "don't ever trust a Nigerian".

Ellis actually recounts how he eventually went about underminning the Nigerians after he found out they were working with the people they were supposed to be protecting Sierra Leone from.  A very interesting look into the world of UN Peacekeeping corruption.  Another reason I never understand why Canadians get all hot and horny about UN Peacekeeping?   :dunno:


----------



## dapaterson (8 Jan 2016)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Nigeria*Montreal* is an interesting case, in that corruption and criminal activity is pretty much considered a legitimate form of business there.



We're no saints either...


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (8 Jan 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> We're no saints either...



Don't worry DP!  I've read the book and got the inside scoop!







EDIT:

It was only after reading "Mafia Inc." that I realized Gelataria protection rackets could be so lucrative  ;D

DON'T PAY THE MAN!  NO MORE SORBET FOR YOU!

This book is also one of the sources I use to justify my great disdain for the Liberal Party of Canada, as their paw prints are all over the Italian mob.


----------



## dapaterson (8 Jan 2016)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> This book is also one of the sources I use to justify my great disdain for the Liberal Party of Canada, as their paw prints are all over the Italian mob.



Well, they weren't the ones taking "consulting" payments in cash for an alleged pasta business, while still sitting as a member of parliament.  Because an Oliphant never forgets.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (8 Jan 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Well, they weren't the ones taking "consulting" payments in cash for an alleged pasta business, while still sitting as a member of parliament.  Because an Oliphant never forgets.



True!  Although I suppose corruption crosses political boundaries in Quebec.  The difference being, Montreal is a Liberal stronghold.  Brian Mulroney was a Red Guy disguised in Blue.


----------



## dapaterson (8 Jan 2016)

And so was Sir John A during the Pacific scandal?


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Jan 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> And so was Sir John A during the Pacific scandal?



Och sure he wuz.  Did ye no ken that he fought as a Liberal Conservative and his backing came from all those Scots in Montreal's Golden Square Mile?  We're just as capable as ony of cutting a sharp deal.    [ iper:

Edit - It has always been a great source of amusement to me that the Anglos that Francos generally pretend to despise were, by and large, Scots.  I have no problem with the English taking the blame.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (12 Jan 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Edit - It has always been a great source of amusement to me that the Anglos that Francos generally pretend to despise were, by and large, Scots.  I have no problem with the English taking the blame.



Only the French would accuse the Scots of speaking English.


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Jan 2016)

Well, we cannot, at least, fault our Liberal friends for not telling the truth. An article in the Globe and Mail about the new, Liberal foreign policy in the Middle East closes with a brief mention of Israel and Minister Dion's assurances that Israel "had nothing to worry about from Canada strengthening its relationship with the other legitimate partners in the region."

But _change_ will not come too soon, said a senior Liberal ...

               “First we want to make sure we’ve got the Jewish vote back,” he said.

It's so nice to see _principle_ back in foreign policy, isn't it?  :


----------



## George Wallace (23 Jan 2016)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Well, we cannot, at least, fault our Liberal friends for not telling the truth. An article in the Globe and Mail about the new, Liberal foreign policy in the Middle East closes with a brief mention of Israel and Minister Dion's assurances that Israel "had nothing to worry about from Canada strengthening its relationship with the other legitimate partners in the region."



I am wondering whom those "legitimate partners in the region" may be?  Will they give legitimacy to what were otherwise considered 'Failed' or 'Terrorist' States by previous Governments?


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Jan 2016)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Well, we cannot, at least, fault our Liberal friends for not telling the truth. An article in the Globe and Mail about the new, Liberal foreign policy in the Middle East closes with a brief mention of Israel and Minister Dion's assurances that Israel "had nothing to worry about from Canada strengthening its relationship with the other legitimate partners in the region."
> 
> But _change_ will not come too soon, said a senior Liberal ...
> 
> ...



No racism there, eh?


----------



## Ostrozac (23 Jan 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I am wondering whom those "legitimate partners in the region" may be?  Will they give legitimacy to what were otherwise considered 'Failed' or 'Terrorist' States by previous Governments?



They are definitely talking about UAE, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia; these are the three nations that are either confirmed customers of LAV 6.0 or have been kicking the tires. It may also include Iraq/Iraqi Kurdistan -- who we are, of course, currently training and arming.

UAE, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are not currently threats to Israel -- none share a border with Israel, all three share Israel's distrust of Iran, and all three nations are, in fact, currently fighting a nasty war in Yemen against Iranian allies. A war that may be spurring their interest in modern wheeled IFV's.

And as for Canada's terrorist-supporting adversaries in the region? Well, that's traditionally Iran, who is a close ally to Iraq. And as to what our long term policy goal is in Iraq/Iraqi Kurdistan? Well, I don't think anyone really knows. Is it to remove ISIS and cement Iranian influence from Afghanistan to Lebanon, influence backed by a Russian veto at the UN? That's not a good plan from Israel's perspective.


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Jan 2016)

I would add Jordan and Oman to the mix.  They are both VERY solid.


----------



## George Wallace (23 Jan 2016)

Yes; but what of their views on the Palestinian State, the West Bank, Gaza, Lebanon, Libya, and a few others?


----------



## Ostrozac (23 Jan 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Yes; but what of their views on the Palestinian State, the West Bank, Gaza, Lebanon, Libya, and a few others?



The views of the Liberal Party? I'll take a stab at it. There are no votes or dollars in supporting (or even talking about) Palestine or Libya. Lebanon, on the other hand, is a potential gold-mine politically due to the diaspora presence in Canada and the numerous Canadians living in Lebanon (more Canadians live in Lebanon than in the Yukon or Nunavut), but it is also full of traps, particularly for politicians inexperienced in foreign affairs. Giving the Lebanese Army lots and lots of guns is already being done by the US and Saudi Arabia, and the collaborative/coalition nature of Lebanese politics makes working with their government very interesting, as Hezbollah has seats in parliament and members at the cabinet table.

I think the Liberals would like the Government of Canada to be more heavily and publicly involved in Lebanon, but they don't have any real ideas on how to do it.


----------



## Brad Sallows (23 Jan 2016)

>more Canadians live in Lebanon than in the Yukon or Nunavut

Canadians who were born in Canada or immigrated to Canada from countries other than Lebanon, or Lebanese holders of Canadian-passports-of-convenience?


----------



## Ostrozac (24 Jan 2016)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >more Canadians live in Lebanon than in the Yukon or Nunavut
> 
> Canadians who were born in Canada or immigrated to Canada from countries other than Lebanon, or Lebanese holders of Canadian-passports-of-convenience?



Conducting a census is illegal in Lebanon (another of their fun quirks!), so it's mostly guesswork from me, but I'd expect the Canadians in Lebanon have a similar breakdown to the ethnic Lebanese-Canadian community, which StatsCan places as half born in Canada, half born in Lebanon.

But it doesn't really matter what flavour of citizens they are -- it's a large community of Canadians that guarantees: first, Canadian politicians are interested in Lebanon because of votes and second, there is a military/security interest in Lebanon, because the next time they get into a war, there are thousands of our citizens caught in the middle of it (just like in 2006).


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (24 Jan 2016)

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> Conducting a census is illegal in Lebanon (another of their fun quirks!),



Not illegal, just very difficult politically.

They had so much trouble with the last one carried out in that nick of the wood a little more than 2000 years ago.  You know, back there, when you have a census, everybody has to travel back to the town of their ancestors to register. And the PR flack you would get if, perchance, some poor pregnant women  gets there, can't find any room at the Motel and ends up giving birth in the parking garage at the back ... All hell would break loose. 

 ;D


----------



## Brad Sallows (24 Jan 2016)

Canadians in Lebanon who are Lebanese who came to Canada, got citizenship, and returned to Lebanon, are passport-of-convenience "tourists" and I'm not inclined to worry about their welfare.  If that describes most of the Canadians in Lebanon, then we certainly should not take any extraordinary measures that we are not taking to protect Canadians who are abroad anywhere else.


----------



## Kirkhill (24 Jan 2016)




----------



## MilEME09 (24 Jan 2016)

IMO if you stay in canada just to get a Canadian passport then leave immediately and never return i'd call that fraud and grounds to have it revoked.


----------



## PuckChaser (24 Jan 2016)

The Liberals would call that policy you suggest as two-tier citizenship, and we should be so gracious to have these people choose to abuse us.


----------



## Brad Sallows (24 Jan 2016)

There's nothing inherently wrong with two-tier citizenship.


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Feb 2016)

Cartoonist, commentator, and author J.J. McCullough gets it in one:






Source: http://www.jjmccullough.com/index.php/2016/02/07/puppet-show/

I guess it's clear enough that it's our military that's being jerked around by two untested political neophytes who are being controlled by one of Premier Kathleen Wynne's henchmen ...


----------



## a_majoor (7 Feb 2016)

Foreign policy really does not matter to Gerald Butts et al, because the Liberal vision is essentially to treat Canadians as cows to be milked for the benefit of the LPC and its cronies.

Now if we could convince them that foreigners should be milked for the benefit of the LPC and their cronies, then things will become different....


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (7 Feb 2016)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Cartoonist, commentator, and author J.J. McCullough gets it in one:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Realistically, Canada has very limited foreign policy options when you get down to it. With the US foreign policy currently focused on creating a global hegemony vice attempting to create a regional hegemony or concert of nations/power balancing, Canada can:

A. Assist the US in creating a global hegemony under US leadership, which involves going to fight the wars of reassurance (what Korea, Vietnam, Kosovo, etc were in essence; activities to convince key allies that America could AND would fight to secure their interests so they wouldn't need to develop large militaries of their own). This would require a strong expeditionary army which I doubt the LPC is interested in;

B. Assist the Americans in ensuring hegemony under American leadership for North America. We do this already with NORAD, but if this is our strategy than we need to do MORE in terms of Air superiority, naval forces, and cut back on army/expeditionary capabilities. This is more or less what the Canada First Defence Policy attempted to do. It would involve a lot of investments in the Air Force and Navy;

C. Canada can attempt to become part of another hegemony to attempt a balancing of power. Canada could, in theory, align more closely with outside nations to balance US power. Without a real US threat outside of doing this and a lack of will to purchase the military required to do this, it's a non option. Canada benefits too much from American protection and economics to align outside of economic means.

There are other combinations and options, but these, to me, are the major ones as of this time.

At this point, it appears that we're attempting to do all three without doing any well. We dont enough army to make a proper expeditionary force, nor enough air force and navy to properly assist in US hegemony in North America. We see some of C with the attempt to create free trade agreements with nations around the world as a means of lessening our dependence on the US. 

Which strategy is the best right now? I would say B, but we'll see how it goes. I just hope that the government puts out a real strategy!


----------



## Lumber (8 Feb 2016)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Realistically, Canada has very limited foreign policy options when you get down to it. With the US foreign policy currently focused on creating a global hegemony vice attempting to create a regional hegemony or concert of nations/power balancing, Canada can:
> 
> A. Assist the US in creating a global hegemony under US leadership, which involves going to fight the wars of reassurance (what Korea, Vietnam, Kosovo, etc were in essence; activities to convince key allies that America could AND would fight to secure their interests so they wouldn't need to develop large militaries of their own). This would require a strong expeditionary army which I doubt the LPC is interested in;
> 
> ...



What about option D? Let do like Switzerland and just become Neutral. Except, instead of Switzerland, who uses conscription and a mountainous geography to make themselves looks like a porcupine (not very big, but seriously, not worth the trouble), we use a couple vast oceans and our proximity to the US for the same purpose. Get rid of the military and just stay out of everyone's affairs. 

The only bad outcomes of this that I can think of are:
a. abysmal reputation in the world for not helping out;
b. US gets tired of our sh*t and invades Canada... which would mean I no longer have to steal US Netflix, so I guess this is kind of a good thing...


----------



## Flavus101 (8 Feb 2016)

What about the economic repercussions to option D?


----------



## Lumber (8 Feb 2016)

Flavus101 said:
			
		

> What about the economic repercussions to option D?



Oh the reprecussions are quite promissing. We sell off all of our military gear to help lower the national debt (12 x $1bn warships would make a big dent!). We keep our procurment plans in place, but respec them for whichever foreign military wants them.


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Feb 2016)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Oh the reprecussions are quite promissing. We sell off all of our military gear to help lower the national debt (12 x $1bn warships would make a big dent!). We keep our procurment plans in place, but respec them for whichever foreign military wants them.


But if we _really_ want to be neutral (like Switzerland or Austria), we'd have to build a military force that would take on ANYONE wanting to take a serious poke @ Canada - including the U.S.  Your plan would make us less than neutral, but a slave to whoever has the biggest military willing to pimp us out protect us.

You think bilingualism is bad -- how's your Mandarin Chinese?  >


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (8 Feb 2016)

Lumber said:
			
		

> What about option D? Let do like Switzerland and just become Neutral. Except, instead of Switzerland, who uses conscription and a mountainous geography to make themselves looks like a porcupine (not very big, but seriously, not worth the trouble), we use a couple vast oceans and our proximity to the US for the same purpose. Get rid of the military and just stay out of everyone's affairs.
> 
> The only bad outcomes of this that I can think of are:
> a. abysmal reputation in the world for not helping out;
> b. US gets tired of our **** and invades Canada... which would mean I no longer have to steal US Netflix, so I guess this is kind of a good thing...



I'll assume that you're being sarcastic. What do you see our real strategic interest as? And in any scenario do you not see our interests being underwritten by the US (such as they were by Great Britain up until 1950-ish)? Canada is a small player in a big pond. For us to have any influence internationally we require enough military to meet a mission, but need to decide the mission.


----------



## a_majoor (9 Feb 2016)

Option "D" has been the default position of the NDP for decades, and was also the preferred option of the Sun King (until various fellow members of NATO let him know just how much was going to be at stake, including trade and international influence. Suddenly buying some Leopard 1 MBTs to replace the Centurions and so on became an option again).

Considering how the alliance reacted to Canada's suggestion of pulling out of the combat role against ISIS, do you really want to see that again on a larger scale?

As well, there is this quote to consider:

_It takes but one foe to breed a war, and those who have no swords can yet die upon them_


----------



## jollyjacktar (9 Feb 2016)

I don't always like his work, but today's Michael deAdder hits the spot.

9 Feb 2016 Chronicle Herald Cartoon


----------



## Lumber (9 Feb 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> But if we _really_ want to be neutral (like Switzerland or Austria), we'd have to build a military force that would take on ANYONE wanting to take a serious poke @ Canada - including the U.S.  Your plan would make us less than neutral, but a slave to whoever has the biggest military willing to pimp us out protect us.
> 
> You think bilingualism is bad -- how's your Mandarin Chinese?  >



I always wanted to learn Mandarin!

But my point was that unlike Switzerland, we wouldn't need a really big military because we're so damn far away. We'd piggy back off the US, and just assume that they wouldn't want the Chinese or Russians controlling Canada (realistically the only two that could possibly conquer us, even if we didn't fight back).



			
				Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> I'll assume that you're being sarcastic. What do you see our real strategic interest as? And in any scenario do you not see our interests being underwritten by the US (such as they were by Great Britain up until 1950-ish)? Canada is a small player in a big pond. For us to have any influence internationally we require enough military to meet a mission, but need to decide the mission.



It is indeed sarcasm; think of it as a thought experiement. Our real "strategic" asset would be to become everyone's friend, and to have a resource based export economy. Our interests are already heavily underwritten by the US, so this wouldn't be a significant change.


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 Feb 2016)

Lumber said:
			
		

> We'd piggy back off the US, and just assume that they wouldn't want the Chinese or Russians controlling Canada (realistically the only two that could possibly conquer us, even if we didn't fight back).


That's not really "neutral", then - more like a colony of the U.S.


			
				Lumber said:
			
		

> It is indeed sarcasm; think of it as a thought experiement. Our real "strategic" asset would be to become everyone's friend, and to have a resource based export economy. Our interests are already heavily underwritten by the US, so this wouldn't be a significant change.


And an interesting "far end of the spectrum" alternative to consider & discuss - especially that bit in yellow.


----------



## dimsum (9 Feb 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> That's not really "neutral", then - more like a colony of the U.S.



I'd say it's more like the Australia-NZ relationship; with no fighter aircraft of their own, Australia (in effect) protects NZ's airspace.


----------



## Lumber (9 Feb 2016)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> I'd say it's more like the Australia-NZ relationship; with no fighter aircraft of their own, Australia (in effect) protects NZ's airspace.



See! Perfect example! No one hates New Zealand (unless you're a Rugby fan; Go All Blacks!). Why can't we be more like our Kiwi brethren?


----------



## Halifax Tar (9 Feb 2016)

Lumber said:
			
		

> See! Perfect example! No one hates New Zealand (unless you're a Rugby fan; Go All Blacks!). Why can't we be more like our Kiwi brethren?



Even then no one hates the ABs, except of course the Aussies lol And maybe the chicken people errr... French.


----------



## dimsum (9 Feb 2016)

Lumber said:
			
		

> See! Perfect example! No one hates New Zealand (unless you're a Rugby fan; Go All Blacks!). Why can't we be more like our Kiwi brethren?



Because we'd start saying "fush und chups" instead of "fish and chips"?   ???


----------



## cavalryman (9 Feb 2016)

Lumber said:
			
		

> See! Perfect example! No one hates New Zealand (unless you're a Rugby fan; Go All Blacks!). Why can't we be more like our Kiwi brethren?


We'd need about 340 million sheep for starters (10:1 ratio in NZ)...


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 Feb 2016)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> I'd say it's more like the Australia-NZ relationship; with no fighter aircraft of their own, Australia (in effect) protects NZ's airspace.


That is an interesting comparison - any idea how much "arm twisting" there is in that relationship with one country about 5 times bigger than the other (as opposed to our approximate 10:1 difference with our big American neighbour)?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (9 Feb 2016)

It is not a good comparison.

First of all, there is no agreement between the two nations for Australia to defend the air space of New Zealand. 

Second, New Zealand is alone, in the middle of nowhere (and not at the centre of the action - they are not really "middle-earth") with minimum 1000 km of water from its nearest neighbour - which happens to be Australia. It does not stand astride any air routes (save when you are actually going there) and in particular, does not stand astride any area that would be considered an air vector of advance for anyone trying to attack Australia (no one is coming over Antartica). 

New Zealand is not a threat to Australia, and vice versa. With little in terms of natural resources (unless you are into sheep farming) that would attract invaders attention, thousands and thousands of Km of water protecting it, an Army with tactical transport and naval surveillance assets in sufficient number, New Zealand has enough to discourage any one who would be stupid enough to try something. As a result, Australia doesn't bother, nor does Australia keep any air assets - air or ground surveillance (radars - early warning systems, etc.) or fighters in New Zealand.

Canada, on the other hand stands astride all the major air routes to the US, and definitely astride the air vectoring corridors for any attack by likely enemies such as Russia or China.

Any absence of air defence in Canada, relying on the US umbrella would by necessity mean that the US would - without asking permission or negotiating any thing, trust me on that - move in where they see it required for their own protection to install radars, fighter bases and missiles sites. None of these would take into consideration what happens to the Canadian population if and when ... 
At that point, we cease to be a sovereign country, and it would not surprise me in such circumstances to hear voices in the US that would raise a higher ruckus than the old battle cry of "Fifty-Four Forty or Fight".

Our independence as a country requires that we acknowledge the security needs of our neighbour to the South and do what is required to either address them or to participate to the extent necessary to ensure that our interests are heard and accommodated to the maximum extent possible. There is no such inter-relationship required between Australia and New Zealand as what happens to N.Z. does not affect the defence posture of Australia.

As for our relationship with the US in defence matter, its basis what very simply stated in two simple reciprocal political undertakings taken shortly before WWII, which encapsulate both the relationship and the mutual interests in the defence of North America:

In 1938, in a speech at Queen's University, F. D. Roosevelt simply stated: "I give to you assurance that the people of the United States will not stand idly by if domination of Canadian soil is threatened ... ", to which Mackenzie King replied a few days later at a speech in Woodbridge, ON: "our obligation as a good friendly neighbour ... is to see that ... our country is made as immune from attack or possible invasion as we can reasonably be expected to make it and that ... *enemy forces should not be able to pursue their way, either by land, sea or  air to the United States, across Canadian territory*".

IMHO, doing anything less for either country would be to abdicate its responsibilities to its own citizenship as these undertakings, in both cases, are in the superior interest of each nation.


----------



## Good2Golf (9 Feb 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> ...In 1938, in a speech at Queen's University, F. D. Roosevelt simply stated: "I give to you assurance that the people of the United States will not stand idly by if domination of Canadian soil is threatened ... ", to which Mackenzie King replied a few days later at a speech in Woodbridge, ON: "our obligation as a good friendly neighbour ... is to see that ... our country is made as immune from attack or possible invasion as we can reasonably be expected to make it and that ... *enemy forces should not be able to pursue their way, either by land, sea or  air to the United States, across Canadian territory*".
> 
> IMHO, doing anything less for either country would be to abdicate its responsibilities to its own citizenship as these undertakings, in both cases, are in the superior interest of each nation.



...and recent Governments have all reviewed the "GoC - Lessons Learned" files, including this discourse between respective Heads of Government, and fully form policy and governance detail keeping these "agreements" in mind...   

Cheers
G2G


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (9 Feb 2016)

Actually, the statement of policy was formally turned into an Agreement, the Ogdensburg Agreement, which is still in full force and effect today.


----------



## CougarKing (10 Mar 2016)

Relevant for this thread: Let's see if Trudeau's visit actually yields progress on cross-border issues such as information sharing and trade (e.g. Lumber etc.)

Canadian Press



> *Trudeau, Obama share warm moments during PM's official visit to U.S.*
> 
> Alexander Panetta, The Canadian Press
> The Canadian Press
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (11 Mar 2016)

I'm kind of looking forward to the first State dinner between the Young Dauphin and President Trump... >

I also predict rough handling at the hands of Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (11 Mar 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> I'm kind of looking forward to the first State dinner between the Young Dauphin and President Trump... >
> 
> I also predict rough handling at the hands of Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping.



Trump has zero chance at the presidency even if he becomes the candidate...the GOP is as likely to work against him as they are for him. Time to "let 'er go"


----------



## Kirkhill (11 Mar 2016)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Trump has zero chance at the presidency even if he becomes the candidate...the GOP is as likely to work against him as they are for him. Time to "let 'er go"


----------



## Journeyman (11 Mar 2016)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Trump has zero chance at the presidency ....


I just _love_  absolutes, especially when dealing with things like humans... or politics.    op:


----------



## George Wallace (11 Mar 2016)

From the Chronical Herald


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Mar 2016)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Trump has zero chance at the presidency even if he becomes the candidate...the GOP is as likely to work against him as they are for him. Time to "let 'er go"



Yup. Just like there is no way in hell that Ontario or Alberta would ever elect a NDP government.

Never, ever bet on what voters will do.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Mar 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> From the Chronical Herald



Try get your picture bigger next time George. I forgot how much fun it is to move my mouse all over the screen to see a picture a tenth at a time.


----------



## George Wallace (11 Mar 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Try get your picture bigger next time George. I forgot how much fun it is to move my mouse all over the screen to see a picture a tenth at a time.



Yeah.....Been trying to figure a way to shrink it without copying it to my computer...... [:-[

[EDIT:  Happy Dance.  Found a smaller version.   [  ]


----------



## McG (11 Mar 2016)

```
[IMG]http://thechronicleherald.ca/sites/default/files/imagecache/ch_article_main_image/bm_cartoon/Bruce%2003%2011%202016%20RGB.jpg[/IMG]
```


----------



## a_majoor (15 Mar 2016)

Found something while rereading an old issue of the Canadian Military Journal (Vol 15 No 4 Autumn 2015) in an article entitled "Prescriptions for Defense".

The article starts with a historical background outlining some of the recommendations and prescriptions for Canadian defence and international security policy offered in the preparation of the 1994 "White Paper", especially from a group called "the Canada 21 Council".

Some of what they propose seems to have become policy almost by default, as defense budgets eroded steadily due to inflation and lack of recapitalization, and some of the policy prescriptions seem to have been mirrored in the election rhetoric of the LPC, in particular the claimed lack of desire to have offensive strike capabilities as the reason to reject the F-35.

http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vol15/no4/page59-eng.asp



> in the new strategic context there was “no obvious need to maintain the wide range of air, ground, and anti-submarine conventional forces needed to repel a military attack” and that in any event, the Canadian defence budget “today cannot not meet the rapidly increasing costs of a modern, high-technology military. Unless policy is changed quite radically, the result will be that Canada will have simply a miniature model of a traditional ‘general purpose’ military force—one with just a little of everything, but not enough of anything to be effective in any conceivable situation.”
> 
> To the Canada 21 Council, the “new global circumstances” and the “reality of financial stringency” demanded a restructured military establishment “that would be capable of assuring our territorial sovereignty, assisting in the protection of North America, and participating in common security operations to a greater extent than is possible now.” The protection of territorial sovereignty, a task falling primarily upon the air force and the navy, required “an ability to know what is going on within our borders, in our airspace, and in our contiguous oceans.” By contrast, participating in common security operations, “usually under the aegis of the United Nations, implies having reasonable numbers of combat-ready, well-trained troops, with fully adequate equipment, able to respond to requests in well-defined circumstances.” The Council advocated the “adoption of a Canadian policy that would specify the level of military operations above which Canada would decline to participate,” adding that it did “not believe that Canada either wishes to or could afford to maintain armed forces that would be capable of undertaking a peace enforcement role against modern, heavily-armoured military forces.” Moreover, “if we wish to expand and improve the armed forces’ ability to support common security missions, while also protecting territorial sovereignty, operating the search and rescue system, maintaining stand-by forces for aid to the civil power, and being prepared to act in national disasters, we must find the necessary resources by reducing or eliminating some current roles. This, in turn, implies the reduction or elimination of some of the armed forces’ traditional military capabilities.”
> 
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (31 Mar 2016)

A little too early to call this a "thaw" ?

CBC



> *Trudeau government signals thaw in relations with Russia
> Policy of refusing to engage 'only punishing ourselves,' Stéphane Dion tells university audience*
> 
> By Evan Dyer, CBC News Posted: Mar 29, 2016 5:29 PM ET Last Updated: Mar 30, 2016 6:02 PM ET
> ...


----------



## jollyjacktar (31 Mar 2016)

The PM has just been invited to visit Cuba as well.


----------



## CougarKing (2 Apr 2016)

The threat of nuclear terrorism revisited:

Canadian Press



> *PM: Canada will offer $42M to help protect nuclear material from terrorists*
> [The Canadian Press]
> Alexander Panetta,
> April 1, 2016
> ...


----------



## George Wallace (2 Apr 2016)

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> The threat of nuclear terrorism revisited:
> 
> Canadian Press



I did not find this offensive when I first read the title.  I now find it offensive that we are spending all that money, not on upgrading our own security, but in sending it to other nations, some of which are corrupt and likely to funnel it off elsewhere.  I seriously am at a loss as to trying to figure out when this Liberal Government and all its' spending will stop?


----------



## jollyjacktar (2 Apr 2016)

It will stop when the public become tired of it and take the trash to the curb.  Just like they did in October past.  Will it really be better afterwards?


----------



## The Bread Guy (2 Apr 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> ... I now find it offensive that we are spending all that money, not on upgrading our own security, but in sending it to other nations, some of which are corrupt and likely to funnel it off elsewhere ...


I don't recall a whole heap of objection to $28 million being spent "not on upgrading our own security, but sending it to other nations" in 2014 (or even more than that in 2012) - or is the risk of nuclear weapons getting into the wrong hands so much less now than then, so this funding isn't needed as much?


----------



## Stoker (2 Apr 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> The PM has just been invited to visit Cuba as well.



Well Fidel is a old family friend. He attended Sr Trudeau's funeral.


----------



## a_majoor (2 Apr 2016)

I wonder about the obsessive need for the Liberals to be admired by dictators and third world thugs.


----------



## jmt18325 (2 Apr 2016)

That's akin to; when did you stop beating your wife?


----------



## Brad Sallows (2 Apr 2016)

It's always possible for money to simply find its way into the hands of organized criminals who happen to run countries, but the goal of keeping a tight accounting of radioactive materials is worthwhile.


----------



## The Bread Guy (3 Apr 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> I wonder about the obsessive need for the Liberals to be admired by dictators and third world thugs.


This isn't just a Team Red thing - another example here (a country listed in the top ten of countries of origin for refugees accepted to Canada in 2014, and top 15 countries of origin for refugees in 2014).


----------



## George Wallace (3 Apr 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> This isn't just a Team Red thing - another example here (a country listed in the top ten of countries of origin for refugees accepted to Canada in 2014, and top 15 countries of origin for refugees in 2014).



320 from the US in 2015?  Makes me think that this data is not that accurate, and including legitimate immigrants.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (3 Apr 2016)

Look at the World Bank data, George:

In the 2011-15 period, it claims that there were 95 refugees that came FROM Canada, which is according to them 5 more than came from Saudi Arabia in the same period. Does this make sense to you?


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Apr 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Look at the World Bank data, George:
> 
> In the 2011-15 period, it claims that there were 95 refugees that came FROM Canada, which is according to them 5 more than came from Saudi Arabia in the same period. Does this make sense to you?



I'm curious about the one individual driven to escape from the rigours of life in Iceland.


----------



## George Wallace (3 Apr 2016)

Actually; it makes you wonder what they use as a definition of "refugee".


----------



## jollyjacktar (3 Apr 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Look at the World Bank data, George:
> 
> In the 2011-15 period, it claims that there were 95 refugees that came FROM Canada, which is according to them 5 more than came from Saudi Arabia in the same period. Does this make sense to you?



That must have been after the Alberta provincial elections.    ;D


----------



## Brad Sallows (3 Apr 2016)

I'm too lazy to follow the link today.  Are those simply head counts which include refugees moving through successive countries en route to final settlement?


----------



## The Bread Guy (3 Apr 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Actually; it makes you wonder what they use as a definition of "refugee".


From the page in question:


> Refugees are people who are recognized as refugees under the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees or its 1967 Protocol, the 1969 Organization of African Unity Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa, people recognized as refugees in accordance with the UNHCR statute, people granted refugee-like humanitarian status, and people provided temporary protection. Asylum seekers--people who have applied for asylum or refugee status and who have not yet received a decision or who are registered as asylum seekers--are excluded. Palestinian refugees are people (and their descendants) whose residence was Palestine between June 1946 and May 1948 and who lost their homes and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict. Country of origin generally refers to the nationality or country of citizenship of a claimant.





			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> I'm too lazy to follow the link today.  Are those simply head counts which include refugees moving through successive countries en route to final settlement?


Could be, according to the UNHCR stats for Canada since 2012.  

Anyone have any objections to the Canadian stats now?   ;D


----------



## George Wallace (3 Apr 2016)

SO?  Let's clean up our "Homeless" problem by declaring them all refugees, and the Liberal Government can then make their quota and save on the security checks, etc. as these people are already in country.    [   >   [




[Edit.  I'll blame it on spellcheck.]


----------



## CougarKing (25 May 2016)

Both Bernie Sanders and Trump seem to be appealing more to the protectionist fringes of their respective parties, which won't bode well for Canada-US trade:

Canadian Press



> *Canada could be pressed into reopening NAFTA, U.S. lawmaker says*
> [Alexander Panetta, The Canadian Press]
> 
> May 24, 2016
> ...


----------



## Colin Parkinson (25 May 2016)

In which case we better go full steam ahead on terminals and pipelines. Perhaps cutting some of the ties might be good for us in the long run.


----------



## Kirkhill (25 May 2016)

Colin P said:
			
		

> In which case we better go full steam ahead on terminals and pipelines. Perhaps cutting some of the ties might be good for us in the long run.



Colin - that is a big statement coming from you.

Dead serious.  Not wanting any heat.  If we are to get oil shipped off of your coast what is the best route and what is the best port?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (25 May 2016)

Funny you should ask http://www.kitimatclean.ca/news/


----------



## MilEME09 (24 Jun 2016)

http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/if-canada-is-really-back-it-needs-some-backbone/



> If Canada is really back, it needs some backbone
> 
> During the high-anxiety run-up to the shocking Brexit vote, it was hard to get a Canadian politician to shut up about it. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said he made no “bones” about his support for the Remain side. Ministers Bill Morneau and Stéphane Dion spoke openly about the dire consequences of the U.K. leaving the European Union. Meanwhile, Conservative MP and former House Speaker Andrew Scheer felt compelled to write an article supporting the Leave position. It got to the point where a foreign political leader who didn’t intervene in the domestic politics of Britain looked downright irresponsible. But ask these same people to give their view on Donald Trump and they seize up faster than a Brussels bureaucrat can straighten a banana.
> 
> ...


----------



## jollyjacktar (24 Jun 2016)

Mr. Dion, is to my mind a classic Liberal minister with his useless, ineffectual, dithering.  I cannot imagine that knob as PM.


----------



## CougarKing (28 Jun 2016)

A fig leaf from Trudeau to Peña Nieto ?

Toronto Star



> *Canada to lift visa for Mexican visitors in deal before Three Amigos summit*
> 
> Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says Canada is dropping its visa requirement for Mexican visitors as of December 2016, while Mexico has agreed to open its markets to Canadian beef.
> 
> ...


----------



## GAP (28 Jun 2016)

Forget the Syrians....here come the Mexicans.....again....


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Jul 2016)

And meanwhile - 

The Brexit impact on CETA 

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/686645/EU-Brussels-Canada-trade-deal-in-doubt-individual-nations-Brexit-EU-referendum-politics

Jean-Claude says Oui to Chrystia



> Bureaucrats had hoped to act as a tacit EU superstate, rubber stamping the plan on behalf of members and even nations beyond the EU borders.
> 
> But, emboldened by Britain's Brexit vote, nation states were today in revolt forcing the European Union into a dramatic re-think.





> Despite the Britich Brexit vote serving as a huge red flag that nation states are vehemently opposed to losing their sovereignty to an unelected Brussels bureaucracy Juncker last week said he believed there was no need to involve parliaments
> 
> Martin Schulz wanted a more powerful, overarchin EU government but nation states want more autonomy
> 
> ...



Democracy may be breaking out all over.


----------



## McG (12 Aug 2016)

I found this an entertaining read, and linking to this sites appreciation of "events, dear boy" is the recognition that Canadian leaders rarely have the option of picking the defining foreign policy issues of thier time in office.



> *How Trudeau's foreign policy could blow up in his face
> It starts with the usual bad luck … and a President Trump*
> Michael Petrou
> iPolitics
> ...


https://ipolitics.ca/2016/08/11/how-trudeaus-foreign-policy-could-blow-up-in-his-face/


----------



## Journeyman (12 Aug 2016)

MCG said:
			
		

> Contributing to UN peacekeeping operations in Africa, winning a spot on the UN Security Council, developing a North American environmental agreement, leading the global fight against climate change — *these are all important goals*....


Let's see.....likely disagree.....strongly disagree.....disagree.....and....strongly disagree.    Next.


----------



## Kirkhill (12 Aug 2016)

Das schwerpunkt - Georgia.


----------



## CougarKing (29 Aug 2016)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Remember what Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said? "*... the admiration I have for China because, uh, their basic dictatorship is actually allowing them to ...*"



Trudeau will have to walk a fine line between offending China and offending any constituents back in Canada such as Falun Gong exiles whose parents or relatives were killed and harvested for their organs while imprisoned in China.

Canadian Press via Global News



> *China sees ‘new opportunity’ with Justin Trudeau in charge*
> By Andy Blatchford The Canadian Press
> 
> OTTAWA – With Prime Minister Justin Trudeau set to embark on his first official visit to China, the Chinese government is trying to ease concerns about its human rights record as a way to encourage a deeper business relationship with Canada.
> ...


----------



## Lightguns (29 Aug 2016)

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> Trudeau will have to walk a fine line between offending China and offending any constituents back in Canada such as Falun Gong exiles whose parents or relatives were killed and harvested for their organs while imprisoned in China.
> 
> Canadian Press via Global News



I strongly suspect that he will view China the way his daddy viewed Cuba.  This will be the tone of the conversation for Canada; remember how Cuba went from human right abusing dictatorship to the poor little country that took on the USA in Canadian Liberal circles in the 70s.  I think he considers himself his daddy's legacy.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (29 Aug 2016)

China ratching up the ante. I suspect it has less to do with safety or quality, then to put the screws to Trudeau to see how he reacts. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-08-23/inventing-canola-no-help-for-canada-as-china-changes-import-rule


----------



## Journeyman (29 Aug 2016)

Colin P said:
			
		

> ......put the screws to Trudeau to see how he reacts.


Possibly as a bargaining chip in a completely unrelated field.  

As a random example, China _could_  say "we'll modify this agricultural requirement for our good Canadian friends.....IF you back our South China Sea claims."  In such a hypothetical case, a $2B Canadian export would likely carry more election campaign weight than maintaining international norms.    :dunno:


----------



## Colin Parkinson (29 Aug 2016)

Not of course that China would ever stoop to such tactics......... [lol:


----------



## Good2Golf (29 Aug 2016)

Nor any other first world nation wanting ply its own resources globally like, say....asbestos...


----------



## CougarKing (31 Aug 2016)

No figures yet on what this current govt. will commit to the new AIIB:

Canadian Press



> *Canada signals intent to join China-led bank*
> Canadian Press
> Andy Blatchford
> 9 hrs ago
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (31 Aug 2016)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> As a random example, China _could_  say "we'll modify this agricultural requirement for our good Canadian friends.....IF you back don't actively oppose our South China Sea claims."


Even _that_ as a fall-back would be good news for the Chinese.


----------



## Lightguns (31 Aug 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Even _that_ as a fall-back would be good news for the Chinese.



How can one not actively oppose those claims when they have no basis in international law, your largest trading partner does oppose, and you have huge ethnic populations from concerned nations in your stronghold ridings?


----------



## The Bread Guy (31 Aug 2016)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> How can one not actively oppose those claims when they have no basis in international law, your largest trading partner does oppose, and you have huge ethnic populations from concerned nations in your stronghold ridings?


In politics, as in everything ...





If you consider it a balancing act, if you make more people/interests happy with what we get than what we give up, it's still a winner (politically, anyway).

Also, if you want to parse "actively oppose", if Canada whines, but doesn't, say, join any joint international action against China on that particular issue, that _may_ be enough to keep everyone happy -- here's what was said about the court decision, but what's been _done_ to fight China's position/possession?  Here's some options, for example, the U.S. could consider (from a paper last updated last year) to show the range of things that could be done:


> ...
> •  stronger U.S. statements to China about the consequences for China of continuing the land reclamation activities, and more generally, changing the U.S. tone of conversation with China;
> •  better publicizing China’s land reclamation activities and other actions in the area, as well as their potential implications for international law and the treatment of the global commons, to the public and governments in the region and globally;
> •  opposing land reclamation activities in disputed waters by both China and other claimants;
> ...


The "did we win? calculus would require the political Info-machine to _very_ carefully consider what you brought up in yellow.


----------



## ModlrMike (31 Aug 2016)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> ...and you have huge ethnic populations from concerned nations in your stronghold ridings?



The Filipino communities in Manitoba might have something to say about the issue.


----------



## Journeyman (31 Aug 2016)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> How can one not actively oppose those claims when they have no basis in international law, your largest trading partner does oppose, and you have huge ethnic populations from concerned nations in your stronghold ridings?


You're talking law, rationality, and several dispersed ridings.  I was referring, hypothetically, only to an economic reality.



			
				Journeyman said:
			
		

> .....In such a hypothetical case, a $2B Canadian export would likely carry more election campaign weight than maintaining international norms.


By the next election, perhaps some people may look at the deficit and say  ":facepalm:"  -- although I honestly don't hold out a lot of hope.

The government _may_  need to look at what they have salvaged.... like a $2B export market.


As for the US, see Trudeau 1.0 and Cuba;  China is a variation on a theme (although they are an actual risk, if not threat.... unlike Cuba)


----------



## Loachman (31 Aug 2016)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> How can one not actively oppose those claims when they have no basis in international law, your largest trading partner does oppose, and you have huge ethnic populations from concerned nations in your stronghold ridings?



Because it's 2016?


----------



## Kirkhill (31 Aug 2016)

Sooner or later somebody is going to have to decide to do something and will discover that somebody is opposed.


----------



## The Bread Guy (31 Aug 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Sooner or later somebody is going to have to decide to do something and will discover that somebody is opposed.


----------



## George Wallace (26 Sep 2016)

Ummmm?   :-\  

Don't we have enought USELESS Departments already?

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.



> The HILL TIMES
> Defence and Security
> Harper government ‘messed up’ jet-replacement process, that’s why things are slow: Sajjan
> *'We should have replaced our fighters a long time ago, and now we’re dealing with another potential capability gap for our air force,' says Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan.*
> ...



More on LINK.


----------



## Journeyman (26 Sep 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> .....procurement should be subservient to military strategy....


Sure would be sweet to have one of those -- you wouldn't even have to say "White Paper," because that's probably offensive to _someone_.


----------



## Lightguns (26 Sep 2016)

"Mr. Maillet, who now works as an international development consultant, has called for “aligning” Canada’s national defence and foreign affairs policies, and creating a federal “Department of Peace” that could include establishing an “Office of Peace, Violence Prevention, Mediation, and Reconciliation” within DND or Global Affairs Canada."

Geeez, bet he bought into the peacekeeper myth with his life savings.......  Another dis-interested observer and we should take his word for it.


----------



## MARS (26 Sep 2016)

Every time the blame is placed on the previous government, I am reminded of the "three envelopes" joke that was told to me on my assumption of Command.  Although in politics, perhaps there are more than three envelopes...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/28/joke-the-three-envelopes_n_1635781.html


----------



## George Wallace (8 Oct 2016)

Trudeau blames Tories for complicating Azer case by cutting ties to Iran

So now it is Harper's fault that Stephan Dion is a disrespectful Minister who insults the Mrs. Azer in the House?


----------



## OldSolduer (8 Oct 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Trudeau blames Tories for complicating Azer case by cutting ties to Iran
> 
> So now it is Harper's fault that Stephan Dion is a disrespectful Minister who insults the Mrs. Azer in the House?



Our grandkids will be blaming Harper when they are my age..... :facepalm:


----------



## jollyjacktar (8 Oct 2016)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Our grandkids will be blaming Harper when they are my age..... :facepalm:



Don't you mean Trudeau's grandkids?


----------



## George Wallace (28 Nov 2016)

$112.8 million to be sent outside of Canada.

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.



> JUSTIN TRUDEAU, PRIME MINISTER OF CANADA
> 
> The Prime Minister announces significant support for Africa and La Francophonie at the XVI Summit of La Francophonie
> 
> ...



Official statement LINK.


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Nov 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> $112.8 million to be sent outside of Canada.


And?  Team Blue sent all kinds of $ outside of Canada all the time without many complaints around these parts.

Or are you against the $500,000 for "Counterterrorism and prevention of radicalization to violence" in Niger?


----------



## George Wallace (28 Nov 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> And?  Team Blue sent all kinds of $ outside of Canada all the time without many complaints around these parts.
> 
> Or are you against the $500,000 for "Counterterrorism and prevention of radicalization to violence" in Niger?



One more link on Canada's Foreign Aid:   Foreign Aid Portal


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Nov 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> One more link on Canada's Foreign Aid:   Foreign Aid Portal


That's where my first link came from.


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Nov 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> And?  Team Blue sent all kinds of $ outside of Canada all the time without many complaints around these parts.
> 
> Or are you against the $500,000 for "Counterterrorism and prevention of radicalization to violence" in Niger?




Bingo!

For many, many people, who react rather than think, anything and everything done by Prime Minister Trudeau must be wrong and bad and ill considered and wasteful and so on while anything done by Prime Minister Harper must have been right and good and principled and productive and, and, and ...

Look, I am a card carrying Conservative; more than that I donate enough money that I am a member of the Party's so-called Leaders Circle* but I do not believe that everything CPC was or is, automatically, right and proper; nor do I believe that Justin Trudeau and the Liberals are all devilish idiots ... that's why I refuse to engage in political discussions in Army.ca ... both the Conservative and Liberal partisans are, generally, just mindlessly spouting the (internet) party lines.

I do not think Canadians chose well in 2015, I hope they will come to their senses in 2019. But Justin Trudeau is neither a fool nor the devil incarnate. He is _*my*_ prime minister, too, even though I want that to change, and I think that he deserves some respect and some benefit of the doubt, too.

___
* The Conservative Party eschews the apostrophe in its Leaders Circle bumph so I don't know if I'm in a circle around the leader (a _*Leader's Circle*_) supporting and protecting him, or in a circle of leaders (a _*Leaders' Circle*_) doing something else ... no "circle jerk" jokes, please    consider that a pre-emptive strike!


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Nov 2016)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Bingo!
> 
> For many, many people, who react rather than think, anything and everything done by Prime Minister Trudeau must be wrong and bad and ill considered and wasteful and so on while anything done by Prime Minister Harper must have been right and good and principled and productive and, and, and ...


And I'll also be honest enough to admit that there are more than a few out there who think the same re:  PM Harper - or any Team Blue coach.

All that said, some advice from "Red Dawn" ...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Nov 2016)

My name's Dave and I'm a liberal hater. My political awakenings happened around the time of Trudeau Snr. That likely set the pattern. After his first term I had gained a visceral hate for all things (Canadian political) liberal and socialist. Have they done some good stuff. Probably. Have the conservatives fooked it? Absolutely, you only have to look at Mulroney, who acted more like a liberal than a conservative. Right down to the money scandals.

I miss a lot of what the liberals actually say. Given my extreme dislike, for them, I can't get through an article without losing my mind. It's almost become an automatic reflex. Yes, I rant and rave here against them (and other places) and sometimes I get it right.

Like golf, one good shot makes you keep coming back and trying again.

So, I guess, all that to say, if you read one of my posts and it doesn't point to research or a complete understanding of the subject and just sounds like a rant, it likely is and questioning me about it won't provide any solace, as I likely only gave it a cursory look.

Trudeau doesn't impress me. At all. He's putting on the show of a leader but has to leave the real work to the back end Laurentian Elites that are making him perform like a seal. He's a mental midget that screws up everytime he goes off the script that his handlers gave him.  

So, yeah, he's Canada's PM, which makes him mine also. However, the one thing the liberals can't do, is make me like or feel good about it.


----------



## Brad Sallows (28 Nov 2016)

I'm never sure what to make of it when people say/write "my PM" or "my president".

If someone were to say "my king", I'd infer that the speaker regards himself as a subject.  In a democracy, that relationship is not the case.  You can still say, "my {leader}" (servant of the people), but it's a little ambiguous.

So I prefer "the PM", not "my PM".


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Nov 2016)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> I'm never sure what to make of it when people say/write "my PM" or "my president".
> 
> If someone were to say "my king", I'd infer that the speaker regards himself as a subject.  In a democracy, that relationship is not the case.  You can still say, "my {leader}" (servant of the people), but it's a little ambiguous.
> 
> So I prefer "the PM", not "my PM".



It's simple, really, he is the fairly, honestly, elected leader of _my_ country and while no one would be happier than I if (when) he fails on_ political_ grounds I do not want to see him fail, over and over and over again, on _policy_ grounds.

When he fails Canada suffers, maybe not much, but it does ... I am willing to see us all pay a price for his political demise, but I _hope_ that at least some of his policies are not failures.


Edit: two typos


----------



## Colin Parkinson (29 Nov 2016)

I just got to explain to a bunch of adult Chinese ESL students, how projects are reviewed and approved in Canada. I explained that the Public Service is not supposed to be political and serve the government of the day. That this is my 4th government and as long as they give us lawful direction we will do our best to carry it out and that major decisions are political in nature. I could tell by their questions that they were struggling to grasp the difference, the 2 biggest is that our political masters come and go and that the PS is not heavily entwined in the political side, to get anywhere in China you must belong to the party.


----------



## McG (30 Nov 2016)

Is the military component of our foreign policy currently about doing just enough with what we have so that we are not asked to do it with more?


> *How Canada’s defence money is spent*
> David J. Bercuson
> 24 Nov 2016
> 
> ...


https://legionmagazine.com/en/2016/11/how-canadas-defence-money-is-spent/


----------



## Good2Golf (30 Nov 2016)

Sounds more like a plussed-up Combat Team?  ???


----------



## Kirkhill (30 Nov 2016)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Sounds more like a plussed-up Combat Team?  ???



Bde HQ and Sigs Sqn with a D&E Coy?


----------



## Good2Golf (30 Nov 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Bde HQ, ASIC and Sigs Regt (-) Sqn with a D&E Coy?



FTFY.  ;D


----------



## Kirkhill (30 Nov 2016)

Sorry, lost count of the requisite numbers of pips and crowns to be deployed.


----------



## sandyson (30 Nov 2016)

The proposed deployment to Latvia is strikingly similar to sending two battalions to reinforce Hong Kong before World War II.  Fewer people but this time the equipment would be lost as well.  (The battalions' equipment was sent separately and late. It was redirected away from the battle.)


----------



## Rifleman62 (30 Nov 2016)

The equipment went to the Philippine and lost anyway.


----------



## Journeyman (1 Dec 2016)

MCG said:
			
		

> .....and Canada’s new defence policy review emerges as a serious, cohesive policy that Canadians are ready to support financially.


      :rofl:


----------



## The Bread Guy (18 Jan 2017)

And, via the PM's Info-machine, the newest player in Canada's foreign affairs mix ...


> The Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, today announced the appointment of Andrew Leslie, Member of Parliament for Orléans, to the position of Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
> 
> In this new position, Mr. Leslie will assume special responsibilities for the Canada-U.S. relationship and play a critical role in building ties with the new U.S. administration.
> 
> ...


Statement and bio also attached in case link doesn't work.


----------



## The Bread Guy (19 Jan 2017)

Interesting post (also attached in case link doesn't work) to a blog maintained by an Aussie who someone claims to be a KGB recruit now living in Moscow and who claims Holland and Australian troops were going to attack Russia over the MH17 shootdown on Canada's newest foreign minister ...


> Chrystia Freeland (lead image), appointed last week to be the new Canadian Foreign Minister, claims that her maternal family were the Ukrainian victims of Russian persecution, who fled their home in 1939, after Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin agreed on a non-aggression pact and the division of Poland between Germany and the Soviet Union. She claims her mother was born in a camp for refugees  before finding safe haven in Alberta, Canada. Freeland is lying.
> 
> The records now being opened by the Polish government in Warsaw reveal that Freeland’s maternal grandfather Michael (Mikhailo)  Chomiak was a Nazi collaborator from the beginning to the end of the war. He was given a powerful post, money, home and car by the German Army in Cracow, then the capital of the German administration of the Galician region. His principal job was editor in chief and publisher of a newspaper the Nazis created. His printing plant and other assets had been stolen from a Jewish newspaper publisher, who was then sent to die in the Belzec concentration camp.  During the German Army’s winning phase of the war, Chomiak celebrated in print the Wehrmacht’s “success” at killing thousands of US Army troops. As the German Army was forced into retreat by the Soviet counter-offensive, Chomiak was taken by the Germans to Vienna, where he continued to publish his Nazi propaganda, at the same time informing for the Germans on other Ukrainians. They included fellow Galician Stepan Bandera, whose racism against Russians Freeland has celebrated in print, and whom the current regime in Kiev has turned into a national hero ...


And if the author of this post is such a chaser of oligarchs in Russia - why is he still alive and posting generally pro-Russian stuff?

So far, only been picked up by one pro-RUS outlet -- with plenty of anti-Trudeau comments.

*#HistoryOrDezinformatsia?*


----------



## Fishbone Jones (19 Jan 2017)

Trudeau's foreign policy is quite easy to understand.

Whenever another country mentions Canada, Trudeau gives them millions of Canadian taxpayer dollars. That's about it, nothing else to see there.


----------



## Rifleman62 (6 Feb 2017)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/trump-trudeau-meeting-expected-soon-as-ministers-reach-out-to-cabinet-secretaries/article33896998/



> Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan, who commanded troops in Afghanistan, will drop by the Pentagon on Monday to meet his U.S. counterpart, retired four-star Marine Corps general James Mattis. The two former military commanders are expected to discuss the fight against the Islamic State and what additional responsibilities the Americans might expect of Canada within NATO and the North American Aerospace Defence Command [NORAD].



Not taking a shot at our Defence Minister, but is the underlined a bit of a reach?


> Mr. Sajjan can be expected to seek guidance on whether the U.S. will continue to stand with Ukraine, given Mr. Trump’s comments about mending relations with Russia. Since Mr. Trump moved into the White House, there has been a surge in violence in Ukraine that is threatening to overturn a ceasefire in the three-year-old conflict.
> 
> Canada first deployed about 200 troops to Ukraine in the summer of 2015 to help train government forces after Russia annexed Crimea and began aiding separatist forces in Ukraine’s Donbass region. The mission is set to expire at the end of March, and Ottawa has been non-committal on an extension despite public appeals from the Ukrainian government.
> 
> Mr. Saijan will also ask Mr. Mattis what the U.S. thinks of Canada sending up to 600 Canadian peacekeepers to Mali, a deployment now on hold until Ottawa has secured American support. Command of the 13,500-troop UN mission in Mali is now vacant, and the UN has been waiting since December for confirmation that Canada will nominate a general for the post.


----------



## FSTO (6 Feb 2017)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/trump-trudeau-meeting-expected-soon-as-ministers-reach-out-to-cabinet-secretaries/article33896998/
> 
> Not taking a shot at our Defence Minister, but is the underlined a bit of a reach?



More than a bit I would say.


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Feb 2017)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Not taking a shot at our Defence Minister, but is the underlined a bit of a reach?


Well, if he had more than one person reporting to him, it would be _technically_ correct.  In terms of _general_ understanding of what being a "commander" is about, though, if he was a liaison officer (not to take away from the value of such work), yeah, it is a bit of a stretch.

In other news, I know this'll _vastly_ reassure & cheer up a lot of people around here ...  >  ;D


> Global Affairs Canada has established a dedicated team to work on the government’s goal of winning a two-year seat on the United Nations Security Council beginning in 2021.
> 
> Eight people are working on Canada’s bid for the Security Council, with six at headquarters in Ottawa and two at Canada’s permanent mission to the UN in New York City, according to the foreign ministry.
> 
> ...


----------



## Rifleman62 (8 Feb 2017)

Why 2021? Next fixed election is Oct 2019. Are the Liberals, if they gain a seat, going to attempt to have another election timed so that Canada is slotted for the Presidency so they than brag Trudeau not only gained a  seat for Canada but the Presidency? Most Canadians are too dumb to know anything about the UN.


> The presidency of the Council is held by each of the members in turn for one month, following the English alphabetical order of the Member States names.





> Canada — non-permanent member of the Security Council during the following years:
> 
> 1948 – 1949
> 
> ...


----------



## Underway (11 Feb 2017)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Well, if he had more than one person reporting to him, it would be _technically_ correct.  In terms of _general_ understanding of what being a "commander" is about, though, if he was a liaison officer (not to take away from the value of such work), yeah, it is a bit of a stretch.
> 
> In other news, I know this'll _vastly_ reassure & cheer up a lot of people around here ...  >  ;D



In _general terms_ I was technically a commander in Afghanistan as well.  *in commanding voice*  "Hey Cpl, while you're getting a coffee get me one too!  One sugar!".   Odds are though he ran an Int cell and had a number of IntO's and/or IntOps working for him.

It's good at least that he has some deployments to point too.  Helps get traction with the opposite number in the US, who would probably not respect a non-military minister as much.  We will have to apply asymmetric politics(copyrighted by Underway) with this particular administration in order to get stuff done in our best interest.


----------



## The Bread Guy (13 Feb 2017)

_- edited to add link now available -_

PM's statement from the CAN-USA meeting in D.C. (email version attached) - highlights mine:


> *Joint Statement from President Donald J. Trump and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau*
> 
> February 13, 2017
> Washington, D.C. (États-Unis d’Amérique)
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (13 Feb 2017)

And from the Whitehouse info-machine - *highlights* mine ...


> *Readout of the Vice President's Meeting with Canadian Ministers*
> 
> Vice President's Meeting with Canadian Ministers
> 
> The Vice President met this afternoon with a team of Canadian ministers and their U.S. counterparts in conjunction with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's visit to Washington. *The participants in the meeting from Canada included Minister of Public Safety Ralph Goodale, Minister of Finance William Morneau, Minister of Transport Marc Garneau, and Minister of National Defence Harjit Sajjan*. The Vice President was joined by Secretary of Defense James Mattis, Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly, Acting Deputy Secretary of State Tom Shannon, and members of the Vice President's staff. *The Vice President emphasized the importance of the U.S. bilateral relationship with Canada and underscored the need to deepen our cooperation on issues related to trade and investment, border security, and the fight against global terrorism, including the counter-ISIS campaign. The Vice President also discussed the U.S. government's continuing commitment to NATO, and he and the Canadian ministers discussed their expectations for the Munich Security Conference later this week, where he will be traveling to engage with a wide range of NATO allies on issues related to European security.* Following their private discussion, the Vice President and the Canadian ministers joined the President and other members of the U.S. and Canadian delegations for a working lunch hosted by the President in the State Dining Room at the White House.





> *Remarks by President Trump and Prime Minister Trudeau of Canada in Roundtable with Women Entrepreneurs*
> 
> Cabinet Room
> 
> ...


Whitehouse version of joint statement also attached -- in case you don't believe the PM's version


----------



## The Bread Guy (14 Feb 2017)

And the World Socialists' take on the Trump-Trudeau meet ...


> Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau travelled to Washington yesterday for his first face-to-face discussions with US President Donald Trump. At their conclusion, Trudeau and Trump vowed to enhance the longstanding military-security and economic partnership between the Canadian and US ruling elites, by intensifying their joint war preparations and by integrating Canada into an aggressive US-led North American trade bloc.
> 
> The joint statement that Trudeau and Trump issued at the end of three hours of meetings and a working lunch declared, “no two countries share deeper or broader relations.” It then went on to outline plans for closer collaboration, including in “growing our economies,” “energy security” and “border security.” In its most significant section, the statement stressed the joint military operations of Canada and the US. It declared the two countries “indispensable allies in the defense of North America and other parts of the world, through NATO” and—in a reference to Canada’s role in the US war in the Middle East and support for the US military build-up against China in the Asia Pacific—“other multilateral efforts.”
> 
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (14 Feb 2017)

And finally, the President's and PM's remarks, in case nobody's found anything to pick on from the previous posts  ;D ... (1/2)


> *Remarks by President Trump and Prime Minister Trudeau of Canada in Joint Press Conference*
> 
> East Room
> 
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (14 Feb 2017)

2/2


> ... PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Okay, we’ll take a couple of questions.  Scott Thuman.  Scott.
> 
> Q    Thank you, Mr. President.  You just spoke about the desire to build bridges, although there are some notable and philosophical differences between yourself and Prime Minister Trudeau.  I’m curious, as you move forward on issues from trade to terrorism, how do you see this relationship playing out?  And are there any specific areas with which during your conversations today you each decided to perhaps alter or amend your stances already on those sensitive issues like terrorism and immigration?
> 
> ...


----------



## Colin Parkinson (14 Feb 2017)

I am no fan of the Liberals or JT, but I will give them credit for handling the US election and the new administration in a mature and pragmatic manner and making sure ht right people were at the table to show the US what Canada means to them. It's also an important lesson on the value of taking part in international missions, not just UN ones.


----------

