# PMJT:  The First 100 Days



## Edward Campbell (19 Oct 2015)

If Prime Minister Harper is re-elected (even if he doesn't face parliament for several weeks) this may not be a big problem, but Col (Ret'd) George Petrolekas, of the CGAI and CDAI argues, in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, that foreign affairs, broadly defined as the G20, APEC, the Commonwealth and COP 21, will pre-occupy the prime minister for the first 100 days of his government:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/for-the-next-prime-minister-international-issues-will-define-first-90-days/article26850834/


> For the next prime minister, international issues will define first 90 days
> 
> GEORGE PETROLEKAS
> Contributed to The Globe and Mail
> ...



_If_ there is to be a change of government then the incoming prime minister (M Trudeau, presumably) will have a _transition team_ consisting of political professionals, including former ministers, retired senior public servants and party insiders; it may not be as formal or as lengthy a process and is seen in the USA but it will be effective. Those civil service briefings will come thick and fast, as needed ... briefing books are being prepared right this moment, for whomever comes into office.

_- mod edit to clarify thread title -_


----------



## Jed (19 Oct 2015)

Wow! Talk about a wake up call for Canadians when we cross the post election Start Line.


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Oct 2015)

This is a useful check list, thanks dapaterson:




			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> So, a few links and quotes about the Liberal Party's military commitments:
> 
> 
> https://www.liberal.ca/realchange/report-on-transformation/
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> If Prime Minister Harper is re-elected (even if he doesn't face parliament for several weeks) this may not be a big problem, but Col (Ret'd) George Petrolekas, of the CGAI and CDAI argues, in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, that foreign affairs, broadly defined as the G20, APEC, the Commonwealth and COP 21, will pre-occupy the prime minister for the first 100 days of his government:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/for-the-next-prime-minister-international-issues-will-define-first-90-days/article26850834/
> ... the incoming prime minister (M Trudeau, presumably) will have a _transition team_ consisting of political professionals, including former ministers, retired senior public servants and party insiders; it may not be as formal or as lengthy a process and is seen in the USA but it will be effective. Those civil service briefings will come thick and fast, as needed ... briefing books are being prepared right this moment, for whomever comes into office.




And it has been announced that Peter Harder a former deputy minister at DFAIT and a senior advisor to the Mulroney, Chrétien and Harper governments, will head M Trudeau's transition team.

                                   
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



                                                Peter Harder


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> And it has been announced that Peter Harder a former deputy minister at DFAIT and a senior advisor to the Mulroney, Chrétien and Harper governments, will head M Trudeau's transition team.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So when they start jockeying for position, all you'll here coming from behind the closed door is:

"Give it to me, Harder".


----------



## Colin Parkinson (20 Oct 2015)

DFIAT has been a pain for people trying to collect military vehicles and other stuff, very risk adverse. I expect that within a year they will make their move to punish gun owners for being uppity.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Oct 2015)

I worked with them (DFAIT) in the sandbox, on various projects. To say that they sucked the life out of me would be an understatement.


----------



## Jed (20 Oct 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I worked with them (DFAIT) in the sandbox, on various projects. To say that they sucked the life out of me would be an understatement.



They sucked the life out me in late 70's when trying to work along side them as DREE (Dept of Regional Economic Expansion) as well.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Oct 2015)

Jed said:
			
		

> They sucked the life out me in late 70's when trying to work along side them as DREE (Dept of Regional Economic Expansion) as well.



Had to rewrite complete project analysis' because the word manhours was used instead of personhours. Then wait another week or two for a new review, even though nothing else was changed.

It didn't take long to realize though, that things went better if I brought a fruit basket, made up at the mess hall, to the meetings.


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Oct 2015)

Peter Harder is a classic _Mandarin_, he is super smart and hard working, very focused ... a quick study, even when faced with an entirely new, foreign, technical matter. I have met him a few times ~ for work, at a couple of conferences and, once or twice, socially ~ I also found him friendly and helpful to a relatively junior newcomer the edges of the upper echelons.

In addition to being a _Mandarin_, in Ottawa, Mr Harder has also been a _Sherpa_, one of those senior officials who go to the "summits" (like the G7) before the world leaders arrive and helps draft the final communiqué a few days before the meeting even starts.

M Trudeau will, I believe, be very well served. Mr Harder's a good choice to lead the transition.


----------



## brihard (20 Oct 2015)

I'm very curious to see how Harjit Sajjan will be employed, he should be a shoe-in for fast elevation to cabinet, and his pedigree is impressive. Eleven year police officer in Vancouver South specializing in gangs, CO of a reserve regiment with 4 tours, an OMM, MSM, MID, and a ton of intelligence experience overseas. First generation naturalized Canadian, married to a doctor, strong ties in Vancouver's Sikh community...

https://harjitsajjan.liberal.ca/biography/


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Oct 2015)

Reports are now surfacing that Prime Minister designate Trudeau will announce his cabinet on Wed, 4 Nov 15. 

That gives him two weeks to consult/invite/balance, etc.

(For info: Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the ministers, no matter if re-elected or not, continue to serve until the very minute that the new cabinet is sworn.)


----------



## MilEME09 (20 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Reports are now surfacing that Prime Minister designate Trudeau will announce his cabinet on Wed, 4 Nov 15.
> 
> That gives him two weeks to consult/invite/balance, etc.
> 
> (For info: Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the ministers, no matter if re-elected or not, continue to serve until the very minute that the new cabinet is sworn.)



confirmed in the press conference currently underway at 1500 mountain time


----------



## ModlrMike (20 Oct 2015)

Apparently the first qualification for cabinet will be anatomy, not ability.


----------



## jmt18325 (20 Oct 2015)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Apparently the first qualification for cabinet will be anatomy, not ability.



There will be a cabinet of 25 - that means they need 12 women out of 50.  It shouldn't be that hard.


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Oct 2015)

One will almost certainly be Chrystia Freeland, who is being suggested as a potential finance minister.

Also on anyone's short list: Judy Sgro, Joyce Murray (the current defence critic and, therefore a candidate for the MND's job), Carolyn Bennett, Judy Foote and newcomer Catherine McKenna who knocked off NDP heavyweight Paul Dewar in Ottawa.


Edited to add: And don't forget Hedy Fry.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Edited to add: And don't forget Hedy Fry.



I remember her  15 minutes of fame.  Are you sure we can't forget her?


----------



## FSTO (21 Oct 2015)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I remember her  15 minutes of fame.  Are you sure we can't forget her?



"Crosses are being burned as we speak!"

No Hedy, that's just a forest fire. :facepalm:


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Oct 2015)

The _Globe and Mail_'s staff takes a look at the factors that go into _'cabinet making'_ in Ottawa, in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from that newspaper:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/factors-trudeau-will-consider-when-choosing-his-cabinet/article26899467/


> Factors Trudeau will consider when choosing his cabinet
> 
> STAFF
> The Globe and Mail
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (21 Oct 2015)

Brihard said:
			
		

> I'm very curious to see how Harjit Sajjan will be employed, he should be a shoe-in for fast elevation to cabinet, and his pedigree is impressive. Eleven year police officer in Vancouver South specializing in gangs, CO of a reserve regiment with 4 tours, an OMM, MSM, MID, and a ton of intelligence experience overseas. First generation naturalized Canadian, married to a doctor, strong ties in Vancouver's Sikh community...
> 
> https://harjitsajjan.liberal.ca/biography/



Your making the classic mistake of judging a person based on demonstrated competence and ability. In the progressive/Liberal worldview what counts will be things like gender & ethnic background, followed by geography. And if Gerald Butts thinks he is a malleable tool for the job. 

There will be lots of very talented & deserving people overlooked because the don't fit a tick in the box.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Oct 2015)

> Those MPs include former Toronto police chief Bill Blair



The Fantino of the Trudeau Liberals. Cut from the same cloth.


----------



## jollyjacktar (21 Oct 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> The Fantino of the Trudeau Liberals. Cut from the same cloth.



Great, just great.   :boke:


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Oct 2015)

"Cynic's guide" or not, this article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_ might give us some indicatins of the shape of the new, Liberal, government's first Speech from the Throne:

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/ten-pipers-trudeau-will-need-to-pay-a-cynics-guide-to-the-sunshine-way


> Ten pipers Trudeau will need to pay: A cynics’ guide to the ‘sunshine way’
> 
> Joseph Brean | Last Updated: Oct 21
> 
> ...




As a list, I think:

#1 might be a very, very mixed blessing for the CF ... it might mean more, better ships, but the price - discussed elsewhere - in terms of "lost" capabilities might be high.

#2 ... I expect to see global climate change as a, maybe _the_, "top of mind" issue in the first 100 days. It not just because there is a big, international conference in Paris, either. I suspect the "doing something" about global climate change is an issue in which Prime Minister designate Trudeau really _believes_. I also expect that the new Finance Minister (see below) will be getting an earful about the costs to the Canadian economy ~ direct costs and "opportunity costs" ~ of any and all actions we might take on global climate change. I don't believe that Prime Minister Harper and the Conservatives doubted that climate changes is real; I think they just backed away from taking action because of the obvious cost:impact ratios of anything except fully coordinated global actions involving the USA, China and India, too.

#3 is, in my mind, just too, too obvious, and it ties in with ...

#4 which is an absolute must for the Liberals.

#5 I think the author is mixing too many things together. I think the Liberals will pander to the low-mid level civil service but I also think that the days when _Mandarin_ = Liberal (think e.g. Lester Pearson, Mitchell Sharp, Marcel Massé, and, and, and ...) are gone. I think the _Mandarins_, themselves came to appreciate, under both Mulroney and Harper, that Conservative ≠ Barbarian lunatic fringe, plus, I believe many senior civil servants were and remain doubtful about Liberal "values" and ethics after Jean Chrétien. That e.g. David Dodge and Kevin Lynch, arguably the best and brightest of their generation, were so (apparently) close to the Conservatives, on policy matters, influenced the current senior civil servants (DMs, ADMs, etc) in Ottawa. But, I expect (favourable to the rank and filer) changes in "labour relations" and I expect Ottawa's (Liberal) Mayor Jim Watson to be happy ... after tugging his forelock with his hand out.

#6 could be a double edged sword. 

#7 is something I expect to happen, sooner rather than later. It need not be a public policy disaster.

#8 means, I think, good news for the CBC.

#9 is a bottomless pit into which Prime Minister designate Trudeau will wade at his peril. The First Nations have agendas and almost none of them are good for the other 99% of us. First Nations _need *and deserve*_ our help and support, after they get decent leadership of their own, on their own ... today they are a political, policy and economic quagmire.

#10 is also something about which a few simple, not too costly steps can be taken can be taken, soon ... in the first budget, but about which political insiders and officials will (continue to) have looooooong debates.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Oct 2015)

Some thoughts about potential finance ministers in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/trudeau-has-many-high-profile-options-for-finance-portfolio/article26899578/


> Trudeau has many high-profile options for Finance portfolio
> 
> SUBSCRIBERS ONLY
> 
> ...




It will come as no surprise, I guess, that I favour Scott Brison and worry about Chrystia Freeland. In fact, had Mr Brison, who I believe has both brains and "bottom," been leading the Liberals, rather then Prime Minister designate Trudeau, who I believe is lacking in both ability and _gravitas_, I might have voted Liberal.


----------



## Baz (22 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Some thoughts about potential finance ministers in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/trudeau-has-many-high-profile-options-for-finance-portfolio/article26899578/
> 
> It will come as no surprise, I guess, that I favour Scott Brison and worry about Chrystia Freeland. In fact, had Mr Brison, who I believe has both brains and "bottom," been leading the Liberals, rather then Prime Minister designate Trudeau, who I believe is lacking in both ability and _gravitas_, I might have voted Liberal.



I grew up in his riding and was only a couple of grades behind him in the same school.  Somehow I developed a bias against him.

Having said that, I visited my parent's on the weekend and missed his knock on the door campaigning by a few minutes (they didn't open the door, which is sad).  I think I would have enjoyed chatting for a few minutes...

Also reminds me, I think a call to me new MP is in order in the next few weeks...


----------



## Colin Parkinson (22 Oct 2015)

The Muslim thing will come to bite him, radicalization is underway in Canada. 

Harper was a fool on the Pot thing, he could have handed it over to the Premiers and said; "Each Province decide and we will make the appropriate changes to the criminal code". That would have punted down the road, while appeasing the the youth and he could also say that legalization once it hit parliament would be a free vote.

First Nations are anything but united, I see that clearly here in BC, 130% of the province claimed, nasty fights between bands and coastal FN's liking LNG and interior ones hating it. Take the Petronass proposal, the island it would sit on is claimed by 2 bands, both with a strong claim. One opposes it and rejected a sweet offer, the other signed a benefit agreement. The effects will be more local and not always going the way the left thinks it will.

big business is going to win and the Liberals will wine and dine them. JT is going to face the same fiscal realities as Harper, I suspect the left will be disappointed.


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Oct 2015)

There is a good article (actually seven good articles) by John Ibbitson and some _Globe and Mail_ staff writers on the website (not Subscriber Only). The introduction and links to the six priorities, are below:

     GOVERNMENT IN TRANSITION

     TRUDEAU’S FIRST CHALLENGES

     Justin Trudeau surprised almost everyone by winning a majority this week. But now that he has, the demands to make good on his campaign promises will come fast and furious. Here are the first set of issues that his new government will have to tackle
     (click headings to jump ahead)

     LEGAL REFORM || ENVIRONMENT || FOREIGN AFFAIRS 
     GOVERNANCE   || THE ECONOMY || HEALTH CARE

     How do you make change work?

     Justin Trudeau surfed the aspirations of millions of voters for a more optimistic, inclusive, forward-looking Canada, and those millions rewarded him with a majority Liberal government.

     But an impatient and conflicted electorate will expect the incoming administration to move swiftly to meet those promises. Hope and change can quickly curdle. Just ask those who expected Barack Obama to calm the waters and bind his
     nation’s wounds overnight.

     The good news is that many of the Liberal promises, especially in the areas of public-service reform and social policy, don’t cost any real money.

     For some issues, such as missing and murdered indigenous women, voting reform, and legalizing marijuana, appointing a task force or commission and giving it a deadline to deliver recommendations can buy the government time
     to manage its agenda.

     The bad news is that in areas such as health care, environmental policy and infrastructure spending, the challenges are complex and the solutions expensive. And those solutions must be reached in collaboration with stakeholders
     – business, labour and environmental leaders, nonprofits and NGOs, and premiers. Above all, premiers.

     One big advantage Stephen Harper had was that, as a truly conservative prime minister, he had a mandate to do nothing, which is exactly what he wanted to do. Rather than raise taxes and launch new programs, he preferred
     to cut and kill. He didn’t need provincial consent, because he had nothing to propose that required such consent.

     After a decade of such passivity, Canadians voted strategically for change. There’s a thing about strategic voting, though: It makes for a conflicted and impatient coalition. After all, some of those voters were New Democratic Party supporters
     who voted Liberal to ensure the Conservatives’ defeat. Others were soft Conservative supporters fed up over Duffygate, omnibus bills, the niqab debate, the Ford brothers – you name it. There were nationalist Quebeckers who abandoned
     the NDP and Calgarians who abandoned the Tories.

     All of them voted for change, but some voted for more change than others, and some voted for different change than others. How to please them all?

     And then there are the mechanics of change. Let’s take just one example: Much of the Trudeau agenda will be laid out in the first budget, which should be delivered next March or April. But Mr. Trudeau has promised to meet the premiers
     to hash out a new health-care accord. If he does so before his government has its plans for health care, including funding, fully worked out, he risks being hijacked by the premiers. That’s what happened to Paul Martin in 2004, and it led to
     bigger spending commitments than Mr. Martin had intended.

     But if Mr. Trudeau delays, the first budget will have no funding commitment for health care, and critics will complain that the new government is dragging its feet on its election promises.

     Government is hard. Activist government is even harder.

     There is the timing of change. Majority governments like to get much of their mandate implemented or at least under way in the first year, in hopes that the unpleasant bits will be forgotten before voters go to the polls again.
     Also, a government that isn’t in full swing after its first year risks being written off by a disgruntled electorate.

     Good governments effectively manage the expectations of partisans, stakeholders and the broader public, delivering on – or abandoning – election commitments in a timely and effective manner. Jean Chrétien achieved that in his first government,
     and so did Stephen Harper in his. Mr. Trudeau has a smart and experienced team of advisers and a strong caucus, and his election platform lays out a clear set of priorities. This incoming government knows what it wants to do.
     It’s simply a question of figuring out how and when to do it.

     Forthwith, in six key areas, we describe how the Liberals plan change, the challenges to that change, and how those challenges might be met. Together, they set out how Justin Trudeau hopes to start making his mark on Canada.

     _– John Ibbitson_

Prime Minister designate Trudeau made a lot of promises; I expect that, à la Prime Minister Chrétien (who, I suspect, is advising him), he will keep only a few of them. But it should be an entertaining Throne Speech.


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Oct 2015)

Lee Berthiaume, of the _Ottawa Citizen_ takes a stab at _cabinet making_ in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Calgary Herald_:

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/politics/cabinet+making+trudeau+shortlist/11463316/story.html


> Cabinet-making: Who's on Trudeau's shortlist
> 
> LEE BERTHIAUME, OTTAWA CITIZEN, OTTAWA CITIZEN  10.22.2015
> 
> ...




Prime Minister designate Trudeau promised a cabinet of (about) 25, half of which would be made up of female ministers ... I count 28 on Mr Berthiaume's list, half (14) being women.


_- mod edit for format fix -_


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Oct 2015)

Interesting read by Doug Saunders in the _Globe and Mail_ about the transition, _"delivery units"_ and how the Liberals plan to put the "machinery of government" into gear.

Prime Minister designate Trudeau appears intent on replacing Prime  Minister Harper's "top down" management approach with another, equally top down, borrowed from Tony Blair and Dalton McGuinty.





The Liberals need to translate HOPE (for change) into action by managing the _machinery of government_ ~ easier said than done.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         Illustration from the _Globe and Mail_


----------



## Brad Sallows (24 Oct 2015)

It's similar to "task organization", except that a Task HQ is formed with authority to give direction to elements in different silos rather than taking elements out of each silo to form a proper team.  Naturally this disrupts unity of command.


----------



## Kirkhill (24 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Interesting read by Doug Saunders in the _Globe and Mail_ about the transition, _"delivery units"_ and how the Liberals plan to put the "machinery of government" into gear.
> 
> Prime Minister designate Trudeau appears intent on replacing Prime  Minister Harper's "top down" management approach with another, equally top down, borrowed from Tony Blair and Dalton McGuinty.
> 
> ...



And I am cynic enough to believe that there are enough "Natural Governors" in the civil service that are ready to get into gear after grinding the gears for 9 years that Trudeau will find things smoother going than Harper ever did.

But that's just bitter old me.  ;D


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Oct 2015)

According to this article in the _Globe and Mail_ Prime Minister designate Trudeau's PMO will be heavily populated by former staffers of Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty. This causes two worries:

     1. Premier McGuinty had a record of scandals that eclipsed anything attributed to his Tory predecessors and, eventually, drove him from office in disgrace; and

     2. Prime Minister designate Trudeau and Ontario Premier Wynne appear tied at the hip, so who will be calling the fiscal shots in Canada, the prime minister we elected or the premier who has racked up "one of the largest sub-sovereign debt loads in North America?"

My _suspicion_ is that PMO secrecy ~ _invisible government_ by unelected and unaccountable political cronies ~ will be worse in the new PMO than it was in the last, and _corruption_ will continue to be an attribute of Liberal politics. My _fear_ is that Prime Minister designate Trudeau lacks the force of will to lead and will, instead, be led by his (Premier Wynne's?) cronies.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> According to this article in the _Globe and Mail_ Prime Minister designate Trudeau's PMO will be heavily populated by former staffers of Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty. This causes two worries:
> 
> 1. Premier McGuinty had a record of scandals that eclipsed anything attributed to his Tory predecessors and, eventually, drove him from office in disgrace; and
> 
> ...



Don't forget the 'Little Thug de Shawinigan'. I've almost seen more of him recently, espousing policy of the Trudeau Liberals, than I did when he had the job. Also, to a lesser extent Paul Martin Jr. It's obvious, the old boys are pulling the strings of the good looking front puppet.

It's good to see that Power Corp still has their senior hacks at the helm of Canadian government :


----------



## Baz (28 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> My _suspicion_ is that PMO secrecy ~ _invisible government_ by unelected and unaccountable political cronies ~ will be worse in the new PMO than it was in the last, and _corruption_ will continue to be an attribute of Liberal politics. My _fear_ is that Prime Minister designate Trudeau lacks the force of will to lead and will, instead, be led by his (Premier Wynne's?) cronies.



I agree... my understaing is that a lot of the bringing power into the PMO started under PET's regin...


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Oct 2015)

Baz said:
			
		

> I agree... my understaing is that a lot of the bringing power into the PMO started under PET's regin...



It did, two people were involved:

Michael Pitfield, a brilliant administrator, but also an enormously _partisan Liberal_ outsider, who strengthened the PCO while, at the same time, making it almost indiscernible from the PMO; and

Ivan Head a law professor and believer in North-South "dialogue" and "cooperation" who, after Pierre Trudeau neutered the old Department of External Affairs, took over Canadian foreign policy, including the attempted withdrawal from NATO.











                         Michael Pitfield                                                            Pierre Trudeau                                 and                                Ivan Head
          Prime Minister Trudeau provided the charisma and power base, Messers Pitfield and Head provided the ideas and intellectual drive.


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Nov 2015)

Campbell Clark, in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, explores some of the "short fuze" issues that face the incoming Liberal government:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/new-liberal-cabinet-ministers-have-pressing-files-waiting-for-them/article27075534/


> New Liberal cabinet ministers have pressing files waiting for them
> 
> SUBSCRIBERS ONLY
> 
> ...




There is, already, much speculation about new ministers.

For the all important Finance portfolio there seem to be three main contenders:

   Ralph Goodale, who was Paul Martin's Finance Minister in the early 2000s but he was 'touched' by the leak of income trust information which caused a mini-scandal during the 2006 election campaign. Mr Goodale is the safe choice;

   Scott Brison, who is also an experienced minister and a Bay Street veteran and a former Progressive Conservative and, I think, a Manley Liberal. The last may count against him, but, in my opinion, Mr Brison is the smart choice; and

   Chrystia Freeland, who is undeniably smart and very, very well connected and popular in the _Manhattan Marxist_ circles but who is not famous for any skill and knowledge in either economics or policy. She is the _outside_ choice to be Canada's first ever female Minister of Finance.

Two names surface, repeatedly, for MND:

   Andrew Leslie, for obvious reasons; and

   Bill Blair ~ former Toronto Police Chief.

Foreign Affairs is, I believe, the portfolio LGen (ret'd) Leslie really wants ... if he can have some policy freedom, but there is some speculation that he will be handed Immigration to bring his organizational skills and contacts to bear to get the 25,000 Syrian terrorists refugees into Canada quickly and get them housed on military bases, etc. Also, there are some who want Ms Freeland kept as far away as possible for any financial portfolio so Foreign Affairs might be a good fit (she wouldn't be a "first female, that honour goes to Flora MacDonald and she was followed by Barbara McDougal (both Conservatives)). Prime Minister designate Trudeau might promise LGen (ret'd) Leslie both Foreign Affairs and a (relatively) free hand there if he gets the immigration/refugee thing to work.


----------



## The Bread Guy (3 Nov 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> .... there are some who want Ms Freeland kept as far away as possible for any financial portfolio so Foreign Affairs might be a good fit (she wouldn't be a "first female, that honour goes to Flora MacDonald and she was followed by Barbara McDougal (both Conservatives)) ....


She certainly has her hand in Ukraine enough to be reasonably up to speed on _that_ file, at least.


----------



## Jarnhamar (3 Nov 2015)

Thought this was pretty sweet.


http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/ontario-liberals-set-to-reveal-fees-locations-for-high-occupancy-toll-lanes-by-new-year


> TORONTO — Ontario motorists will know by the end of the year exactly where the Liberal government intends to establish high-occupancy toll lanes and what the fees will be for using them.
> 
> The so-called HOT lanes will allow motorists without passengers to pay to use High-Occupancy-Vehicle (HOV) lanes, which were designed to encourage carpooling.
> 
> The plan is to create HOT lanes only where there area existing HOV lanes, which are free for any driver with at least one passenger, but HOV and toll lanes could also be created on any new or expanded highways.


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Nov 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Campbell Clark, in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, explores some of the "short fuze" issues that face the incoming Liberal government:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/new-liberal-cabinet-ministers-have-pressing-files-waiting-for-them/article27075534/
> 
> ...




For those hoping that LGen (ret'd) Leslie will not be the MND, Daniel Leblanc, writing in the _Globe and Mail_ says that "Prime-minister-designate Justin Trudeau will elevate women such as Chrystia Freeland and Catherine McKenna to his cabinet, leaving high-profile MPs such as former Toronto city councillor Adam Vaughan and retired lieutenant-general Andrew Leslie on the sidelines ... [and] ...Mr. Trudeau had to make tough calls, including leaving out star candidates such as Mr. Leslie, Mr. Vaughan and some veteran MPs ..."


----------



## ModlrMike (4 Nov 2015)

I think we're going to be as surprised at who's not in cabinet, as who is.


----------



## ModlrMike (4 Nov 2015)

To answer my own post, here's the list courtesy of CBC:

Justin Trudeau - Prime Minister.
Ralph Goodale - Public Safety.
Stéphane Dion - Foreign Affairs.
John McCallum - Citizenship and Immigration.
Carolyn Bennett - Indigenous and Northern Affairs.
Scott Brison - Treasury Board President.
Bill Morneau - Finance Minister.
Jody Wilson-Raybould - Justice.
Harjit Sajjan - National Defence.
Chrystia Freeland - International Trade.
Jane Philpott - Health.
Patricia Hajda - Status of Women.
Jean-Yves Duclos - Families, Children and Social Development.
Marc Garneau - Transport.
James Carr - Natural Resources.
Mélanie Jolie - Heritage.
Kent Hehr - Veterans Affairs, and Associate Minister of National Defence.
Catherine McKenna - Environment and Climate Change.
Maryam Monsef - Democratic Institutions.
Carla Qualtrough - Sport, and Persons with Disabilities.
Hunter Tootoo - Fisheries and Oceans, and Canadian Coastguard.
Kirsty Duncan - Science.
Lawrence MacAulay - Agriculture.
Navdeep Bains - Innovation, Science and Economic Development.
Judy Foote - Public Services and Procurement.
Dominic Leblanc - Government House Leader
Marie-Claude Bibeau - International Development and La francophonie.
Dianne Lebouthillier - National Revenue.
Maryam Mihychuck - Employment Workforce Development and Labour
Amarjeet Sohi - Infrastructure and Communities.
Bardish Chagger - Small Business and Tourism


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Nov 2015)

So, Parliament reconvenes on Thursday, 3 Dec, to elect a Speaker and the Throne Speech is on 4 Dec.

That is commendably brisk.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Nov 2015)

In an article in the _Toronto Star_, Tim Harper enunciates my worry about this new cabinet:

Trudeau hands huge jobs to parliamentary rookies: Tim Harper
A mandate for change means taking a few calculated risks and Justin Trudeau did just that with his first cabinet.​
Mr Harper gives us thumbnail sketches of the five key, _rookie_ ministers:

    "Wilson-Raybould, an aboriginal lawyer and regional chief of the Assembly of First Nations, takes over justice, a file that will include the legalization of marijuana, the government’s promised amendments to anti-terror legislation and the highly polarizing
     and emotional issue of assisted suicide. She will have to decide on court challenges ranging from the niqab at citizenship ceremonies to mandatory minimum sentencing.

     Sajjan is a man born in India with a chest full of medals for his military service for this country, including deployments to Bosnia and multiple postings to Afghanistan. He became the first Sikh to command a Canadian regiment. Now,
     as defence minister, he must be involved in the tricky timing surrounding his government’s pledge to withdraw from the skies of Iraq and Syria as part of a coalition aimed at degrading the Islamic State and he will oversee the choice of the next generation
     of combat fighters after Trudeau vowed to end Ottawa’s pursuit of the discredited F-35.

     Philpott is a renowned physician who owns a disarmingly common touch, but she now inherits a health portfolio that will include possibly bruising negotiations with the provinces on funding. Trudeau has committed to increase federal health spending for
     home care by $3 billion over four years, but he has also committed to taking a leadership role and getting the provinces together to renegotiate the Canada Health Transfer. Expectations of an improvement from the Harper funding pledge will be high.

     McKenna, the Ottawa Centre MP, gets the crucial and renamed Environment and Climate Change portfolio on the eve of a climate summit in Paris and with Trudeau telling the world this country is shucking years of inaction on climate under Harper. She will be
     scrutinized here and around the world.

     ”Canada is going to be a strong and positive actor on the world stage (on climate change),’’ Trudeau again pledged Wednesday.

     Finance is in the hands of Bay St. veteran and Toronto Centre MP Morneau, Trudeau’s economic adviser, but someone who has never served in a legislature. He will have to manage deficits, tax the wealthiest and deliver tax cuts for the middle class and get
     some infrastructure projects shovel ready. He has to act quickly, then start to craft a budget."

Edit: format


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (5 Nov 2015)

I share some of those worries, however, I don't believe that Mr. Sajjan has anything to do with "dealing with the tricky timing of the pledge to withdraw the CF-18". 

The trickiness of that issue is not the military action of stopping the flights, packing the gear and getting people back home, which is the concern of the Defence Minister but easy to do and all handled by the uniformed people as part of day to day normal matters. The trickiness comes from the timing and effect on the relationship with other coalition partners (the US in particular) and that is a Foreign Affairs issue, so in the purview of Minister Dion.


----------



## dapaterson (5 Nov 2015)

I look forward to DND and VAC discovering just how wheelchair accessible their facilities really are, with the new Associate MND being in a wheelchair.  I suspect a lot of eyes are about to be opened.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (5 Nov 2015)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> I look forward to DND and VAC discovering just how wheelchair accessible their facilities really are, with the new Associate MND being in a wheelchair.  I suspect a lot of eyes are about to be opened.



I wouldn't worry. In my daily travels, I see very few DND buildings that do not have wheelchair ramps and lifts (admittedly some very old facilities or those slated for demolition do not). In some of those buildings, the lifts have never been used.

Perhaps the reality in Ottawa is different?


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Nov 2015)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I share some of those worries, however, I don't believe that Mr. Sajjan has anything to do with "dealing with the tricky timing of the pledge to withdraw the CF-18".
> 
> The trickiness of that issue is not the military action of stopping the flights, packing the gear and getting people back home, which is the concern of the Defence Minister but easy to do and all handled by the uniformed people as part of day to day normal matters. _The trickiness comes from the timing and effect on the relationship with other coalition partners (the US in particular) and that is a Foreign Affairs issue_, so in the purview of Minister Dion.




I agree fully. Relations between President Obama's White House and Prime Minister Harper's government were, I think, good to even very good at the official level but weak at the _executive_ level ... but that's nothing new: Bennet and Wilson were not on good terms, ditto Pearson and Johnson, Trudeau and Nixon, Chrétien and Bush (43) or Harper and Obama.

I'm not sure M Dion is going to be a strong minister vis-à-vis the USA or China, but I think he will be friendly with the Europeans, especially. Many Americans outside of the circles of power will like, even love Prime Minister Trudeau, M Dion and Ms McKenna, but I'm less certain about how well they will get along in the White House, at _Foggy Bottom_ or in the _Zhongnanhai_.


----------



## dapaterson (5 Nov 2015)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I wouldn't worry. In my daily travels, I see very few DND buildings that do not have wheelchair ramps and lifts (admittedly some very old facilities or those slated for demolition do not). In some of those buildings, the lifts have never been used.
> 
> Perhaps the reality in Ottawa is different?



About 20 years ago I attended a lecture by Lew MacKenzie, who explained that there's an unreality bubble that surrounds Ottawa.  I've seen nothing to convince me that he's wrong.


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Nov 2015)

<pedant alert>
Just for the record, 100 days from the swearing in is 12 Feb 2016.
</pedant alert>


----------



## Cloud Cover (6 Nov 2015)

the Trudeau team is going to erase just about as much of the Harper legacy as they can before Parliament re-convenes, because they are already thinking of the next election. Anything that can be done without resorting to bills, motions or debate in Parliament will be done very,very quickly. Following that, my guess is that in addition to all the campaign promises, at least 3 subject matters will be in the Throne speech (1) bill C-51 will be repealed and there will be no further consideration of the issue by the government; (2) "tough on crime" legislation will be amended and watered down significantly; (3) the gun registry will rise from the ashes. They will do these things (and others) in order to make the controversy a distant memory in 4 years time.


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Nov 2015)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> the Trudeau team is going to erase just about as much of the Harper legacy as they can before Parliament re-convenes, because they are already thinking of the next election. Anything that can be done without resorting to bills, motions or debate in Parliament will be done very,very quickly. Following that, my guess is that in addition to all the campaign promises, at least 3 subject matters will be in the Throne speech (1) bill C-51 will be repealed and there will be no further consideration of the issue by the government; (2) "tough on crime" legislation will be amended and watered down significantly; (3) the gun registry will rise from the ashes. They will do these things (and others) in order to make the controversy a distant memory in 4 years time.




I think ~ agreeing with some reporters and commentators ~ that changes to the Income Tax rates will be up quickly on the legislative order and _I'm guessing_ that C-51 will be amended but not repealed, parts of it are (my opinion) good and I think thew senior security Mandarins will tell (already have told) Prime Minister Trudeau's team that.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (6 Nov 2015)

I don't think you will ever hear the JT Liberals mention the long gun registry at all. 

They did not mention it during the campaign, and basically did not campaign on it. They also remember that the government who created it, also a Liberal government, said it would cost a few millions ... and ended up costing a billion and created a huge scandal. 

Now that the Harper conservatives have eliminated the registry and destroyed all the data (and, incidentally, without the world coming to an end), the last thing the JT Libs want is to resuscitate the thing and immediately have themselves linked to the past debacle of its original creation and give the opposition a wedge issue to skewer the government with.

So, I am pretty confident that we will never hear about this again (save from citizen groups that like to make noise on  this point).


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Nov 2015)

At a _guess_, and that's all it is:

     1. Tax code changes that keep promises to the "middle class" ~ whatever the bean counters finally decide that might be, but we can be pretty sure it involves making less that $200,000/year;

     2. Amendments to C-51;

     3. Some cheap, easy _regulatory_ changes ~ like reintroducing the long form census;

     4. Some cheap, easy procedural changes ~ like shelving the "Victims of Communism" monument in the precincts of parliament;

     5. Some cheap, easy actions ~ like establishing a commission on missing and murdered aboriginal women;

     6. Some cheap and easy foreign policy moves ~ like withdrawing from Iraq, and some not so cheap ones about climate change targets; and

     7. Lots of debates, about which we, the public, will hear nothing, about _infrastructure_ and _budgets_.

My guess is that the Liberals will want to keep a pretty long, but not too expensive, series of promises, spread out over, say, the first six months, while they establish themselves as credible and "sunny." In the following 3 years we can start to count up the promises they don't keep ... until about April 2019 when there will be goodies for one and all.


----------



## dapaterson (6 Nov 2015)

You left out:

8.  Find a bunch of initiatives ready to execute prepared by the former governemnt, tweak lightly, and announce to great fanfare.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (6 Nov 2015)

Mark my words: There won't be anything easy or cheap about a commission on missing or murdered aboriginal women.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (6 Nov 2015)

His system doesn't let people cut and paste his cartoons, but check out Raeside's editorial cartoon of the day:

http://raesidecartoon.com


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Nov 2015)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Mark my words: There won't be anything easy or cheap about a commission on missing or murdered aboriginal women.


 :nod:

According to the election promises, we'll know more 1) _"immediately"_ (according to the document), or 2) NLT 27 Jan 2016, which is 100 days after being elected according to statements made during the campaign.


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Nov 2015)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Mark my words: There won't be anything easy or cheap about a commission on missing or murdered aboriginal women.



What if....jus' suppose ..... the conclusion of the commission is that most of the losses occurred at native hands.  What is the prescribed course of action for the Government of Canada?  Intervene?  Not intervene?


----------



## Jed (6 Nov 2015)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I don't think you will ever hear the JT Liberals mention the long gun registry at all.
> 
> They did not mention it during the campaign, and basically did not campaign on it. They also remember that the government who created it, also a Liberal government, said it would cost a few millions ... and ended up costing a billion and created a huge scandal.
> 
> ...



I hope you are correct in this prediction. For me, and I believe for many rural voters, is the main breaking point  preventing me to vote Liberal. (followed closely by their treatment of the military and veterans) and then their natural disdain of the western middle of Canada.


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Nov 2015)

The mandatory "looking forward to working with the staff" memo ....


> Over the past three years, I have had the opportunity to travel across our great country, visiting communities large and small, and speaking to Canadians about their priorities and concerns. Many of those conversations were with members of Canada’s proud and dedicated public service. My team and I know that each and every time a government employee comes to work, they do so in service to Canada, with a shared mutual goal of improving our country and the lives of all Canadians.
> 
> Canadians sent a clear message in this election that it is time for real change, and we will get to work immediately to implement our plan for a strong and growing middle class. Canadians expect us to fulfill our commitments, and I am confident that with your support we will accomplish great things for all Canadians.
> 
> ...


----------



## Colin Parkinson (6 Nov 2015)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> What if....jus' suppose ..... the conclusion of the commission is that most of the losses occurred at native hands.  What is the prescribed course of action for the Government of Canada?  Intervene?  Not intervene?



Hah, you miss the point, the commission is not required to fix anything, place the blame, etc, etc. It's purpose is to be seen as doing "something" At which point it passes it's finding to the government, who will "study it" and then careful put it beside all the other studies on the issue.


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Nov 2015)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Hah, you miss the point, the commission is not required to fix anything, place the blame, etc, etc. It's purpose is to be seen as doing "something" At which point it passes it's finding to the government, who will "study it" and then careful put it beside all the other studies on the issue.



Yes, Sir Humphrey.  :nod:


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Nov 2015)

Some changes in Ministry names ....


> .... The names of several departments are being changed as follows:
> 
> Citizenship and Immigration Canada to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada;
> Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada to Global Affairs Canada;
> ...


Also attached in case link doesn't work - also, here's a "who's Minister in case the Minister's not able to be Minister" list.  Back-ups for Def Min Sajjan, for example, are Ralph Goodale and John McCallum.


----------



## jollyjacktar (7 Nov 2015)

The Public Service love in continues.  I'm happy that they're happy, maybe they'll setting their bargaining sooner rather than later.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-dion-duncan-civil-servants-cheered-pearson-1.3308271


----------



## Kirkhill (7 Nov 2015)

Nope.

No biases at all.


----------



## cavalryman (7 Nov 2015)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Some changes in Ministry names ....Also attached in case link doesn't work - also, here's a "who's Minister in case the Minister's not able to be Minister" list.  Back-ups for Def Min Sajjan, for example, are Ralph Goodale and John McCallum.


Where's the name change of Department of National Defence to Peacekeeping and Disaster Response Canada?  I demand that we be treated to a new moniker as well, seeing as how we'll not be treated to a better budget.


----------



## Jed (7 Nov 2015)

cavalryman said:
			
		

> Where's the name change of Department of National Defence to Peacekeeping and Disaster Response Canada?  I demand that we be treated to a new moniker as well, seeing as how we'll not be treated to a better budget.



But that would entail more wasteful paperwork and sign changing akin to all the rank insignia changes.


----------



## jollyjacktar (7 Nov 2015)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Nope.
> 
> No biases at all.



The way they (PS staff) were reacting was the "feel" on the Hill when I was working there on Thursday.  The vibe in town is much different and happier than it was under the previous administration.  To be fair, it is the honeymoon phase, and the blushing bride is over the moon in love with their new groom.  It will head to divorce court one day, but that is for another day.


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Nov 2015)

cavalryman said:
			
		

> Where's the name change of Department of National Defence to Peacekeeping and Disaster Response Canada?  I demand that we be treated to a new moniker as well, seeing as how we'll not be treated to a better budget.


Not to mention no more Commons committee on defence ....


----------



## Kirkhill (7 Nov 2015)

Jed said:
			
		

> But that would entail more wasteful paperwork and sign changing akin to all the rank insignia changes.



Whole new opportunity for the Buttons and Bows Brigade.  They can adopt the "Doves of Peace" system.  Not a Crown in sight.
I am sure it would have gone down well with "Pere".


----------



## Gunner98 (9 Nov 2015)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Not to mention no more Commons committee on defence ....



IMHO, they replaced the Defence committee mandate with two more appropriate ones - domestic and global security & readiness

Old Defence Committee mandate was "to review all matters pertaining to the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces. It may examine and report on matters referred to it by the House of Commons or it may undertake studies on its own initiative. Generally it examines relevant legislation, the activities and expenditures of the department, and the effectiveness of the department’s policies and programs." 

Cabinet Committee on Canada in the World and Public Security
- Considers issues concerning Canada’s engagement with and participation in the
international community, the promotion of Canadian interests and values abroad, the
management of bilateral and multilateral relations, and international assistance.
Responsible for issues related to domestic and global security

Cabinet Committee on Intelligence and Emergency Management
- Meets as required to consider intelligence reports and priorities and to coordinate and
manage responses to public emergencies and national security incidents. Regularly
reviews the state of Canadian readiness.


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Nov 2015)

Prime Minister Trudeau cannot hope to satisfy everyone ... in an opinion piece in the _Globe and Mail_ Cecil Foster, a Canadian author and a professor at the State University of New York at Buffalo, complains that in what is, I believe, the most _diverse_ cabinet in Canadian history,  "despite there being at least six Liberal caucus members with Caribbean and African immigrant backgrounds. Once again, blacks and blackness are invisible."

Expect to hear this sort of thing ~ not "faces" at the cabinet table, necessarily, but "my _special interest_ is not being served" more and more as the immediate _joy_ of the election fades.


----------



## PuckChaser (10 Nov 2015)

I guess that's what happens when you claim diversity and pander to special interest, you're always going to miss someone and it looks like an even bigger slight than if it was merit based selection.


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Nov 2015)

The Liberals _might_ be sliding, early, into their bad old ways ... into Premier Wynne's ways, if Davis Akin is correct in this post:

     Twice in as many weeks, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has held unannounced, closed-to-the-press meetings with federally registered lobby groups. On Oct. 29, it was Universities Canada and today, it was a meeting of the
     Canadian Labour Congress. Colleagues at Reuters managed to get a tape of Trudeau's commits to the CLC and it sounds like he was discussing some issues of substantial public importance. But the Trudeau PMO neither
     told press he was doing this nor invited the press to report on his comments.


Reuters report ... it certainly is a matter of considerable _public_ import and interest/


----------



## ModlrMike (10 Nov 2015)

Wasn't failing to include the press one of Mr Harper's greatest sins?  >


----------



## cavalryman (10 Nov 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The Liberals _might_ be sliding, early, into their bad old ways ... into Premier Wynne's ways, if Davis Akin is correct in this post:
> 
> Twice in as many weeks, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has held unannounced, closed-to-the-press meetings with federally registered lobby groups. On Oct. 29, it was Universities Canada and today, it was a meeting of the
> Canadian Labour Congress. Colleagues at Reuters managed to get a tape of Trudeau's commits to the CLC and it sounds like he was discussing some issues of substantial public importance. But the Trudeau PMO neither
> ...



Perhaps we'll get to see how many rubes self-identify quite early in this new mandate  >
Hope and change anyone?


----------



## jollyjacktar (10 Nov 2015)

I'm sure the ardent Liberal drum beaters amongst our membership will be sure to bleat and baaa that we shouldn't worry ourselves about the actions of the anointed ones.


----------



## Kilo_302 (10 Nov 2015)

I'm happy to hear that details of the sale of the CWB will at least be made public. Definitely some fishy stuff here, and for a government seemingly bent on privatization to sell off Canadian assets to a business that is essentially representing the Saudi government, well I'm hoping heads will roll to say the least.

http://www.manitobacooperator.ca/news-opinion/news/cwb-sale-to-be-scrutinized-by-new-liberal-government/



> “It appears to have been a gift. But until we have a chance to view the internal information it’s just impossible to fully assess what has gone on here. You can imagine why some farmers are curious.”
> 
> In July G3 Global Grain Group, a joint venture of Bunge and state-owned Saudi Agricultural Livestock Investment Company (SALIC), ostensibly bought CWB for $250.5 million. However, the newly formed company kept the money instead of paying the Canadian government, which owned CWB. While the transaction raised eyebrows among some Canadian grain company executives and was criticized by several farm groups, Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz defended it saying it made for a stronger new company.



_- mod edit to fix link -_


----------



## Jed (10 Nov 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> I'm happy to hear that details of the sale of the CWB will at least be made public. Definitely some fishy stuff here, and for a government seemingly bent on privatization to sell off Canadian assets to a business that is essentially representing the Saudi government, well I'm hoping heads will roll to say the least.
> 
> [/http://www.manitobacooperator.ca/...al-government/url]
> [/quote]
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Nov 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Prime Minister Trudeau cannot hope to satisfy everyone ... in an opinion piece in the _Globe and Mail_ Cecil Foster, a Canadian author and a professor at the State University of New York at Buffalo, complains that in what is, I believe, the most _diverse_ cabinet in Canadian history,  "despite there being at least six Liberal caucus members with Caribbean and African immigrant backgrounds. Once again, blacks and blackness are invisible."
> 
> Expect to hear this sort of thing ~ not "faces" at the cabinet table, necessarily, but "my _special interest_ is not being served" more and more as the immediate _joy_ of the election fades.




And here is more _sniping_, this time from Lysiane Gagnon in the _Globe and Mail_.

Personally I am not bothered by Prime Minister Trudeau's _cabinet making_ exercise; sure some are we bit light on quality and there is more than just a whiff of _tokenism_ but it is a perfectly acceptable group, given what was available ...

I expect a shuffle in a year or so, perhaps even sooner, if someone screws up. Potential trouble spots are:

     1. Keeping all the economic problems ~ running deficits will be easy, we're sliding back towards recession again, spending on shiny new things will be harder;

     2. Refugees will, I am about 95% certain, go wrong, likely a bit wrong, quite possibly horribly wrong. I doubt that we, good, tolerant Canadians, are all that much different from the Europeans; and

     3. Pipeline promises and local (including _First Nations_) NIMBY_ism_ don't mix.


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Nov 2015)

Ooops, promise made and promise broken, already, according to a report in the Halifax _Chronicle Herald_ which says that "The Liberal government is already changing its tune on a campaign promise to reopen nine Veterans Affairs Canada offices closed by the Harper government, including one in Sydney.

The party’s “Real Change” platform document explicitly states a Liberal government would “restore access to the support that veterans are due, we will reopen the nine Veterans Affairs service offices closed by Stephen Harper,” a promise Prime Minister Justin Trudeau reiterated during a campaign stop in Halifax in September.

But on Wednesday, new Veterans Affairs Minister Kent Hehr wouldn’t say where or how many offices it would open.
...
When asked specifically if his department would commit to reopening the Sydney office, he said it would be “ludicrous” for his department to do that."


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 Nov 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Ooops, promise made and promise broken, already ....


One man's "break" is another man's "fine tuning"  ;D

As I've told others, things could look quite different once the Ministers are briefed, and the books are gone over.


----------



## McG (13 Nov 2015)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> the Trudeau team is going to erase just about as much of the Harper legacy as they can before Parliament re-convenes,





			
				Jed said:
			
		

> But that would entail more wasteful paperwork and sign changing akin to all the rank insignia changes.


No more of this talk.  We wasted the money and effort making the change.  Let's not spend more reversing it.  "They" might be reading and getting ideas.


----------



## George Wallace (13 Nov 2015)

He made so many faux pas during the election, and they were overlooked and ignored.  So will this commentary on his first days in office and attendance at official functions:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10207158412546345&set=gm.773170582828516&type=3





[Edited (added yellow highlighted words) to indicate what will soon be forgotten and overlooked; the comments of some who are still carrying on with the past Election's nasty attacks.]


----------



## ballz (13 Nov 2015)

The PM seems almost lost for words talking to the media tonight, it was quite unusual to see given his usual jovial demeanour in front of a camera... it seems the reality and weight of responsibility he bears as the Prime Minister might have just him for the first time...


----------



## jmt18325 (13 Nov 2015)

ballz said:
			
		

> The PM seems almost lost for words talking to the media tonight, it was quite unusual to see given his usual jovial demeanour in front of a camera... it seems the reality and weight of responsibility he bears as the Prime Minister might have just him for the first time...



Keep in mind also that we don't know everything he knows.  I would imagine that since Nov 4th, he has been informed of many possibilities that he was previously not aware.  Many of those possibilities are probably, far more real to him tonight.  We may see a different man on the security front going forward.


----------



## a_majoor (13 Nov 2015)

There is a horrible kind of irony with the attacks in Paris happening so soon after the Defense Minister's mandate letter was released. How quickly reality has risen up for comparison with the naive promises about the campaign in the Middle East or mass movement of refugees.

Of course, there is no way to know at this point if reality will trump virtue signalling, but if virtue signalling remains the order of the day, then the _trouble spots_ Edward identified upthread will erupt far, far sooner than anyone in Ottawa would dare imagine.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (13 Nov 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> He made so many faux pas during the election, and they were overlooked and ignored.  So will this:
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10207158412546345&set=gm.773170582828516&type=3



I will call bullshit on this one.  At Remembrance Day, it is my wife I want at my side - for she is the thing that makes the sacrifice of others worthwhile.  Find some grace and poetry in you heart ferchrisakes.


----------



## Infanteer (13 Nov 2015)

So, at remembrance day I had my child holding my hand and my wife with me; it was the first time I could be with my daughter and speak to the importance of Remembrance Day...is that a faux pas?   :


----------



## Brad Sallows (14 Nov 2015)

Welcome to the reality of the social media age.  Bush, Obama, and Harper all took/take their knocks.  Now it is Trudeau's turn.

I hypothesize that if the institutional media could show some backbone and start eschewing cheap political hits, it might spill over into social media.  But the institutional media is composed of people, too.


----------



## George Wallace (14 Nov 2015)

As I said: it will be overlooked, ignored and forgotten.  Not news worthy.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (14 Nov 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> As I said: it will be overlooked, ignored and forgotten.  Not news worthy.



Overlooked?  The fact that he is a human being, displays emotions, and has a family?  What exactly has he done wrong?


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (14 Nov 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> As I said: it will be overlooked, ignored and forgotten.  Not news worthy.



I'm no trudeau apologist,  but trying to make this an issue is truly stupid. There is, and will continue to be, very valid reasons to criticize the PM in a rational manner. This issue makes conservatives look petty bordering on ridiculous


----------



## George Wallace (14 Nov 2015)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> I'm no trudeau apologist,  but trying to make this an issue is truly stupid. There is, and will continue to be, very valid reasons to criticize the PM in a rational manner. This issue makes conservatives look petty bordering on ridiculous



It is a example of how petty politics can be, and FB posts, Twitter and the like, only present it more often and distribute it quicker than the MSM political satirists, commentators and cartoonists can.  It is not limited to "Conservatives" or by "Conservatives".   It can make a mockery of them all, as well as be an embarrassment to them all. 

Those examples are often forgotten by the vast majority within a day or two.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 Nov 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> It is a example of how petty politics can be, and FB posts, Twitter and the like, only present it more often and distribute it quicker than the MSM political satirists, commentators and cartoonists can.  It is not limited to "Conservatives" or by "Conservatives".   It can make a mockery of them all, as well as be an embarrassment to them all.
> 
> Those examples are often forgotten by the vast majority within a day or two.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (14 Nov 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> It is a example of how petty politics can be, and FB posts, Twitter and the like, only present it more often and distribute it quicker than the MSM political satirists, commentators and cartoonists can.  It is not limited to "Conservatives" or by "Conservatives".   It can make a mockery of them all, as well as be an embarrassment to them all.
> 
> Those examples are often forgotten by the vast majority within a day or two.



Examples of what, a guy who loves his wife? I'm sure there are pictures of Harper holding his wife.... and besides, if trudeau wants to express his sympathy for veterans in a different manner than harper than why is that such a big deal? Grow up


----------



## George Wallace (14 Nov 2015)

NO.  Nothing to do with Trudeau at all, but with the people making the comments.  An example how some are making issue of something, raising a commotion, that will soon be forgotten by everyone within a day or two.


----------



## McG (14 Nov 2015)

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/trudeau-plans-to-follow-through-with-plan-to-withdraw-warplanes-and-resettle-25000-syrian-refugees


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Nov 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/trudeau-plans-to-follow-through-with-plan-to-withdraw-warplanes-and-resettle-25000-syrian-refugees




I _suspect_ that the Liberal team is about to rediscover just how fickle Canadian public opinion can be ... withdrawing from combat and taking in 25,000 refugees _were_ very popular notions _last week_. Welcome to next week ...


----------



## jollyjacktar (14 Nov 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

>



Whaaa, is this from the directing staff list of super secret emoticons...   :Tin-Foil-Hat:  I feel so inadequate now.


----------



## Scott (14 Nov 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> NO.  Nothing to do with Trudeau at all, but with the people making the comments.  An example how some are making issue of something, raising a commotion, that will soon be forgotten by everyone within a day or two.



Joe Jesus Jambottling Christ.

George,

Stop. Fucking. Posting.

YOU tried making an issue out of that meme - to advance YOUR argument that JT ain't to be taken serious, or whatever other garbage you wish to spout about it today. It went over like a lead balloon and, as recceguy points out, you just cannot stop digging that hole.

It is precisely that sort of shit that makes me more than happy seeing some of the more vile Conservatives out there crawling out of their own skin since Shiny Pony got in.


----------



## Scott (14 Nov 2015)

To be crystal clear: I am not attacking any of the CPC supporters here. For the very most part the arguments are presented respectfully. It's what I have been saying on social media that is disgusting, and where I get my happiness in seeing them so upset from.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Nov 2015)

Scott said:
			
		

> To be crystal clear: I am not attacking any of the CPC supporters here. For the very most part the arguments are presented respectfully. It's what I have been saying on social media that is disgusting, and where I get my happiness in seeing them so upset from.




No problem, Scott ... I share your frustration_s_. (The plural matters.)


----------



## Kirkhill (15 Nov 2015)

Ditto Scott.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Nov 2015)

One of the keys to the first 100 days is the promise to bring 25,000 refugees here by 1 Jan 16 (Day 58). Ian MacLeod, writing in the _Ottawa Citizen__, suggests that the Paris incident has rasied the political and security stakes for Prime Minister Trudeau.

He quotes Ray Boisvert, a former counter-terrorism chief for CSIS, as saying “If there are one or two refugee claimants in that group, that won’t bode well, especially across Europe and in the United States and Canada,” and Christian Leuprecht, a terrorism expert at the Royal Military College and Queen’s University, as adding that “I think it will make people think twice” [about Canada’s resettlement timetable] and “My big concern is that now people will link the refugee crisis with these terrorist incidents and that this will put a big damper on it,” [and] “that’s fundamentally calling into question who and what we are.”

So there we have it:

     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._


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (15 Nov 2015)

Or daming for different reasons, refugees we bring in cause trouble in the USA.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Nov 2015)

David Akin, responds to this _tweet_:

     Jennifer Harnden ‏@jennieharnden  2h2 hours ago
     I wonder if the #ParisAttacks will qualify as evidence for Trudeau's "evidence-based" policies on Syria, CF18s, and ISIS strategy

Saying:

     David Akin ‏@davidakin  2h2 hours ago
     David Akin Retweeted Jennifer Harnden
     We’d love to ask him that but 2nd day in a row: Trudeau not talking to travelling press here. 

And:

     David Akin ‏@davidakin  2h2 hours ago
     David Akin Retweeted Norman Spector
     Yup. We got more from Harper on his trips! (He’d do a mid-summit “spray” and full presser on final day) 

By golly, those _Liberals_ are really going to change the way things happen, aren't they?   :-\  They'll deal fairly and openly with the media, unlike that wicked ol' Stephen Harper ...


----------



## Brad Sallows (15 Nov 2015)

>Overlooked?  The fact that he is a human being, displays emotions, and has a family?  What exactly has he done wrong?

Nothing.  But people could have asked the same question shortly after Harper's first victory - and then repeatedly over the years - when he was criticized for displaying insufficient emotion.

Anyways, file it away and see what happens to the candidates when the CPC launches its leadership campaign.


----------



## Kilo_302 (15 Nov 2015)

Meanwhile, those that are left in the Opposition are frantically backtracking on many of the more divisive policies the Harper government pursued. Things like this happen after every electoral defeat, the NDP is also busily rewriting the history of its campaign ("We took a principled stance on the niqab issue, our loss has nothing to do with us campaigning on balanced budgets no matter what"),  but this is noteworthy for unnecessary spitefulness in a lot of the Conservative policies. Not a lot of room to maneuver for these folks. 

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2015/11/15/do-conservatives-take-voters-for-fools-hepburn.html



> Let’s start with Rona Ambrose, the new interim party leader. Without a hint of insincerity, Ambrose insists her caucus will no longer engage in the “nastiness” of the old Harper government and will be more “constructive, effective” in working as the Official Opposition.
> 
> Also, Ambrose has completely reversed herself on the need for a public inquiry into missing and murdered aboriginal women. For years, the Tories refused to hold an inquiry into what the RCMP says are more than 1,200 cases of missing and murdered indigenous women and girls.
> 
> ...


----------



## mariomike (15 Nov 2015)

Saw this on the International Association of Firefighters ( IAFF ) homepage,

Big Wins in Canada

Yesterday, after the longest federal election campaign since 1872, democracy was on full display as Canadians rose up by the millions and voted for change.

The Liberal majority government elected under Prime Minister-designate Justin Trudeau is a welcome result for the IAFF and our members and a victory for public and fire fighter safety.

The IAFF and its Canadian leadership undertook a bold and unprecedented level of engagement in this election. Our three Canadian District Vice Presidents - Lorne West, Fred LeBlanc and David Burry - weighed in heavily on the strategy and direction of our effort. We talked with our affiliate leaders across Canada. We leaned on our communications staff at IAFF headquarters and our staff in the IAFF Canadian Office.

We engaged tens of thousands of Canadians on our “Fire Fighters for Change” social media sites, and we formed partnerships with a number of organizations that share the same values we do.

We provided affiliate leaders with the tools to participate effectively in this election. We reached out directly to all of Canada’s political parties to ask them to support fire fighter issues - and we reached out directly to you to ask you to think about those same issues when you voted.

The Liberals pledged directly to us in writing that they will implement a national Public Safety Officer Compensation benefit for the families of fire fighters who make the ultimate sacrifice, something we’ve been lobbying for in Canada for more than 22 years.

They also made commitments on post-traumatic stress resources for our members, to study the National Building Code to ensure it addresses fire fighter safety and to restore Canada’s regional Heavy Urban Search & Rescue teams.

The election result means we are on the brink of these important advances.

Yesterday’s election was a also a victory for union members like you, who depend on a level playing field in order to bargain for fair wages, benefits and pensions, who deserve to work in an environment where public sector workers are valued, not vilified, and who expect the interests of working families won’t take a back seat to big corporations.

I am very proud of the work we all did together that helped bring about this change. While we can’t and won’t even attempt to take the credit for the results, it is important for all of our members to understand the much larger role we played in this national election.

Thank you for thinking about what matters to you as a professional fire fighter during the past 78 days and for being a part of this historic election. A politically-engaged membership is a healthy and strong membership, and an essential ingredient in our success in advancing fire fighter issues both in Canada and the United States.

The IAFF will be engaging Canada’s new government on our core issues without delay. And we will keep you informed every step of the way.

Congratulations on a job well done. Stay safe.

Fraternally,

Harold A. Schaitberger
 General President 
http://client.prod.iaff.org/#contentid=17379


----------



## The Bread Guy (15 Nov 2015)

Another factor squeezing PMJT & Co. ....


> Two-thirds of Canadians are in favour of extending the current Canadian Forces mission against ISIS in Iraq, according to an exclusive poll for Global News.
> 
> The Global News/Ipsos Reid poll found 66 per cent of Canadians surveyed said they agreed with the Conservative government’s intent to extend the mission past its current end date next month.
> 
> ...


Looks like this was, indeed, an "event" ....


----------



## PuckChaser (15 Nov 2015)

64% of those polled would support a ground combat mission in Iraq. Methinks Mister Trudeau is going to be on the wrong side of history if there is a coalition and he doesn't change his tune.


----------



## Kilo_302 (15 Nov 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> 64% of those polled would support a ground combat mission in Iraq. Methinks Mister Trudeau is going to be on the wrong side of history if there is a coalition and he doesn't change his tune.



Don't forget though that the majority of Canadians supported C-51 in the immediate aftermath of the attack on Parliament Hill. That has since changed.

 If there's anything we've learned in the last 14 years, it's that making hasty policy decisions in the immediate aftermath of an attack is always a mistake.

I haven't seen this number either, do you have a link?


----------



## Old Sweat (15 Nov 2015)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Another factor squeezing PMJT & Co. ....Looks like this was, indeed, an "event" ....



That poll dates from March (take a look at the top of the item, and I bit on it too,) but somebody is probably polling again.


----------



## tomahawk6 (15 Nov 2015)

Looks like Trudeau is going to ban oil tankers on the west coast of Canada.Thats taking a shot at oil's contribution to the Canadian economy.It will also make it difficult to export oil to asia.I wonder how long will it take for a return of the Conservatives ?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-13/canada-to-ban-tankers-on-north-pacific-coast-in-blow-to-enbridge


----------



## jmt18325 (15 Nov 2015)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Looks like Trudeau is going to ban oil tankers on the west coast of Canada.Thats taking a shot at oil's contribution to the Canadian economy.It will also make it difficult to export oil to asia.I wonder how long will it take for a return of the Conservatives ?
> 
> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-13/canada-to-ban-tankers-on-north-pacific-coast-in-blow-to-enbridge



It does not ban transport through Vancouver.  The Liberals have been very clear that they don't support Northern Gateway.  They did support Keystone XL and do support the Trans Mountain expansion to Vancouver.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (15 Nov 2015)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Looks like Trudeau is going to ban oil tankers on the west coast of Canada.Thats taking a shot at oil's contribution to the Canadian economy.It will also make it difficult to export oil to asia.I wonder how long will it take for a return of the Conservatives ?
> 
> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-13/canada-to-ban-tankers-on-north-pacific-coast-in-blow-to-enbridge



You can't just make this shit up. :facepalm:


----------



## jmt18325 (15 Nov 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> You can't just make this crap up. :facepalm:



Northern Gateway was never - never going to happen.  The aboriginal opposition and their right of consent in non treaty territory was too much for it to ever overcome.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (15 Nov 2015)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Northern Gateway was never - never going to happen.  The aboriginal opposition and their right of consent in non treaty territory was too much for it to ever overcome.



Never say never, as you cannot guarantee the outcome 100%.


----------



## jmt18325 (15 Nov 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Never say never, as you cannot guarantee the outcome 100%.



99.9% in this case.  This allows Justin a win on a file that wasn't going to happen.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (15 Nov 2015)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> 99.9% in this case.  This allows Justin a win on a file that wasn't going to happen.



Everyone, including the aboriginals, has a price. Big oil has big money.

But whatever, when you're done with that crystal ball, I have dibs.


----------



## jmt18325 (15 Nov 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Everyone, including the aboriginals, has a price. Big oil has big money.
> 
> But whatever, when you're done with that crystal ball, I have dibs.



You're not understanding.  There was a court case last year that changed everything in BC.  It requires not consultation with, but consent from first nations bands for projects on their traditional territory.  That means if even 1 band were to disagree, the project couldn't go ahead.  That's why I can be certain in this case.  

Transmountain, from what I understand, is different.  There is already a pipeline there, and Kinder Morgan already owns the right of way.  There isn't the same kind of work to be done.


----------



## stealthylizard (16 Nov 2015)

Each pipeline has its own right-of-way.  A new right-of-way is required for a new pipeline.  You can't put a new pipeline in an existing right-of-way while that right-of-way still contains a pressurized pipeline (generally).


----------



## jmt18325 (16 Nov 2015)

stealthylizard said:
			
		

> Each pipeline has its own right-of-way.  A new right-of-way is required for a new pipeline.  You can't put a new pipeline in an existing right-of-way while that right-of-way still contains a pressurized pipeline (generally).



Then that pipeline is unlikely to happen as well.


----------



## tomahawk6 (16 Nov 2015)

Right now Canada has a trade balance in the black with 25% of the total coming from oil exports.Banning tankers will probably see this trade surplus go away,as exports will shift to the US where crude is refined.High paying jobs would be helpful to the native population in BC, as its certainly helped Alberta.Liberal rhetoric will soon collide with reality.Not good for Canada.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (16 Nov 2015)

stealthylizard said:
			
		

> Each pipeline has its own right-of-way.  A new right-of-way is required for a new pipeline.  You can't put a new pipeline in an existing right-of-way while that right-of-way still contains a pressurized pipeline (generally).



You can use the existing ROW, but generally it needs to be expanded as there are spacing and setback allowances and that expansion will trigger consultations and permits.

Northern Gateway (I hate that name by the way) is unlikely to proceed and the economic cost will be minimized if 1-2 LNG terminals are completed on the west coast. Endbridge, both the Federal an Provincial governments did a terrible job preparing the social ground for that project. Also thee was really zero benefit for BC and a lot of risk. I don't know of any company that would take on that much risk for so little gain. Better early (prior to submission) on consultations with First Nations, communities would have been good. Not tilting the process so far in favour of the company would have helped. A refinery based around Dawson Creek area to bring the oil to light sweet crude would have helped create a economic argument for BC to be more supportive. it would also help limit the environmental arguments. Plus it would eventually become a refinery that could produce more retail products, easing the chronic refining shortages we suffer on the west coast.


----------



## suffolkowner (16 Nov 2015)

Colin. These are all obvious things, so why don't/didn't they happen? If someone told me they were putting a pipeline through my property I would be looking for compensation too, otherwise it might have unusual maintenance issues. I have had to "bribe" people to remove objections to development that they opposed or felt they were negatively affected by. It's just a sorry state of mismanagement in my opinion and I have often said it would be better/easier/quicker to bring it east as least to Thunder Bay


----------



## Remius (16 Nov 2015)

I think the honeymoon period will be over sooner than most people think (or hope for).

A reversal from Trudeau in regards to the CF-18s may be inevitable but so far there does not seem to be any indication that will happen.  Trudeau may just let the current agreement until March stay in place.  

I still contend though that our air contribution is symbolic and adds little to the overall mission and does very little to prevent tragedies like Paris, Ottawa etc etc.  Those targets our airforce are hitting would still have been hit by someone else (I concede that they do have an impact, but suggest that they would have happened regardless of our contribution).  But standing with our allies (and they are few that are participating, but France is one of them) in a concrete way though is a tangible effect that pays dividends.

I'm convinced that if this attack had happened during the election, we might have seen a different result.

This issue coupled with the Syrian Refugee scheme will define this government.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 Nov 2015)

Heaven forbid a large terrorist event happens here, but that would likely squash the Trudeau Liberals for the next four years and probably see them unelected next time around. People would just discount everything they say and there would be no confidence in their plans.

Oh, and the CAD is dropping this morning on all FOREX markets. Wonder why?


----------



## dapaterson (16 Nov 2015)

http://frankmag.ca/2015/11/justin-trudeau-as-mr-sunny-ways/


----------



## Colin Parkinson (16 Nov 2015)

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> Colin. These are all obvious things, so why don't/didn't they happen? If someone told me they were putting a pipeline through my property I would be looking for compensation too, otherwise it might have unusual maintenance issues. I have had to "bribe" people to remove objections to development that they opposed or felt they were negatively affected by. It's just a sorry state of mismanagement in my opinion and I have often said it would be better/easier/quicker to bring it east as least to Thunder Bay



The Pacific region (pretty much of every department) has been telling Ottawa for decades not to ignore consultation in BC because it will bite you, and it did. The last minute panic of sending out ministers to try to bandaid the problem was pathetic. BC is unique to the rest of Canada in regards to First Nation issues, few treaties, over lapping claims to name a few issues. also because of geography some bands feel the developmental push more than other and some will benefit greatly from a project, while the band next door gets nothing. by and large the coastal FN's support the LNG industry, but the feeling is not mutual for the bands in the NE of BC. Part of the issue is determining which bands are opposing a project as part of a negotiation strategy or because of a significant principle.


----------



## jollyjacktar (16 Nov 2015)

Sasl Premier Brad Wall has come out and asked that the refugee plans be revisited.  He's spot on too.  Shared under the fair dealings provisions of the copyright act.



> Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall wants the federal government to suspend its plan to bring 25,000 Syrian refugees to Canada by the end of the year.
> 
> In a letter to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Wall said he was concerned bringing in refuges could "undermine the refugee screening process."
> 
> ...



http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/sask-premier-brad-wall-asks-feds-to-suspend-syrian-refugee-plan-1.3321159


----------



## jmt18325 (16 Nov 2015)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Right now Canada has a trade balance in the black with 25% of the total coming from oil exports.Banning tankers will probably see this trade surplus go away,as exports will shift to the US where crude is refined.High paying jobs would be helpful to the native population in BC, as its certainly helped Alberta.Liberal rhetoric will soon collide with reality.Not good for Canada.



Tankers were always informally banned on the NORTH BC coast.  This simply formalizes that and prevents the Northern Gateway from happening (it wasn't anyway).


----------



## GAP (16 Nov 2015)

Colin P said:
			
		

> The Pacific region (pretty much of every department) has been telling Ottawa for decades not to ignore consultation in BC because it will bite you, and it did. The last minute panic of sending out ministers to try to bandaid the problem was pathetic. BC is unique to the rest of Canada in regards to First Nation issues, few treaties, over lapping claims to name a few issues. also because of geography some bands feel the developmental push more than other and some will benefit greatly from a project, while the band next door gets nothing. by and large the coastal FN's support the LNG industry, but the feeling is not mutual for the bands in the NE of BC. Part of the issue is determining which bands are opposing a project as part of a negotiation strategy or because of a significant principle.



Was there not some talk last year or early this year, of bands receiving $$ support from environmental groups to reject the pipeline?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (16 Nov 2015)

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> Colin. These are all obvious things, so why don't/didn't they happen? If someone told me they were putting a pipeline through my property I would be looking for compensation too, otherwise it might have unusual maintenance issues. I have had to "bribe" people to remove objections to development that they opposed or felt they were negatively affected by. It's just a sorry state of mismanagement in my opinion and I have often said it would be better/easier/quicker to bring it east as least to Thunder Bay



Without getting into the "Northern Gateway" discussion, Suffolkowner, I can tell you that It would make no sense whatever to bring the oil to Thunder Bay. 

First of all, the Great Lakes are closed by ice three months of the year (and Thunder Bay is one of the last places to lose its ice). 

Second of all, the size limit in the various lock systems is such that the tankers that could make the trip are about one eight to one tenth the size of the super tankers envisaged for Northern Gateway. It is not economical to run such small tankers for oversea delivery of oil, so you would've to trans-ship to larger ships somewhere along the St. Lawrence system passed Quebec City. Environmentalists just shot down such a project.

Finally, with super tankers, the Panama canal is out, so any deliveries to Asia require either a transit south of one of the Capes (Good Hope or Cape Horn) or across the Atlantic, to the Med. and then through Suez. Any way, it is long and expensive compared to middle eastern oil transits, something that cuts into the economy of the whole thing.


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Nov 2015)

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has imposed a tanked ban on BC's North Coast (Dixon Entrance, Hecate Strait and Queen Charlotte Sound). 

          (Is this the North Coast? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





)

Suppose you're Chinese and, therefore, you're accustomed to Big Projects and you're accustomed, too, to building artificial islands, perhaps even something like this:

          
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



          This is in Thailand, but it is indicative of what is well within
          the current state of the art.

Could you not imagine building a pipeline from Alberta, through BC ~ after negotiating with the First Nations (the Chinese are good at "negotiating") ~ and crossing Vancouver Island to a HUGE artificial tanker port off the BC coast?

I said that China will want something in exchange for its warm words and "friendship."


----------



## Colin Parkinson (16 Nov 2015)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Tankers were always informally banned on the NORTH BC coast.  This simply formalizes that and prevents the Northern Gateway from happening (it wasn't anyway).



Common misconception. Tankers traveling North and South of our coast to and from Alaska followed a "voluntary exclusion zone" that kept the tanker far enough to sea that in the event of a breakdown that a rescue tug could reach it and put a tow on it, before the tanker would be going ashore.

Tanker traffic in and out of Vancouver is quite common. Also Marine Safety from a emergency response view treats a fuel barge as a tanker.


----------



## jmt18325 (16 Nov 2015)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Common misconception. Tankers traveling North and South of our coast to and from Alaska followed a "voluntary exclusion zone" that kept the tanker far enough to sea that in the event of a breakdown that a rescue tug could reach it and put a tow on it, before the tanker would be going ashore.



I think we're misunderstanding eachother.  That's exactly what I meant.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (16 Nov 2015)

Except there was no ban. The enbridge hearings made that point clear, I had to go through parts of that and my co-worker had to sit through the entire thing. JT mandate letter was clearly written by staff that don't have a clue what they are talking about which is not surprising. You are right that for the moment Endbridge is dead, but it's basically driving a stake in a already semi-cold body. It will however resurface again under a new name.


----------



## Kirkhill (16 Nov 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has imposed a tanked ban on BC's North Coast (Dixon Entrance, Hecate Strait and Queen Charlotte Sound).
> 
> (Is this the North Coast?
> 
> ...



How about a railway bridge to Vancouver Island?   And a Port Renfrew terminal?

CHINA OPENS THE WORLD'S LONGEST BRIDGE OVER WATER, TOPPLING AMERICAN RECORD-HOLDER
By Rebecca Boyle  Posted July 1, 2011
http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2011-07/china-opens-worlds-longest-sea-bridge-toppling-american-record-holder






Or maybe BC could get the Chinese to pay for a new coastal route from Vancouver to Port Hardy.  If only BC hadn't blown up Ripple Rock the Seymour Narrows jump would be easy.


----------



## suffolkowner (16 Nov 2015)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Without getting into the "Northern Gateway" discussion, Suffolkowner, I can tell you that It would make no sense whatever to bring the oil to Thunder Bay.
> 
> First of all, the Great Lakes are closed by ice three months of the year (and Thunder Bay is one of the last places to lose its ice).
> 
> ...



I mean I get all that. It just seems a much easier process, I wouldn't necessarily advocate stopping at Thunder Bay permanently more a twinning of energy east instead of replacing the natural gas with oil(something that seems a bad move in my mind). With WCS at $26 a barrel the hysteria about pipelines has definitely calmed a bit.


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Nov 2015)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> And the provinces are lining up with their positions ....
> 
> _“(BC’s) Christy Clark among premiers welcoming Syrian refugees despite fears over Paris attacks”_
> _“(AB) Premier Notley in favour of Ottawa’s refugee plan”_
> ...




I'm going to watch the public debate very closely.

So far the mainstream media and the "chattering classes" are lined up, firmly, behind Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on the refugee (25,000 more by 1 Jan 16) question, but ...

Opposition to taking any refugees is growing in the USA ...

     
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





          And ...

               
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




                    ... we, Canadians, frequently follow the US "lead" on social issues and I wonder how long it will be until we see real, organized opposition to refugee resettlement.


----------



## dapaterson (17 Nov 2015)

Of course, we could look at Mayerthorpe and Moncton and point out that the greatest threat to law and order appear to be white males born in Canada.


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Nov 2015)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Of course, we could look at Mayerthorpe and Moncton and point out that the greatest threat to law and order appear to be white males born in Canada.




Those pesky little facts are never allowed to cloud out the clarity of debate on either the hard left or the hard right.


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Nov 2015)

David Akin, Sun Media, reports (in his "On The Hill" blog on how Prime Minister Justin Trudeau differs from Prime Minister Harper (reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from _"On The Hill"_):

http://blogs.canoe.com/davidakin/politics/trudeau-and-the-press-so-far-an-improvement-over-his-predecessor/


> Trudeau and the Press: So far, an improvement over his predecessor
> 
> David Akin - November 17th, 2015
> 
> ...



Now, I am no fan of the national news media/parliamentary press gallery, especially not of the TV networks ~ CBC, CTV and even Global could all go the way of Sun News and that would raise the intellectual standard of televised political coverage, in my opinion ~ but it is the primary way most of us get our information, heavily filtered though it may be. Thus, good, at least better relations between the media and the PM are to be welcomed ... for as long as they last.


----------



## PuckChaser (17 Nov 2015)

The new relationship will stick around until the first Trudeau gaff at a press conference. Then he'll default to the heavily scripted speeches and appearances that won him the election.


----------



## Brad Sallows (17 Nov 2015)

>Of course, we could look at Mayerthorpe and Moncton and point out that the greatest threat to law and order appear to be white males born in Canada.

Not really.  The greatest threats to law and order are things which cause people to lose faith in "the system".  I doubt many people lose faith over the attacks by isolated loners.  Evidence of election fraud or corrupt policing are examples of great threats to law and order.  I'm not sure yet what the blowback from a violent refugee admitted in a hurry to satisfy the Maslow needs of the chattering 25% might be.


----------



## dimsum (17 Nov 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Not really.  The greatest threats to law and order are things which cause people to lose faith in "the system".  I doubt many people lose faith over the attacks by isolated loners.  Evidence of election fraud or corrupt policing are examples of great threats to law and order.  *I'm not sure yet what the blowback from a violent refugee admitted in a hurry to satisfy the Maslow needs of the chattering 25% might be.*



Politically?  Bad news for the LPC.  

Socially?  I'm afraid the racist crap will go from being on news articles' comment boards to (more) out in the open.


----------



## The Bread Guy (17 Nov 2015)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Politically?  Bad news for the LPC.
> 
> Socially?  I'm afraid the racist crap will go from being on news articles' comment boards to (more) out in the open.


Like this?  Or this?  And the refugee wave hasn't even hit yet ....


			
				milnews.ca said:
			
		

> > Quote from: Thucydides on 09 Nov 15, 15:59:43
> >
> > Will Canadians torch old military bases to prevent them from being used? Highly unlikely for now, but as time passes and problems arise due to lack of planning (or questions are not being answered becasue there are no answers available), then the sorts of forces that drive the nativists in Europe will find grounds to grow and prosper here.
> 
> ...



Maybe I _was_ too optimistic ....


----------



## McG (18 Nov 2015)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Socially?  I'm afraid the racist crap will go from being on news articles' comment boards to (more) out in the open.


Too late maybe.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/muslim-woman-allegedly-attacked-toronto-1.3322298

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/mosque-peterborough-fire-1.3320013

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/man-in-joker-mask-threatens-to-kill-one-muslim-or-arab-in-quebec-a-week-in-online-video


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Nov 2015)

Colin P said:
			
		

> You can use the existing ROW, but generally it needs to be expanded as there are spacing and setback allowances and that expansion will trigger consultations and permits.
> 
> Northern Gateway (I hate that name by the way) is unlikely to proceed and the economic cost will be minimized if 1-2 LNG terminals are completed on the west coast. Endbridge, both the Federal an Provincial governments did a terrible job preparing the social ground for that project. Also thee was really zero benefit for BC and a lot of risk. I don't know of any company that would take on that much risk for so little gain. Better early (prior to submission) on consultations with First Nations, communities would have been good. Not tilting the process so far in favour of the company would have helped. A refinery based around Dawson Creek area to bring the oil to light sweet crude would have helped create a economic argument for BC to be more supportive. it would also help limit the environmental arguments. Plus it would eventually become a refinery that could produce more retail products, easing the chronic refining shortages we suffer on the west coast.



And that is the reason the Federal Government was given responsibility for Inter-Provincial commerce.  Let us know when you want to rip up the railway tracks.  You lot don't use anything east of the Port Mann in any event.  >


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Nov 2015)

Yesterday I posted David Akin's (_Sun News_) report of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's mid-air press conference. Mr Akin has now added a transcript which is reproduced, here, under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from his _On The Hill_ blog:

http://blogs.canoe.com/davidakin/politics/transcript-trudeau-at-the-back-of-the-plane-on-refugees-climate-change-etc/


> Transcript: Trudeau at the back of the plane on refugees, climate change, etc.
> 
> David Akin - November 17th, 2015
> 
> ...



Those who follow my ramblings here on Army.ca will know that: I am a card-carrying Conservative; I am a financial contributor (I give enough to be part of what the CPC calls the _Leaders Circle_); that I doubt Prime Minister Justin's Trudeau's readiness and ability to hold high office; and I doubt, even more, the _ethical fitness_ of the Liberal Party of Canada. That being said, I am giving our prime minister every possible benefit of all my many doubts ... and I encourage others to do the same. He was handed weighty responsibilities before the Paris attacks, now his situation is even more complex and I am pretty sure he is, honestly and sincerely, trying to navigate a course between the promises he made to Canadians and the counsel he is receiving from all and sundry.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (18 Nov 2015)

Why did he start his speech with "_So first of all, excellent first experience at my first summit_"?

He is not there as a movie star whose life experiences interest us. He is representing the country and this is not about him. Such conceit and self-importance. 

Oh! And "I call him Enrique now" (even though I can't get his full name straight): Look Ma, I call a world leader by his first name. 

Who is coaching him on international relations? You may, after a while and if there is an ongoing working relationship, call some other leaders by their first name in closed sessions if both sides agree, but never ever in public and you don't mention it to the press as a sort of "look at me how I am with the grown ups."

Sorry -I am full of bile today, but this is diplomacy and it has rules.


----------



## George Wallace (18 Nov 2015)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Why did he start his speech with "_So first of all, excellent first experience at my first summit_"?
> 
> He is not there as a movie star whose life experiences interest us. He is representing the country and this is not about him. Such conceit and self-importance.
> 
> ...



Seems, from CBC reporting, that there is a little competition on as to whom is the better looking:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/trending/apec-hottie-trudeau-pena-nieto-1.3323266


----------



## Fishbone Jones (18 Nov 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> Too late maybe.
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/muslim-woman-allegedly-attacked-toronto-1.3322298
> 
> ...



The motive\ culprit behind the mosque fire has not been determined.


----------



## The Bread Guy (18 Nov 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> The motive\ culprit behind the mosque fire has not been determined.


Which leaves the other two ....


----------



## George Wallace (18 Nov 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> Too late maybe.
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/muslim-woman-allegedly-attacked-toronto-1.3322298
> 
> ...



Sad that there are idiots who in their hatred attack persons and property indiscriminately.   They act out of rage, and give no thought to whom or what they are attacking.  This Hindu temple has nothing to do with Islam.  

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/kitchener-waterloo/kitchener-ram-dham-hindu-temple-windows-smashed-by-vandals-1.3320866


----------



## Fishbone Jones (18 Nov 2015)

Just read the whole transcript of Trudeau's press conference.

I found no substance to anything he said. All non committal fluff and bashing the previous government whenever he could.

All I saw was a neophyte impressed with his own performance, which is what it was, a performance.


----------



## The Bread Guy (18 Nov 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> All I saw was a neophyte impressed with his own performance, which is what it was, a performance.


Not so nimble as events change the script ....


			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Sad that there are idiots who in their hatred attack persons and property indiscriminately.   They act out of rage, and give no thought to whom or what they are attacking.  This Hindu temple has nothing to do with Islam.
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/kitchener-waterloo/kitchener-ram-dham-hindu-temple-windows-smashed-by-vandals-1.3320866


Yeah, sometimes those kind of "flinch" responses aren't exactly finely tuned.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (18 Nov 2015)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Which leaves the other two ....



CTV News Montreal just reported that the Joker is now under arrest and being examined by the police prior to laying charges of uttering death threats and inciting hatred.

That leaves one ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (18 Nov 2015)

And stand by for an update later this afternoon ....


> The Honourable Ralph Goodale, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, and officials will provide *context about Canada’s current threat environment.*
> 
> Date
> Wednesday, November 18, 2015
> ...


----------



## Colin Parkinson (18 Nov 2015)

and that would be "dual calibre" magazines


----------



## Tuan (18 Nov 2015)

In spite of Paris, Justin Trudeau keeps terror in perspective: Walkom
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/11/18/in-spite-of-paris-justin-trudeau-keeps-terror-in-perspective-walkom.html



> When terrorists struck Paris Friday, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s response was strikingly low-key.
> While other world leaders vied with one another to voice their outrage, Trudeau waited a few hours before offering a somewhat anodyne expression of grief.
> He also acknowledged — again strikingly for a politician — that he couldn’t say much more because he didn’t know much more.
> When he arrived in Turkey for a meeting of the G20 nations later that night he didn’t immediately head for the microphones to get in on the biggest news story of the moment.
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (18 Nov 2015)

Meanwhile, "no need to crank up the threat level" from the Public Safety Minister ....


> At a press conference in Ottawa Wednesday, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Ralph Goodale said, "Based on what we know now, there is no rationale for changing Canada's current threat level."


----------



## Brad Sallows (19 Nov 2015)

>"So first of all, excellent first experience at my first summit"?

I saw a movie about someone's excellent adventure once.  Good to know he is enjoying himself.


----------



## Scott (19 Nov 2015)

And if he started a speech off with, "Good morning" someone would have at him for being a presumptuous dickhead too self absorbed to think of how anyone else's morning was going.

Le sigh.


----------



## The Bread Guy (20 Nov 2015)

Scott said:
			
		

> And if he started a speech off with, "Good morning" someone would have at him for being a presumptuous dickhead too self absorbed to think of how anyone else's morning was going.
> 
> Le sigh.


 :nod:

Meanwhile, PMJT appoints an interesting "caucus sergeant major" ....


> The Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, announced today that Andrew Leslie, Member of Parliament for Orléans, has agreed to serve as Chief Government Whip.
> 
> Mr. Leslie was first elected in the Orléans riding in 2015. As a retired Lieutenant-General, Mr. Leslie has a strong background in public service. His dedicated service has been recognized both domestically and internationally on numerous occasions during his 35-year career with the Canadian Armed Forces.
> 
> ...


----------



## ModlrMike (20 Nov 2015)

Is the honeymoon over already?


Trudeau loses his post-election shine after Paris attacks: Hébert
Unscripted response of rookie prime minister garners his worst week in the press since before campaign

More here


----------



## The Bread Guy (20 Nov 2015)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Is the honeymoon over already?
> 
> 
> Trudeau loses his post-election shine after Paris attacks: Hébert
> ...


And THAT from a usually Red Team paper - interesting, indeed.


----------



## Journeyman (20 Nov 2015)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> .....garners his worst week in the press .....


That was his worst week?! Must be hellish.  :'(   I saw no change, just more "rock star welcome; love his hair" that is passing as 'journalism.'


----------



## The Bread Guy (20 Nov 2015)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> That was his worst week?! Must be hellish.  :'(   I saw no change, just more "rock star welcome; love his hair" that is passing as 'journalism.'


C'mon - if you have one week that sucks out of two as PM, that can still be your "worst" week  ;D


----------



## Colin Parkinson (20 Nov 2015)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> And THAT from a usually Red Team paper - interesting, indeed.



To be fair she is generally the most rational reporter on the left. I will always read her stuff, even if I disagree with it, because it's based on rational thinking.


----------



## The Bread Guy (20 Nov 2015)

A couple of updates ....

New "Update of Economic and Fiscal Projections 2015" is out
New Conservative shadow cabinet out -- highlights:  James Bezan (Selkirk–Interlake–Eastman) as defence critic, Alupa Clarke (Beauport–Limoilou) as VAC critic, Hon. Steven Blaney (Bellechasse–Les Etchemins–Lévis) as PWGSC/procurement critic, Hon. Erin O’Toole (Durham) as public safety critic


----------



## Brad Sallows (20 Nov 2015)

>And if he started a speech off with, "Good morning" someone would have at him for being a presumptuous fool too self absorbed to think of how anyone else's morning was going.
Le sigh.

Don't worry; you'll have years to get used to it.


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Nov 2015)

Barrie McKenna, writing in the this column, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, says that we are going "back to the future" with the most recent budget update:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/economic-insight/liberals-opt-for-the-conservatives-opaque-tack-with-budget-update/article27411179/


> Liberals opt for the Conservatives’ opaque tack with budget update
> 
> SUBSCRIBERS ONLY
> 
> ...



Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Finance Minister Bill Morneau may be bright and shiny and new and full of _hope_ for _change_, but the Liberal Party of Canada remains, firmly, in the hands of the seasoned professionals:

                    
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Even the "new guard has deep ties to the old:

                    
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



                    New Liberal Party president Anna Gainey (left) is married to Tom Pitfield (right)
                    son of Prime Minister Pierre Trudeaus' closest policy advisor Michael Pitfield.

_Plus ça change_, and all that ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Nov 2015)

A couple of weeks ago, on p.1 of this thread, I speculated that global climate change might be a, perhaps even _the_ "top of mind" issue for the first 100 days.

Jason Fetke, writing in the _Ottawa Citizen_ says that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau "faces big challenges in climate change fight."

Specifically, Mr Fetke says, "there’s a palpable sense of urgency among environmentalists ... to come away with an ambitious, yet realistic, climate change treaty that is legally binding." Let's remember that those environmentalists are an important part of the_ Liberal base_ to which Prime Minister Justin Trudeau must "pander," just like Prime Minister Harper before him did to his own Conservative base.

The _Citizen_ article is loaded with pictures and charts, including one that shows the sources of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions:

          
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




The problem is that the chart ~ accurate though it may be ~ fails to identify the scope of the global problem which is about 50 time larger:

          
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




And Canada has, actually, been making some "progress," relative to e.g. China and India and Indonesia and South Korea, and, even, relative to the USA, UK and Germany.

          
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Now the "progress," which is, actually, just a decline in the rate of growth is not enough for the environmental movement, but they actually need China and india, especially, to go from ...






   
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



                                                                          This                                                                                                   back to                                                                                  this ...

     ... not only is that a practical, geopolitical impossibility, it is morally reprehensible to even ask people who have just gained a foothold in the modern world to give it up because we, in the US led West, sold them the wrong technologies.

There is a lot that can be done to conserve energy, use _"greener"_ systems and so on, but the world will still need all the fossil fuel Canada can bring to market. The part of the _Liberal base_ that wants, for example, to shut down the Alberta oil sands ...

          
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



          Protesters outisde 24 Sussex Dr. and Rideau Gate in early November demand a freeze on oilsands expansion. Wayne Cuddington/ Ottawa Citizen
          WAYNE CUDDINGTON / OTTAWA CITIZEN (Picture from Jason Fetke's article)

               ... are a big part of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's problem. He sold them _hope_ for _change_; now that want some.


----------



## dapaterson (23 Nov 2015)

Prior to the dissolution of parliament, forty-nine people were re-appointed to patronage positions - many of them years in the future.  In other words, PM Harper made appointments that take effect in the future, well beyond his government's mandate.  This is unprecedented in Canada.

http://ipolitics.ca/2015/11/23/doomed-harper-government-made-49-future-patronage-appointments/


----------



## Altair (23 Nov 2015)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Prior to the dissolution of parliament, forty-nine people were re-appointed to patronage positions - many of them years in the future.  In other words, PM Harper made appointments that take effect in the future, well beyond his government's mandate.  This is unprecedented in Canada.
> 
> http://ipolitics.ca/2015/11/23/doomed-harper-government-made-49-future-patronage-appointments/


At least he didn't stack the Senate and tell the new senators to block every liberal bill for 4 years.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (23 Nov 2015)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Prior to the dissolution of parliament, forty-nine people were re-appointed to patronage positions - many of them years in the future.  In other words, PM Harper made appointments that take effect in the future, well beyond his government's mandate.  This is unprecedented in Canada.
> 
> http://ipolitics.ca/2015/11/23/doomed-harper-government-made-49-future-patronage-appointments/



Such contempt is beyond the pale - and, I suspect, the primary reason for the ABC vote.

We now return to the previously scheduled virulent and vituperative bashing of the Prime Minister.


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Nov 2015)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Such contempt is beyond the pale - and, I suspect, the primary reason for the ABC vote.
> 
> We now return to the previously scheduled virulent and vituperative bashing of the Prime Minister.



After the short digression to return to the virulent and vituperative bashing of the previous Prime Minister.   [

Come on! Both sides. Let up on it a bit.

As ERC says: let him act and then judge him on his actions.


----------



## PuckChaser (23 Nov 2015)

So people are upset that appointments were made for people who's jobs were expiring in the month following the election (year away stuff notwithstanding)? What's he supposed to do, wipe his hands and say "someone's problem, not mine"? His job was to ensure the functioning of the government whether he won or not. It's completely unfair to make those people wait due to the election, and would smack of even more partisanship than alleged.


----------



## Remius (23 Nov 2015)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Such contempt is beyond the pale - and, I suspect, the primary reason for the ABC vote.
> 
> We now return to the previously scheduled virulent and vituperative bashing of the Prime Minister.



Agreed.  But if he played within the rules then really, there's not much more to this.  Besides, I'm sure the current one can do his own stacking and removing. 

Ultimately, I suspect that Stephen Harper will be remembered for his hyper partisan tactics than for anything else.


----------



## jmt18325 (23 Nov 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> So people are upset that appointments were made for people who's jobs were expiring in the month following the election (year away stuff notwithstanding)?



I think renewing contracts up at the end of the year of even 6 months after the election is reasonable.  I think renewing contracts two and a half years before is not.


----------



## CombatDoc (23 Nov 2015)

Remius said:
			
		

> Ultimately, I suspect that Stephen Harper will be remembered for his hyper partisan tactics than for anything else.


I suspect that Prime Minister Harper will be best remembered for his sound fiscal policies, that maintained Canadian financial stability during a global financial crisis.


----------



## Altair (23 Nov 2015)

Hey look, a prime minister of Canada has sat down and talked to the premiers of Canada. 

It's been what, 6 years since that last happened?


----------



## jmt18325 (23 Nov 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> Hey look, a prime minister of Canada has sat down and talked to the premiers of Canada.
> 
> It's been what, 6 years since that last happened?



And though this falls outside of the 100 day mark, they will do so again in 90 days, on the issues of MMIW and the economy.


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Nov 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> Hey look, a prime minister of Canada has sat down and talked to the premiers of Canada.
> 
> It's been what, 6 years since that last happened?




And this, according to David Akin, Sun News, is _why_ it happened:

    "Nothing actually got done Monday night when all but one of the country's premiers had their first meeting with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

     No one got a cheque for a new program. No one signed any new accord. Instead, they all engaged in _a public ritual in front of the national media that provided the symbolic visual evidence of the political values
     the Trudeau Liberals are keen to project_.

     It was a remarkable few hours of political theatre."

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's campaign, very commendably, offered some policy choices but, in the main, they campaigned on _hope_ and _change_. This was political theatre, no question about that, but it is "theatre" that send a message that Canadians said they wanted.


----------



## The Bread Guy (24 Nov 2015)

Maybe another "event"?


			
				Technoviking said:
			
		

> http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/11/24/turkish-f-16-shoots-down-russian-fighter-jet-near-syria-border/
> 
> Sorry for the poor formatting: I'm on my mobile device.
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Nov 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> "Cynic's guide" or not, this article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_ might give us some indicatins of the shape of the new, Liberal, government's first Speech from the Throne:
> 
> http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/ten-pipers-trudeau-will-need-to-pay-a-cynics-guide-to-the-sunshine-way
> 
> ...





If you want to understand why climate change is the "top of mind" issue for the Liberals, just look at this chart from _The Economist_:






Source: http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21678952-peoples-views-climate-change-go-hand-hand-their-politics-groupthink?fsrc=scn/tw/te/pe/ed/groupthink

It's an American chart but I'm pretty sure it reflects Australia (Labour ≈ Democrat; Liberal ≈ Republican), Britain (Labour ≈ Democrat; Conservative ≈ Republican) and Canada (Liberal ≈ Democrat; Conservative ≈ Republican), too.


----------



## Altair (28 Nov 2015)

Seems like the liberals are doing OK in selling their plans to the public

http://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/canada/majority-support-refugees-plan-oppose-pulling-fighter-jets-nanos-survey-1.2678063



> A new poll taken in the past week suggests about two-thirds of Canadians support the Trudeau government’s campaign promise to bring 25,000 Syrian refugees to Canada, but a majority are opposed to pulling fighter jets from the war against ISIS in Iraq and Syria.
> 
> The Nanos Research survey, conducted for CTV News and The Globe and Mail, found 65 per cent of Canadians support or somewhat support “bringing 25,000 refugees from Syria into Canada as promised by the Trudeau Liberals during the election.”
> 
> ...


----------



## PuckChaser (28 Nov 2015)

Doing OK is a coin flip chance of having the public support your decisions? He's 1/2 in that article. His brain trust is going to end up on the wrong side of the ground troops issue. 47% is fairly significant support for a mission that isn't even taking place, and can't count on "support the troops" polling numbers.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (28 Nov 2015)

Justin Trudeau tells BBC in London he left Canadian detractors 'in the dust'

Prime Minister says political opponents were 'bewildered' by his rise to power

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has used an interview with an influential BBC current affairs show in London to issue his most pungent retort yet to his Canadian detractors.

Trudeau, 43, endured more than two years of Conservative party attack ads declaring him "just not ready" before sweeping prime minister Stephen Harper from power in last month's federal election.

Asked by BBC television's NewsNight program about his famous family name, Trudeau didn't deny that having had his father Pierre Trudeau lead the country for almost 16 years opened some doors.

"I think the way I was raised was that I have to work two or three times as hard as anyone else to walk through that door now that it's open," he said.

Trudeau then delivered a sharp retort that could be seen as a direct shot at Harper and other Conservative partisans.

"There's an awful lot of people who sort of shrugged and said he has nothing but a name to go on and found themselves slightly bewildered as I left them in the dust," said the prime minister.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------



## Altair (28 Nov 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Doing OK is a coin flip chance of having the public support your decisions? He's 1/2 in that article. His brain trust is going to end up on the wrong side of the ground troops issue. 47% is fairly significant support for a mission that isn't even taking place, and can't count on "support the troops" polling numbers.


The putting in ground troops is a double edged sword. People would support ground troops, but that number would plummet the second troops start making the trip down the highway of heroes.

81 percent support the training mission and I imagine he's going to be playing that one up a lot when he increases it.


----------



## PuckChaser (28 Nov 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> The putting in ground troops is a double edged sword. People would support ground troops, but that number would plummet the second troops start making the trip down the highway of heroes.
> 
> 81 percent support the training mission and I imagine he's going to be playing that one up a lot when he increases it.



I don't think it would drop that dramatically, except in Quebec where they have polled off the board from the rest of Canada consistently. 81% support the training mission and we've already lost a SF Op to it. We polled 60%ish in Afghanistan throughout most of the combat mission, because it was the right place for us to be to combat terrorism. I see Daesh in the same light.

Concur on the training mission piece. Its an easy win for him, and still looks to the allies like we're contributing. The real question is what he does when France comes knocking and asks for a Battle Group to support their ground offensive. That answer is going to significantly affect him both domestically and globally, either extremely negative or extremely positive.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (28 Nov 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I don't think it would drop that dramatically, except in Quebec where they have polled off the board from the rest of Canada consistently. 81% support the training mission and we've already lost a SF Op to it. We polled 60%ish in Afghanistan throughout most of the combat mission, because it was the right place for us to be to combat terrorism. I see Daesh in the same light.
> 
> Concur on the training mission piece. Its an easy win for him, and still looks to the allies average citizen/public like we're contributing. The real question is what he does when France comes knocking and asks for a Battle Group to support their ground offensive. That answer is going to significantly affect him both domestically and globally, either extremely negative or extremely positive.



 ;D


----------



## PuckChaser (28 Nov 2015)

Good catch, thanks!


----------



## quadrapiper (28 Nov 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Concur on the training mission piece. Its an easy win for him, and still looks to the allies like we're contributing.


Sufficiently vague to cover all sorts of high-value low-number contributions, sounds harmless enough for the Folks Back Home, and doesn't have the same potential for dire, tragic mistakes as a multination bombing campaign?



			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> The real question is what he does when France comes knocking and asks for a Battle Group to support their ground offensive. That answer is going to significantly affect him both domestically and globally, either extremely negative or extremely positive.


Assuming the French do decide to get properly stuck in, would they _need_ Battle Group-shaped assistance to (assuming Daesh will face them in the field) eliminate Daesh as a fighting force?


----------



## PuckChaser (28 Nov 2015)

Daesh won't give up the ground easily, they're significantly better funded than the Taliban and they stuck around for a year. To do it right, we need overwhelming ground forces to secure the borders as well as the ground, to choke out the insurgency that they will inevitably fall back to. We can't half ass it like Afghanistan, at least we won't have a second war taking resources like Iraq did to Afghanistan.


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Nov 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Daesh won't give up the ground easily, they're significantly better funded than the Taliban and they stuck around for a year. To do it right, we need overwhelming ground forces to secure the borders as well as the ground, to choke out the insurgency that they will inevitably fall back to. We can't half ass it like Afghanistan, at least we won't have a second war taking resources like Iraq did to Afghanistan.



I'm not sure about how the tribalism was managed in Afghanistan but I got the sense that a very modern, western, ecumenical view was taken and the westerners tried to create a modern Afghan where there was no such thing. There was a collection of Uzbek, Hazzaras, Pashtuns, Baluchis, Turkmen and Uighurs all cohabiting within the borders of Afghanistan but all living independent lives.

If you want to "win" in the Middle East then support the local tribes.  Don't hold out the borders of Iraq and Syria and the Levant as sacrosanct.  Try to stabilize individual valleys by supporting one tribe against all comers.  



> At least three-quarters of the Iraqi people are members of one of the country's 150 tribes. Iraq's society is very feudalistic, with most of the population identifying him/herself with one tribe. Tribes have become an increasingly important part of Iraqi society. Even those Iraqi citizens without a tribal background often turn to neighborhood shaykhs for representation or assistance with the government.The tribe is an extremely important factor in Iraq, even in a republic. The vast majority of Iraqi people identify themselves as members of one of the country's 150 tribes. Even those Iraqi citizens without a tribal background often turn to a neighborhood sheikh for representation or assistance with the government.
> 
> Most contemporary tribal groupings in Iraq still revolve around their old cores and occupy the same regions. Certain surnames reveal the area or tribe from which a person's family originated: for example, al-Najafi, al-Samawi, al-Mashhadi, al-Zubaydi, and al-Asadi. The importance of tribe, clan, and village affiliations has increased in Iraq despite urbanization and other changes, largely because of war, economic sanctions, and Saddam Hussein's manipulation of tribal identity and tribal values.



http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/tribes.htm

And I wouldn't be overly bothered about applying western mores until you get the situation stabilized.  You can talk at leisure once the shooting is done.

You won't need to stabilize non-existent borders if you can secure the tribal areas with the assistance of the tribes.

(And then if that works we can try it in BC).  NB - Humour Attempt.


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Nov 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I don't think it would drop that dramatically, except in Quebec where they have polled off the board from the rest of Canada consistently.


I've generally seen the same numerical trend from QC, but this intrigued me:


> Democracies have been forced into a "state of war" against terrorism, Quebec Premier Philippe Couillard said after meeting with French Prime Minister Manuel Valls in Paris on Saturday.
> 
> As world leaders gathered in Paris on the eve of the international conference on climate change, security often trumped the environment as the dominant theme in policy discussions.
> 
> ...


Jumping on the bandwagon?  It would be hard for this guy to object to any increase of Canadian presence now that he's shown 1)  how bad ISIS is, and 2)  how "vigourous and strong" France's fight is.


----------



## cavalryman (29 Nov 2015)

One less 'backroom boy' for Mr Trudeau to lean on
http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/canadian-born-climate-and-development-pioneer-maurice-strong-dies-at-86


----------



## Fishbone Jones (29 Nov 2015)

cavalryman said:
			
		

> One less 'backroom boy' for Mr Trudeau to lean on
> http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/canadian-born-climate-and-development-pioneer-maurice-strong-dies-at-86




Must be Harper's fault, part of his hidden agenda.


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Dec 2015)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Prior to the dissolution of parliament, forty-nine people were re-appointed to patronage positions - many of them years in the future.  In other words, PM Harper made appointments that take effect in the future, well beyond his government's mandate.  This is unprecedented in Canada.
> 
> http://ipolitics.ca/2015/11/23/doomed-harper-government-made-49-future-patronage-appointments/


Interesting counter-move ....


> A letter sent Monday by the Liberal government leaves more than 30 ​people appointed to plum patronage posts in the dying days of Stephen Harper's Conservative government with a​ tough choice: step away ​voluntarily ​from their lucrative posts ​or face the possibility of a public backlash.
> 
> The letter targets ​dozens​ of ​board members, museum directors and advisers who were either appointed or had their appointments extended in the days before Harper called a summer election. Many of the appointments come with annual salaries well in excess of $100,000.
> 
> ...


Letter attached.


----------



## PuckChaser (8 Dec 2015)

"Step aside so we can appoint our own cronies to patronage jobs."

Calling the Vets Ombudsman a patronage appointment is a slap in the face of all veterans as well.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (8 Dec 2015)

I think this is a bad move by JT. It can only backfire on him.

First of all, there are literally thousands of appointments available within the purview of the government. Appointing 49 of them shortly before an election is no big deal. Some were made well in advance? Unusual but not necessarily illegal, and good fodder for politicking. But why use up good political scoring points against the Conservatives right after you got elected with a majority and four years before the next election? Ignoring those 49 appointees and waiting for the next round of appointments to roll out your own new era of "open and merit-based" appointments is a lot better.

But to now ask them to resign to save money for his own government instead of paying the piper to appoint other people he would rather see at the helm will not endear the JT government in the face of the public - and if he has to pay them to remove them from office, I think the public backlash will be against Trudeau and his government, not the appointees, for waisting such money, unless Trudeau can demonstrably prove that the appointees are incompetent for the job they were appointed to. That is a difficult demonstration to make. Merely asking them to step aside to allow "merit-based" appointment is like calling those appointees already there incompetent; and if someone called me incompetent at work, I would definitely put them to the test of proving why.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 Dec 2015)

You can smell Chretien and his pals all over these decisions. In order to operate the way they have in the past, they need to clear the decks of any non believers and replace them with liberal drones.


----------



## George Wallace (8 Dec 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> You can smell Chretien and his pals all over these decisions. In order to operate the way they have in the past, they need to clear the decks of any non believers and replace them with liberal drones.



Speaking of Liberal drones.  First we hear about the Department of Foreign Affairs conducting itself in a, or near to, treasonous fashion towards the Harper Government; being exposed in the Hillary Clinton tapes. Now we hear that Elections Canada paid $1 million to the Assembly of First Nations, a very partisan group, in a "Sole Source" contract for two Federal Elections, contrary to Treasury Board of Canada rules on awarding contracts for such a large sum. The Assembly of First Nations blatantly told First Nations people to vote strategically for anyone who would beat the Conservative candidate in their Ridings. Makes you wonder where the "LOYALTIES" of some of our senior Public Service people lie.

http://www.therebel.media/elections_canada_assembly_of_first_nations_1m_for_voter_outreach


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 Dec 2015)

Speaking of Elections Canada, have they made any attempt to get the Trudeau Liberals or Angry Tom's NDP to pay off the outstanding monies they, and their party members, owe to the Canadian taxpayer?

Didn't think so.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (9 Dec 2015)

All these promises to First nations are going to cost a pretty penny, looking at what they are saying, we need to hire 2 more aboriginal consultation advisers to keep things moving. Rolling back the accountability requirements will be a disaster for the long term health of the bands. The members need to see where the money goes.


----------



## George Wallace (9 Dec 2015)

Colin P said:
			
		

> All these promises to First nations are going to cost a pretty penny, looking at what they are saying, we need to hire 2 more aboriginal consultation advisers to keep things moving. Rolling back the accountability requirements will be a disaster for the long term health of the bands. The members need to see where the money goes.



One idea that is being floated around in some circles is the getting rid of the "Indian Act", as it is obsolete in some parts, and out of date irrelevant in others.  Would the Liberal Government actually have the courage to address this?  I highly doubt they do.  Would the change of status of Canada's aboriginal persons, to that of "equal status" to all other Canadians be acceptable to them?  Again, I highly doubt it.  The loss of Government Grants, and other handouts and benefits, would likely not be an option that they would find acceptable.  
It would take a very STRONG Government to take large segments of Canada's various social assistant recipients off the dole.  That would involve reforms, not only to the Indian Act, but to the Welfare and IE systems as well.  None of this I can see in the cards.


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 Dec 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> It would take a very STRONG Government to take large segments of Canada's various social assistant recipients off the dole.  That would involve reforms, not only to the Indian Act, but to the Welfare and IE systems as well.  None of this I can see in the cards.


Have to agree -- Conservatives had a majority, and didn't have the appetite (or thought that not enough Canadians had enough appetite).


----------



## ModlrMike (9 Dec 2015)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Have to agree -- Conservatives had a majority, and didn't have the appetite (or thought that not enough Canadians had enough appetite).



The cynic in me says that people would only focus on what they were losing, not gaining. Even if the amounts are the same.

"The evil government is taking something away from me..."


----------



## GAP (9 Dec 2015)

I wonder if the Liberals are going to bring back the EI/seasonal work bandwagon on the East Coast again.....


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Dec 2015)

GAP said:
			
		

> I wonder if the Liberals are going to bring back the EI/seasonal work bandwagon on the East Coast again.....



It should be a given. They'll have to reward all their loyal voters for the PC shutdown out there.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (9 Dec 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Speaking of Liberal drones.  First we hear about the Department of Foreign Affairs conducting itself in a, or near to, treasonous fashion towards the Harper Government; being exposed in the Hillary Clinton tapes. Now we hear that Elections Canada paid $1 million to the Assembly of First Nations, a very partisan group, in a "Sole Source" contract for two Federal Elections, contrary to Treasury Board of Canada rules on awarding contracts for such a large sum. The Assembly of First Nations blatantly told First Nations people to vote strategically for anyone who would beat the Conservative candidate in their Ridings. Makes you wonder where the "LOYALTIES" of some of our senior Public Service people lie.
> 
> http://www.therebel.media/elections_canada_assembly_of_first_nations_1m_for_voter_outreach



First Nations will be the first to scream at you. There are many who are entrenched in the current power structure. What you need to do is leave it in place for now, set a timeframe for replacement and have a fulsome process to determine what the next Act will look like, make sure First Nations, local governments and the Public all have a say and ability to respond to the drafts. You will not please anyone, as everybodies sacred cow is going to get hurt and trampled.


----------



## a_majoor (10 Dec 2015)

Or you can look to the future and repeat the mantra of Instapundit:



> Something that can't go on forever, won't. Debts that can't be repaid, won't be. Promises that can't be kept, won't be. Plan accordingly


----------



## dapaterson (16 Dec 2015)

A new study suggests that being a head of state or head of government shortens your life and prematurely ages you.

The Ottawa Citizen let PhotoShop do the rest.

https://twitter.com/OttawaCitizen/status/677284649727602688


----------



## ballz (16 Dec 2015)

If he's got anything smart about him, he'll maximize the use of Rogaine before he let's go of that hair.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (17 Dec 2015)

hah those election promises coming back to haunt them.


West Moberly First Nations Chief Roland Willson finally got to sit down with a federal cabinet minister and talk about the Site C’s dam *after crashing a Liberal Caucus Christmas party.*

According to an article in the Globe & Mail, Willson *had failed to get an audience with anybody in the Trudeau cabinet* until he tracked them down at the party and spoke with several cabinet Ministers.
After speaking with Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould, Indigenous and Northern Affairs Minister Carolyn Bennett, and Fisheries Minister Hunter Tootoo, Willson ended up with a meeting invitation Natural Resources Minister James Carr’s office, where Willson said he “had an hour long meeting, that’s an hour longer than we ever got with the Harper government on this issue.”

According to Chief Willson, he didn’t get the impression any of the Liberal ministers he met believes the project is too far advanced to stop.

Meanwhile, BC Hydro says that unseasonably warm weather hasn’t allowed construction on the Site C dam to pull ahead of schedule.

In an email to the Alaska Highway News, Hydro spokesperson Dave Conway says that “The warmer weather has not impacted construction as the contracting schedules anticipate winter conditions. Our schedules and work flow plans anticipated working on those items that could be worked on during the winter.”

According to the Globe and Mail, Hydro has already spent $423 million on Site C construction.

With files from Moose FM/Energetic City News & Alaska Highway News


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (17 Dec 2015)

$30 million pledged to build a road to the shoal lake reserve.


http://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/canada/isolated-shoal-lake-40-first-nation-to-get-its-freedom-road-1.2704415


----------



## PuckChaser (18 Dec 2015)

For those Liberal drum-beaters claiming legalizing pot would pay for all their promises:

http://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2015/12/17/taxation-of-legalized-pot-wont-be-a-government-cash-cow-trudeau-says/#.VnOrZb-uoT1



> Tax revenue from legalized pot should fund addiction programs, Trudeau says
> 
> By Jim Bronskill — The Canadian Press — Dec 17 2015
> Share on twitter
> ...



Is Trudeau just going to print money now to pay for his promises? Or drive us into the poor house like his father did? The start of many disappointments for Liberal fans, I think.


----------



## The Bread Guy (18 Dec 2015)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> $30 million pledged to build a road to the shoal lake reserve.
> 
> http://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/canada/isolated-shoal-lake-40-first-nation-to-get-its-freedom-road-1.2704415


With the federal share 1/3 of that (Manitoba & Winnipeg pick up 1/3 each).


----------



## George Wallace (18 Dec 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> For those Liberal drum-beaters claiming legalizing pot would pay for all their promises:
> 
> http://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2015/12/17/taxation-of-legalized-pot-wont-be-a-government-cash-cow-trudeau-says/#.VnOrZb-uoT1
> 
> Is Trudeau just going to print money now to pay for his promises? Or drive us into the poor house like his father did? The start of many disappointments for Liberal fans, I think.



Come on now.  You know darn well that saying anything derogatory about a prominent Liberal will get you branded as a "Racist" and an "Xenophobe".    [


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (18 Dec 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Come on now.  You know darn well that saying anything derogatory about a prominent Liberal will get you branded as a "Racist" and an "Xenophobe".    [



Only one if you say racist and/or xenophobic things or support those who do.


----------



## George Wallace (18 Dec 2015)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Only one if you say racist and/or xenophobic things or support those who do.



If you disagree with any Liberal policy in Ontario, you are automatically branded by the Premier as a "Homophobe"; so the branding by these type of political figure has swung well into the RIDICULOUS.   It makes it hard to take the majority of our political figures seriously, at all levels of government.


----------



## Jed (18 Dec 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> If you disagree with any Liberal policy in Ontario, you are automatically branded by the Premier as a "Homophobe"; so the branding by these type of political figure has swung well into the RIDICULOUS.   It makes it hard to take the majority of our political figures seriously, at all levels of government.



It is all part of the new age politician's political armour.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (18 Dec 2015)

So you are saying that if I disagree that the LCBO should get into the sale of pot when it becomes legal, or if I disagree with the decommissioning of nuclear power plants, I am an "homophobe"?

Well, that sucks! (pun intended).


----------



## George Wallace (18 Dec 2015)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> So you are saying that if I disagree that the LCBO should get into the sale of pot when it becomes legal, or if I disagree with the decommissioning of nuclear power plants, I am an "homophobe"?
> 
> Well, that sucks! (pun intended).




Seriously.  It was a serious problem of the Ontario Legislature there for a while that made a complete farce of the sitting Ontario Government.  It made the Premier look like a moron every time that she used that as a defence of her government's policies.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (18 Dec 2015)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Only one if you say racist and/or xenophobic things or support those who do.



I know of no one that supports, 100%, everything a chosen politician says or supports every position they hold. You weigh things out and swallow the good with the bad.

If you don't agree with some of the stuff that's said about others. That does not make you a racist.

And unless you're a reincarnation of Ganhdi, you should climb off of your high horse and quit judging people you don't even know.

Judging a person does not define who they are. It defines who you are.


----------



## cavalryman (18 Dec 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Seriously.  It was a serious problem of the Ontario Legislature there for a while that made a complete farce of the sitting Ontario Government.  It made the Premier look like a moron every time that she used that as a defence of her government's policies.


Wynne can't help it.  She is an utter and complete moron, and one without any sort of moral compass to boot.

There...I feel better now


----------



## McG (18 Dec 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Come on now.  You know darn well that saying anything derogatory about a prominent Liberal will get you branded as a "Racist" and an "Xenophobe".    [





			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> If you disagree with any Liberal policy in Ontario, you are automatically branded by the Premier as a "Homophobe"; so the branding by these type of political figure has swung well into the RIDICULOUS.   It makes it hard to take the majority of our political figures seriously, at all levels of government.


I must not have been paying enough attention to Ontario politics.  What are the incidents of this?


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (18 Dec 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I know of no one that supports, 100%, everything a chosen politician says or supports every position they hold. You weigh things out and swallow the good with the bad.
> 
> If you don't agree with some of the stuff that's said about others. That does not make you a racist.
> 
> ...



I'll jump off my high horse when you jump off yours, since you just took a perch to write this.

Who said anything about calling anyone a racist?  The comment was about a previous comment saying that anyone who disagreed with the liberals was a homophobic or racist.


----------



## George Wallace (18 Dec 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> I must not have been paying enough attention to Ontario politics.  What are the incidents of this?



A few months back she was being questioned by the Opposition on several matters; the Gas Plant Scandal, the sale of Ontario Hydro, the Sunshine List ($400K annual income of the head honcho at Ontario Hydro was one real sore point in the House), Green Energy Act (Solar and Windmills), and the list goes on.  The biggest controversy where she actually retorted, more than once, that those who opposed her government's plans were "homophobic", was in the implementation of Ontario's Sex Ed curriculum.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/kathleen-wynne-sees-homophobia-amid-sex-ed-protests-1.2974555

http://www.brantfordexpositor.ca/2015/04/14/wynne-trying-to-brand-pc-party-as-homophobic-rednecks

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/wynne-and-lesbian-spouse-planned-homophobia-smear-on-mcnaughton


----------



## George Wallace (18 Dec 2015)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> I'll jump off my high horse when you jump off yours, since you just took a perch to write this.
> 
> Who said anything about calling anyone a racist?  The comment was about a previous comment saying that anyone who disagreed with the liberals was a homophobic or racist.



Yes; and I ignored your comment quoting that.  You may have noted that I ended that statement in question with a "  [ "


----------



## a_majoor (18 Dec 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> A few months back she was being questioned by the Opposition on several matters; the Gas Plant Scandal, the sale of Ontario Hydro, the Sunshine List ($400K annual income of the head honcho at Ontario Hydro was one real sore point in the House), Green Energy Act (Solar and Windmills), and the list goes on.  The biggest controversy where she actually retorted, more than once, that those who opposed her government's plans were "homophobic", was in the implementation of Ontario's Sex Ed curriculum.
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/kathleen-wynne-sees-homophobia-amid-sex-ed-protests-1.2974555
> 
> ...



Of course the entire purpose of this is to both refuse to answer the question and to signal to the receptive that people who do "question" the received wisdom of the Liberals are "_insert insult here_". The federal Liberals did exactly the same when they were questioned about the makeup of the new cabinet. Rather than answer reasonable questions like "what in the Defense minister's resume prepares him to run the biggest and most complex department of the government?" or "why has such an obvious dud like Chrystia Freeland been appointed as minister for Internatinal Trade?", we're dismissed with "Because 2015". Evidently merit is no longer a consideration in the second decade of the century....


----------



## a_majoor (18 Dec 2015)

The sort of first 100 days we should hope for in 2019:

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/121715-785901-argentina-bolts-toward-free-market-reforms.htm



> *Argentina Bolts Toward Free Market Reforms*
> 
> Revolution: One week into office, Argentina's new president has slashed taxes, ripped out capital controls and restored the peso to its natural level. It takes guts, but this blaze of reforms has worked wherever it's been tried.
> 
> ...


----------



## PuckChaser (19 Dec 2015)

Even CBC is starting to catch on. If the CBC is pointing out the Liberals backing out on their promises, hell has either frozen over, or its happening a lot more than anyone can ignore, even Altair.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/real-change-comes-early-to-liberal-promises-1.3371721



> *Analysis - 'Real change' comes early — to Liberal promises
> Hopeful campaign goals on a collision course with reality*
> 
> Promises? Those were goals, not promises! Totally different!
> ...


----------



## Altair (19 Dec 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Even CBC is starting to catch on. If the CBC is pointing out the Liberals backing out on their promises, hell has either frozen over, or its happening a lot more than anyone can ignore, even Altair.
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/real-change-comes-early-to-liberal-promises-1.3371721


Let's see.

The budget isn't out yet, so keep your powder dry on that one.

As for the refugees, most people thought 25000 before Christmas was too much too soon, and the liberals adjusted the plan accordingly. Much better than driving forward stubbornly in the wrong direction.

As for the fight against isil, the cf 18s will be coming home, it's looking like the auroras and refueling planes will stay, and nobody knows how many more trainers will be sent as of yet. So I don't see the issue of a broken promise there.

I do see sour grapes everywhere. Not quite the same as broken promises.


----------



## PuckChaser (19 Dec 2015)

How many "priority number 1" did we hear? How many of those are now punted down the road? If I believed the Liberals platform, I'd have $15k a year in my pocket for child (insert use here) benefit, pot legalized everywhere, CF-18s out of Iraq and climate change tackled.

All we've gotten so far is lip service. So much for real change.


----------



## Journeyman (19 Dec 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> If the CBC is pointing out the Liberals backing out on their promises....


Maybe he's having an off day, and merely fallen into the default CBC setting of what passes as "journalism" -- 'all the problems in the world are because of the evil Harper'  -- forgetting for a moment that it's a different PM.



			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> ..... its happening a lot more than anyone can ignore, even Altair.


You're not a gambling sort, are you?   op:     [never mind]


----------



## Fishbone Jones (19 Dec 2015)

Wow, even liberal poster boy Terry Milewski is finally losing his insanity.

It was all over, for anyone with a schmick of sense, when JT teamed up and took his education from Kathleen McWynnety. How many times do people have to get stung by the liebrals before they figure out that the liebrals will say and promise anything to get into power, with no intention of carrying through with them.


----------



## Altair (19 Dec 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> How many "priority number 1" did we hear? How many of those are now punted down the road? If I believed the Liberals platform, I'd have $15k a year in my pocket for child (insert use here) benefit, pot legalized everywhere, CF-18s out of Iraq and climate change tackled.
> 
> All we've gotten so far is lip service. So much for real change.


Ah yes. 

All of this change done within a month and a half, before the first budget.

I'll address each issue one by one.

The child benefit will probably come along with the first budget.

Trudeau himself said legalized pot will be implemented over a couple of years after studying how other jurisdictions did it. He said that on the campaign trail.

The CF 18s will be out of Iraq,  I don't believe he ever gave a specific time line for their withdrawal.

As for climate cage,  canada did play a constructive role in Paris and He seems serious about meeting the targets set in Paris. Promise kept so far. Unless you wanted climate change solved in 6 weeks.

The only promise he has broken is 25000 refugees in Canada by years end, and I think we all agree the new plan of 25000 by March is much better.

He also said his first order of business was the middle class tax cut and guess what? It's implemented.

I'm not saying trudeau is going to be perfect and keep every promise. But to declare he's broken promises in the span of 6 weeks? Without even seeing what their first budget looks like? Seems foolish to me.


----------



## Altair (19 Dec 2015)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Maybe he's having an off day, and merely fallen into the default CBC setting of what passes as "journalism" -- 'all the problems in the world are because of the evil Harper'  -- forgetting for a moment that it's a different PM.
> You're not a gambling sort, are you?   op:     [never mind]


Is that so?

I'll take you seriously I when you show me where he's specifically broken promises.

What promises has he broken from his swearing in Nov 4th to today, Dec 19th? Hell,  he hasn't even done that much. 

Will he break promises in the future? Probably. But to be up in arms about things that may or may not happen in the future is, declaring that he hasn't fixed climate change in the 6 weeks he's been in power, you guys are starting to sound a little unhinged.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (19 Dec 2015)

The honeymoon is over. No one cares about his hair selfies anymore.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (19 Dec 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> Is that so?
> 
> I'll take you seriously I when you show me where he's specify broken promises.
> 
> ...



Not unhinged. People are just holding up a mirror to you when you vilify the Conservatives.


----------



## Altair (19 Dec 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> The honeymoon is over. No one cares about his hair selfies anymore.


I'm positive his approval numbers are still going to reflect the honeymoon.

And really guys, I'm not taking any of your ranting seriously until you can show me what promises he's broken in the past 6 week he's been in office.

Because all I'm hearing now is whining that he's not stephen harper.



> Not unhinged. People are just holding up a mirror to you when you vilify the Conservatives.



When ranted against harper, I had years of things harper did and didn't to cite. For the most part, I did point these things out when people asked why I didn't like him or his harper government. 

You guys have 6 weeks in which Trudeau has been to a bunch of summits, agreed to climate goals in Paris,  introduced a middle class tax hike which he campaigned on and put in place new morgage rules.

No where here am I seeing people discussing what he's done, just declaring that he's lied, is currently lying and will lie in the future. So yes, I'm just not taking you guys seriously yet.

 Maybe after the budget when you guys may have some serious issues to complain about.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (19 Dec 2015)

That's OK. We haven't taken you seriously either, since January 10, 2010.  :gottree:


----------



## Altair (19 Dec 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> That's OK. We haven't taken you seriously either, since January 10, 2010.  :gottree:


Ad hominem
Merry Christmas  :subbies:


----------



## PuckChaser (19 Dec 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> He also said his first order of business was the middle class tax cut and guess what? It's implemented.



Its not implemented, there's no budget. The budget sets the tax rates for the year.

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/fq/txrts-eng.html



> Federal tax rates for 2015
> 
> 15% on the first $44,701 of taxable income, +
> 22% on the next $44,700 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income over $44,701 up to $89,401), +
> ...


----------



## Altair (19 Dec 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Its not implemented, there's no budget. The budget sets the tax rates for the year.
> 
> http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/fq/txrts-eng.html


Nitpicking much?

Fine, granted. The middle class tax cut will not become effective starting Jan 1st 2016. 

http://m.huffpost.com/ca/entry/8761582



> Starting Jan. 1, the income-tax rate will drop to 20.5 per cent, from 22 per cent for taxable earnings between $45,282 and $90,563.



Do its not implemented as of this moment, just the first day next year in about 2 weeks. Broken promise I guess. Happy? Anything else you want to bring up?


----------



## PuckChaser (19 Dec 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> Nitpicking much?
> 
> Do its not implemented as of this moment, just the first day next year in about 2 weeks. Broken promise I guess. Happy? Anything else you want to bring up?



Implemented means its effective now. Is the CF-18 pullout implemented? Nope. Regardless of how you spin it, having a plan doesn't mean its done.

Harper spent 10 years being nitpicked on every little detail, do you not like that the limelight is on your prodigal son? He's numbers don't even add up, middle class tax cut and upper bracket raise is not revenue neutral, we'll be in the hole $1B CAD every year. Plus whatever the hell the monstrosity of a child benefit package is going to cost (likely in the $5B range). That's already over the $10B CAD deficit cited over and over, and none of it can be turned off as its entitlements, not infrastructure spending. Trudeau Jr is just like Trudeau Sr, we're going to be spent into a hole and that'll be our children trying to sort it out.


----------



## Altair (19 Dec 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Implemented means its effective now. Is the CF-18 pullout implemented? Nope. Regardless of how you spin it, having a plan doesn't mean its done.
> 
> Harper spent 10 years being nitpicked on every little detail, do you not like that the limelight is on your prodigal son? He's numbers don't even add up, middle class tax cut and upper bracket raise is not revenue neutral, we'll be in the hole $1B CAD every year. Plus whatever the hell the monstrosity of a child benefit package is going to cost (likely in the $5B range). That's already over the $10B CAD deficit cited over and over, and none of it can be turned off as its entitlements, not infrastructure spending. Trudeau Jr is just like Trudeau Sr, we're going to be spent into a hole and that'll be our children trying to sort it out.


I meant nitpicking me, but whatever. I mispoke. It will be implemented by the first day of the new year. Better?

As far as I know trudeau didn't give a date for when the cf 18s would be pulled out. If he did, please, let me know and I'll consider it a broken promise.

As for the highlighted part, I'll wait and see what the budget says before I cast my judgement. Could it be much larger than promised? Sure.  Could it be a little bit larger than promised? Sure. Let's wait and see.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (19 Dec 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> Hell,  he hasn't even done that much.



Well, it _IS_ hard to pose for selfies and "I'm so awesome!" portraits and work at the same time...so I'll agree that, yes, he _hasn't_ done much.

OH WAIT!   He did find time to give billions of tax dollars away, before (as you pointed out...) a budget has been finalized and released.  

Just because you and others are 'sha-zammed!' by smiles and hair doesn't mean everyone is;  some of us remember all to well the Liberal years before PM Harper, and NOT fondly.


----------



## Altair (19 Dec 2015)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Well, it _IS_ hard to pose for selfies and "I'm so awesome!" portraits and work at the same time...so I'll agree that, yes, he _hasn't_ done much.
> 
> OH WAIT!   He did find time to give billions of tax dollars away, before (as you pointed out...) a budget has been finalized and released.
> 
> Just because you and others are 'sha-zammed!' by smiles and hair doesn't mean everyone is;  some of us remember all to well the Liberal years before PM Harper, and NOT fondly.


Give billions of dollars away back to Canadians. I personally don't see the issue, but I'll at least grant that you are bringing up something he has done in the past 6 weeks as opposed to just moaning about him existing at all.

As for the past liberal government, were they corrupt as hell? Ya. Does that mean the current liberal government is corrupt? No.

I'll judge this goverment on their actions, positive or negative. If they turn out to be negative, I hear the beard will be around in 4 years.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (19 Dec 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> Give billions of dollars away back to Canadians.



I was talking about 2+ billion that will likely result in SFA to show for it, other than the PMs ability to mention it in interviews.  Trudeau pledges $2.65B to climate-change fund .  Why are we tossing money around before a budget?  Is that sound financial decision making?  



> As for the past liberal government, we're they corrupt as hell? Ya. Does that mean the current liberal government is corrupt? No.



History is the best predictor of the future, no?  Why would Canadians who remember the fucktardedness of the previous Liberal governments be worried that PM Trudeau may lead us down the same path?  Hmmmmmm...I wonder why some of us are concerned...
















I could go on, but the point is made.  Being fair, I am even only using the balance of probabilities in making my own opinion of how this is going to go;  I believe it is 50% + 1 probable things will go off the rail, as it did previously.  Why?  What ramifications happened, real ramifications, to those who went down the road of fucktardedness before?  Nothing.  



> I'll judge this goverment on their actions, positive or negative.



As will all of us.  However, those of us who have been subject to previous Liberal government "policy and practices" before will be watching, but not with the same trusting eye you have.  As I said, history is the best predictor of the future.  You can deny that, but you are really only fooling yourself IMO.


----------



## Altair (19 Dec 2015)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I was talking about 2+ billion that will likely result in SFA to show for it, other than the PMs ability to mention it in interviews.  Trudeau pledges $2.65B to climate-change fund .  Why are we tossing money around before a budget?  Is that sound financial decision making?
> 
> History is the best predictor of the future, no?  Why would Canadians who remember the fucktardedness of the previous Liberal governments be worried that PM Trudeau may lead us down the same path?  Hmmmmmm...I wonder why some of us are concerned...
> 
> ...


I personally don't believe Jean or paul with a direct line to the PMO, as much as I saw them using their influence with the population and party to help a party from their third party get elected. 

Nice promise, but again, until I see how this shakes out in the budget or budgets to come, I'll reserve judgement. But again, credit for commenting on something he said said or done. 

I know of one very serious ramifications of the fucktardiness for the liberals. 10 years of Stephen Harper and the near death of the federal liberal party brand in Quebec. I'm still not sure if it's recovered or if this vote in Quebec was the ABC vote deciding to hold their noses and vote liberal.

As for your last point, no. It's very clear that some on here will spend the next 4 years complaining about everything trudeau does or doesn't do. It's started already. Parliament was in session for little over a week, he's been prime minister for 6 weeks and yet he has already broken all of his campaign promises. In 6 weeks. Some goverments get significantly into their mandate to reach their campaign promises, trudeau failed before he even began. This isn't a goverment into their second mandate or running for reelection, he's 6 weeks in and already he's being called out on

Climate (?)

The budget (which no one has seen)

The CF 18s (We're they suppose to be back in Canada by a specific date?)

The refugees ( fair enough, but isn't the current plan better?)

Granted, I really don't care because I accept the fact that nomatter what trudeau does people will hate him because of their experiences with past liberal governments/hie father.  

I hope that whenever the CPC gets their new leader and they are enough of a departure from harpers style of governing I can judge them based on their merits instead of lumping they in with harper. And for the sake of the CPC in 2019, you had better hope Canadians can too.


----------



## Kat Stevens (19 Dec 2015)

So 10 000 Syrians was a much more realistic number than 25 000 by Jan 1.  I think we all agree.  Why did nobody agree it was a great idea for 10 000 Syrians by Jan 1 when PM Harper said it?


----------



## PuckChaser (19 Dec 2015)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> So 10 000 Syrians was a much more realistic number than 25 000 by Jan 1.  I think we all agree.  Why did nobody agree it was a great idea for 10 000 Syrians by Jan 1 when PM Harper said it?



Because Harper said it, and everything he said or did wasn't "real change". Apparently Canadians prefer to over-promise, under-deliver, instead of being realistic with expectations.


----------



## Altair (19 Dec 2015)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> So 10 000 Syrians was a much more realistic number than 25 000 by Jan 1.  I think we all agree.  Why did nobody agree it was a great idea for 10 000 Syrians by Jan 1 when PM Harper said it?


Might have something to do with how PM harpers original position was 10000 refugees by 2017.

Or how I don't think he ever said 10000 refugees by Jan first (that was the NDP position, with 50000 by 2019 total) but 10000 more total.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (19 Dec 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> I personally don't believe Jean or paul with a direct line to the PMO, as much as I saw them using their influence with the population and party to help a party from their third party get elected.
> 
> Nice promise, but again, until I see how this shakes out in the budget or budgets to come, I'll reserve judgement. But again, credit for commenting on something he said said or done.
> 
> ...



In what alternate universe do you not see the Laurentian Elitists fingerprints and attitudes all over this government. They didn't come out to say JT is a great guy and go home after the election. Those guys are still running the show. JT is a front man who doesn't make a step without their say so.


----------



## Altair (19 Dec 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> In what alternate universe do you not see the Laurentian Elitists fingerprints and attitudes all over this government. They didn't come out to say JT is a great guy and go home after the election. Those guys are still running the show. JT is a front man who doesn't make a step without their say so.


Is what your saying been on evidence or facts, or more on truthiness? [lol:


----------



## Brad Sallows (19 Dec 2015)

>As for the past liberal government, were they corrupt as hell? Ya. Does that mean the current liberal government is corrupt? No.

The Liberal Party, not the Liberal government, was responsible for AdScam.  The fact that some of the elected MPs are different does not tell us anything about the current Liberal Party.  Ponder the implications.


----------



## Brad Sallows (19 Dec 2015)

The budget, when it is revealed, will tell us what the government intends to do.   As to cost, it is only an estimate.  We won't know the true accounting until much later.  Bear in mind the anticipated deficit at present is primarily driven by increased spending, not decreased revenues.  It'll be a treat if the deficit clocks in at third or fourth largest in the past 20 years with [no] recession to pin it on.


----------



## Altair (19 Dec 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >As for the past liberal government, were they corrupt as hell? Ya. Does that mean the current liberal government is corrupt? No.
> 
> The Liberal Party, not the Liberal government, was responsible for AdScam.  The fact that some of the elected MPs are different does not tell us anything about the current Liberal Party.  Ponder the implications.


 I don't see the need to tar the current liberal government/party with the same brush of the liberal government/party of two decades ago.

If you guys want to do so, be my guest, but until proven otherwise I won't be joining in that discussion.


----------



## Altair (19 Dec 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> The budget, when it is revealed, will tell us what the government intends to do.   As to cost, it is only an estimate.  We won't know the true accounting until much later.  Bear in mind the anticipated deficit at present is primarily driven by increased spending, not decreased revenues.  It'll be a treat if the deficit clocks in at third or fourth largest in the past 20 years with [no] recession to pin it on.


It's a big risk, if they spend and the economy continues to struggle, they're done.

If they spend wisely and kick start the economy, they're golden. Stay tuned.


----------



## ballz (19 Dec 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> If they spend wisely and kick start the economy



Governments have been trying that for 100 years, that's not how it works! :facepalm:


----------



## jmt18325 (19 Dec 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> How many "priority number 1" did we hear? How many of those are now punted down the road? If I believed the Liberals platform, I'd have $15k a year in my pocket for child (insert use here) benefit



As someone who deals with that regularly, I know that such changes always take place in July.  There is no rush to change anything before the budget, as a result.


----------



## a_majoor (19 Dec 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> It's a big risk, if they spend and the economy continues to struggle, they're done.
> 
> If they spend wisely and kick start the economy, they're golden. Stay tuned.



The LPC complained that the $30 billion deficit spending they insisted on in 2008 was not enough to "kick start" the economy (and routinely derided the Economic Action Plan, despite being the actual fathers of the plan).

The Obama Administration has spent _trillions_ of dollars in stimulus spending since 2008, yet (once you add back all the numbers conveniently overlooked by the BLM) unemployment hasn't dropped below 10% during that time, and the economic "recovery" mostly consists of various bubbles inflated by the vast spending increases.

But we don't need to look at the most recent examples; the Great Depression became "great" and lasted at least seven years longer than it should have due to the massive spending and government interference in the economy by the "New Dealers" (read The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression Paperback by Amity Shlaes, or just reflect that the worst year of the Great Depression was 1938, almost a full decade after the "Crash").

And since the government is determined that we _will_ go along for the ride by increasing taxes and removing tools like the enhanced TFSA, (or hinting that increased contributions to the CPP or provincial exercises like the Ontario Pension Plan are going to be supported) *we* will have to start looking at other means to ensure our own and our families economic well being in the future. (This is also a neat tie in to the idea of Libertarianism as a Social Movement, since more people than ever will be forced to start taking steps on their own to ensure their well being).


----------



## Good2Golf (20 Dec 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> It's a big risk, if they spend and the economy continues to struggle, they're done.
> 
> If they spend wisely and kick start the economy, they're golden. Stay tuned.



Not if they let the gap between the Fed and BoC's base lending rate continue to grow, and keep up with the "peeing in a dark suit" tax cuts.

I'm all for giving the benefit of the doubt to the new team, particularly if they try to distance themselves from the old LPC guard, but some of the lead-inidcators are not looking particularly favourable.

Indeed, "on verra!"

Regards
G2G


----------



## Journeyman (20 Dec 2015)

Deleted.  Not remotely worth the effort.    :boring:


----------



## Brad Sallows (20 Dec 2015)

>I don't see the need to tar the current liberal government/party with the same brush of the liberal government/party of two decades ago.

I'm thinking of the Liberal party of only one decade ago.  The Liberal party hasn't suffered the temptation of controlling the reins of federal power during that decade.


----------



## Altair (20 Dec 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> The honeymoon is over. No one cares about his hair selfies anymore.


From threehundredeight.com



> The latest poll comes from Nanos Research, as part of its weekly rolling poll. The latest numbers show Justin Trudeau at 51.5% on who Canadians see as the best choice for prime minister, followed at length by Rona Ambrose at 13.7% and Thomas Mulcair at 12.8%. Elizabeth May and Rhéal Fortin (interim leader of the Bloc) scored 5% and 1.2%, respectively. All seem to be holding steady after the post-election re-alignment.


----------



## YZT580 (20 Dec 2015)

AT least Maurice isn't around. There is probably a replacement waiting somewhere in the wings but I doubt his replacement will have the same influence


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Dec 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> From threehundredeight.com



Perhaps you've conveniently forgotten that polls are meant to reflect what the contractor want it to. They are like wikipedia. They can't really be taken as gospel.


----------



## Jarnhamar (21 Dec 2015)

So from what I'm tracking within the first 100 days they:

Told the world Canada will be withdrawing CF18s as per his campaign promise, but "never said when" *wink wink*.
[Should mention withdrawing CF18s will be removing support for our soldiers on the ground in harms way as demonstrated by the concentrated ISIS attack a couple days ago where CF18s played a significant role]

Reneged on the promise of 25'000 refugees by Jan 1st 2016
[turned out to be a good thing but demonstrated a lack of situational awareness, or ass-betting]

Added an extra 15 billion dollars to the estimated deficit within the first month. 
[nobody cares about huge numbers like that anyways]

Reinstating funds frozen under the controversial First Nations Financial Transparency Act and halting compliance measures that required bands to post detailed financial information online.  Now average First Nations people won't know what the band chiefs are pulling in, how it's being spent or where it goes, again.

Promising to open an inquiry into missing aboriginal women even though police have gone on the record to say it won't really help considering most of the cases are closed or solved and the numbers are almost on par with missing white women.

Suggesting they will reverse the conservative decision to streamline permits for law abiding firearm owners to transport their restricted firearms to shooting ranges- basically just fucking them off and adding more ass pain while doing zero to improve safety.

Speaking to removing assault weapons off the street which could mean law abiding citizens in possession of firearms never used in crime in Canada will become paper criminals over night.

Sent millions of dollars to foreign countries to help "research climate change'.  :subbies:


I'm clearly not into politics very much but seems like a noble start.


----------



## Altair (21 Dec 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Perhaps you've conveniently forgotten that polls are meant to reflect what the contractor want it to. They are like wikipedia. They can't really be taken as gospel.


Of course.

Then again, Nanos caught the liberal surge at the end of the election campaign so while it should be taken with a grain of salt (meaningless poll done 4 years before next election ) at face value it shows that the honeymoon isn't over quite yet.


----------



## a_majoor (21 Dec 2015)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> So from what I'm tracking within the first 100 days they:
> 
> Told the world Canada will be withdrawing CF18s as per his campaign promise, but "never said when" *wink wink*.
> [Should mention withdrawing CF18s will be removing support for our soldiers on the ground in harms way as demonstrated by the concentrated ISIS attack a couple days ago where CF18s played a significant role]
> ...



And now the Finance Minister is working hard to tank the economy with "enhanced CPP contributions", siphoning even more money from working Canadians and out of the productive economy. Funny, there was this highly effective plan where Canadians could save money in a tax free account for their own future needs by investing in in the broad based market economy....started with a "T"......

And of course "infrastructure" spending which will mostly be spent on various things which are infrastructure in name only.

We are indeed off to a *good* start, if you think living in a Peronist economy is "good"....


----------



## PuckChaser (21 Dec 2015)

How much do you want to bet there will be all sorts of ads and billboards all over the place once this infrastructure spending starts... they could call it an Economic Action Plan.... oh wait, is that taken?


----------



## Altair (21 Dec 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> How much do you want to bet there will be all sorts of ads and billboards all over the place once this infrastructure spending starts... they could call it an Economic Action Plan.... oh wait, is that taken?


Why do ads when you have the king of social media as your prime minister?


----------



## jollyjacktar (21 Dec 2015)

C'mon, at least all this "sunny ways" nonsense is making for a mild winter. JT is good for something at least.


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 Dec 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> How much do you want to bet there will be all sorts of ads and billboards all over the place once this infrastructure spending starts... they could call it an Economic Action Plan.... oh wait, is that taken?


The templates for signs are there - all they have to do is change colour ...


----------



## Eye In The Sky (21 Dec 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> Why do ads when you have the king of social media as your prime minister?



Sounds like someone has a crush... :-*


----------



## Altair (21 Dec 2015)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Sounds like someone has a crush... :-*


Yup, me and 51 percent of Canadians.


----------



## Good2Golf (21 Dec 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> Yup, me and 51 percent of Canadians.



39.5 percent committed and 11.5 percent fair-weather fans...


----------



## Jarnhamar (21 Dec 2015)

con't

-Environmental Assessment Plan isn't turning out to be what was promised. An "immediate review" turned into a beast with another "cf18" no timeline.

-Promise on mail delivery seems to be shifting.

-Sounds like the Liberals will move towards banning the spanking of children by their parents.


----------



## George Wallace (21 Dec 2015)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> 39.5 percent committed and 11.5 percent fair-weather fans...



39.5 percent with blind faith, and 11.5 percent with a temporary bemused infatuation.   [:'(





I am wondering why my Canadian Dollar is now at its lowest value since 1974.  [


----------



## Eye In The Sky (21 Dec 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> Yup, me and 51 percent of Canadians.



Here is a handy-dandy photo template then;  all you have to do is crop-and-paste your own face onto the photo, print and voila!

 ;D


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (21 Dec 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I am wondering why my Canadian Dollar is now at its lowest value since 1974.  [



Wonder all you want George, but you know as well as everybody else it has nothing to do with JT or the Liberals being in office in Ottawa.

You can blame Saudi Arabia for wanting to fight the Americans on the oil production front thus dropping the oil prices so low that Alberta is severely affected, and blame the Chinese since, simultaneously, they have had a slowdown in their economy that is resulting in lower demand for Canadian raw materials.

So long as Canada remains an economy that is principally exporting natural resources the international price of which, we do not control in the marketplace, and in particular oil, wood and potash, we will have a dollar that follows their international success.

Merry Christmas!  :christmas happy:


----------



## George Wallace (21 Dec 2015)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Wonder all you want George, but you know as well as everybody else it has nothing to do with JT or the Liberals being in office in Ottawa.



Actually, not blaming JT (for all you JT Lovers out there), but have noticed that it has been a relatively common trend after each Election, that our dollar takes a dive.  It usually takes a strong Government policy in the following months to bring it back up.  In the meantime we can hopefully enjoy an influx of Tourists.   :christmas happy:


----------



## a_majoor (21 Dec 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> Yup, me and 51 percent of Canadians.



Too bad the actual number is less than 40% of the voters, which as people like you always reminded us from 2011 on "is not a mandate".

Waiting for those people to start putting "Stop Trudeau" signs everywhere to support their principles.....


----------



## McG (21 Dec 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> And now the Finance Minister is working hard to tank the economy with "enhanced CPP contributions" ...


While I am sure that was not his goal, you will not have to worry until the economy turns around.  The provincial finance ministers have stymied this idea for now.



> *Finance ministers go slow on CPP reform as economic concerns bite*
> Bill Morneau says possibilities range from leaving status quo to 'significant' changes
> By Kathleen Harris, CBC News
> 21 Dec 2015
> ...


http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/finance-ministers-meeting-cpp-1.3374596


----------



## Altair (21 Dec 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Too bad the actual number is less than 40% of the voters, which as people like you always reminded us from 2011 on "is not a mandate".
> 
> Waiting for those people to start putting "Stop Trudeau" signs everywhere to support their principles.....


I appreciate you said people like me, and not me, because I have never ever said that.


----------



## Altair (21 Dec 2015)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Here is a handy-dandy photo template then;  all you have to do is crop-and-paste your own face onto the photo, print and voila!
> 
> ;D


I would much prefer to be the person on the right in that particular photo


----------



## George Wallace (21 Dec 2015)

Whooosh!


----------



## Jarnhamar (22 Dec 2015)

I was worried that it was only First Nations band chiefs who would no longer be faced with financial transparency.

Thankfully the Liberals are moving to ensure their friends in the Unions will also no longer be held accountable for how much money they receive and where it goes.



http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/liberals-take-first-step-towards-repealing-tory-bill-that-would-force-unions-to-disclose-financial-records?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NP_Top_Stories+%28National+Post+-+Top+Stories%29


----------



## ballz (22 Dec 2015)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I was worried that it was only First Nations band chiefs who would no longer be faced with financial transparency.
> 
> Thankfully the Liberals are moving to ensure their friends in the Unions will also no longer be held accountable for how much money they receive and where it goes.
> 
> ...



That's a good policy, I'm surprised the Supreme Court didn't stop that bill. A union is a private organization created by private citizens. It is ridiculous that they would have to provide financial disclosure to anyone but their own membership, and that would be based upon their membership drafting up their own constitution that requires it (if not, they are just asking to be hosed).

You may not like unions or trust them at all, but people have the freedom to associate for very good reason, and the government nor the public has any business interfering in that just because they don't like certain groups.


----------



## PuckChaser (22 Dec 2015)

I would have been happier had they banned third party advertising that counters/supports any political party. This is especially true of public sector unions, who are supposed to be non-partisan.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (22 Dec 2015)

LMMFAO
I guess weed is being sold in ON now. How else can you explain this?
http://www.citynews.ca/2015/12/21/ontario-wants-you-to-donate-your-next-tax-rebate-to-paying-down-the-debt/#post-1332959


----------



## Altair (22 Dec 2015)

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> LMMFAO
> I guess weed is being sold in ON now. How else can you explain this?
> http://www.citynews.ca/2015/12/21/ontario-wants-you-to-donate-your-next-tax-rebate-to-paying-down-the-debt/#post-1332959


Cool story.

Don't see how it relates to PMJT first 100 days though.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 Dec 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> Cool story.
> 
> Don't see how it relates to PMJT first 100 days though.



He's her protege.


----------



## The Bread Guy (22 Dec 2015)

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> LMMFAO
> I guess weed is being sold in ON now. How else can you explain this?
> http://www.citynews.ca/2015/12/21/ontario-wants-you-to-donate-your-next-tax-rebate-to-paying-down-the-debt/#post-1332959


Let's not forget whose idea this was ...


> ... You can write the cheque out to the Ontario Opportunities Fund, which was *initially set up by former premier Mike Harris back in 1996* when he took over for Bob Rae ...





			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> He's her protege.


Or do you mean minion?   >


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Dec 2015)

Well, it is the halfway mark in the "First 100 Days:" 50 days since Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's new government was sworn in on 4 Nov 15.

My, personal, opinion, thus far is disappointment on both policy and machinery of government grounds.

It's no secret, I hope, that I found the Liberals' campaign promises facile at best and I am somewhat sad to read that they actually are going to try to go ahead with too many of them. The plan to run a large deficit is, to be charitable, economic nonsense ... I'm pretty sure that Finance Minister Bill Morneau and his team know this but the PMO rules with a hand that is at least as strong as anything we saw in Prime Minister Harper's days. The decision to pull the CF-18s out of Iraq is either a mealy-mouthed half measure or just mindlessly pandering to his base ... once again more and more like Stephen Harper. The broken promises on refugees don't bother me: they (the promises) were patently silly when made, off the mark by, it appears, a full order of magnitude ~ 2,500 rather than 25,000 ~ but I expected no better. 

What the government has done well, actually very well, is to change the _tone_. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has the same sort of "rock star" charisma as his father did and his team ~ and I think it must be the campaign team because, I have heard that the government's "communications" programme is still getting off the ground (that's part of my "machinery of government" woe) ~ are doing a GREAT job at selling the prime minister and his team to Canadians and the world. And it's not just a fawning Canadian media with liberal/Liberal biases ~ a good slice of the Canadian media is skeptical of "Team Trudeau" and the international media has also been "touched" ... by (I suspect) expert advance teams of PR agents. In any event, Canadians approve of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau because, despite policies they don't really understand, they like him.

So I am impressed with "Team Trudeau's" ability to change the _tone_ in Ottawa and maintain that change for several weeks but I am unimpressed with the actual _governing_. 

And, to all who participate in the Politics thread here on Army.ca and to the moderators who try to keep it civil:


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (24 Dec 2015)

If Mike is the Patriarch you Sir are the God Father of this place


----------



## Journeyman (24 Dec 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Well, it is the halfway mark in the "First 100 Days:" 50 days since Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's new government was sworn in on 4 Nov 15.



So the informed discussion :tempertantrum::deadhorse:    :soapbox:   will soon end?


----------



## George Wallace (24 Dec 2015)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> So the informed discussion :tempertantrum::deadhorse:    :soapbox:   will soon end?



Such an optimist.   [




Sunday's "A Conversation with the Prime Ministser" should prove interesting.  

Throw another log on the fire.


----------



## Old Sweat (24 Dec 2015)

Perhaps the guiding principle should be "no platform survives winning an election."


----------



## Jed (24 Dec 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Such an optimist.   [
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Cook me up some bacon and some beans ...  :stirpot: :subbies:


----------



## PuckChaser (24 Dec 2015)

So much for new era of an open relationship with the media. Trudeau's got to pay back the Toronto Star for being the only major newspaper to endorse him during the Federal Election.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/12/24/trudeau-to-write-exclusive-column-for-toronto-star.html



> Trudeau to write exclusive Christmas column for Toronto Star
> Prime Minister’s message will appear on our new tablet app Star Touch on Christmas Day, and also be published on Boxing Day in our print edition and on thestar.com.
> 
> Share on Facebook
> ...



I also got my annual Christmas thanks message from the PM on DWAN yesterday. "Thanks for being away from your families to fulfill my campaign promise." No mention of troops only KMs away from Daesh, or the pilots/aircrew helping to keep them in check so further atrocities aren't committed. For those who thought we'd be better treated by this guy, he's got the same attitude as the rest of Canada, mile-wide but inch deep, except he really only cares that we do what he wants to make him look good. Chretien 2.0.


----------



## Canuck_Jock (24 Dec 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Well, it is the halfway mark in the "First 100 Days:" 50 days since Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's new government was sworn in on 4 Nov 15.
> 
> So I am impressed with "Team Trudeau's" ability to change the _tone_ in Ottawa and maintain that change for several weeks but I am unimpressed with the actual _governing_.
> 
> And, to all who participate in the Politics thread here on Army.ca and to the moderators who try to keep it civil:



To put it bluntly, Trudeau Jr was elected because he was not Stephen Harper.  Full stop.  If there were any policy issues of substance on which the Liberals were elected, I seemed to miss them.  However, the good news is that 100 days into the new government, just about all the changes he wanted to implement have been made.  He just has to make sure he or his government don’t mess things up too badly in the next 4 years 9 months.

That might be a problem.  He seemed, and this may become a theme, to engage mouth before brain when it came to promising to bring in a rather large (if arbitrary) number of Syrian migrants without having the practical implications fully thought through.  Yes, the latter aspect is pretty damn important for politicians, to make sure they can fulfil the promises they make.  Good intentions are rather like the proverbial…ahem…everyone’s got one.

Similarly with the RCAF strike campaign against ISIS.  He promised to bring them home to be a contrarian to the then PM Harper’s commitment.  Again, it’s all great coming up with a unique policy position but the various courses of action should have been fully thought through - particularly 'why' you take the stand that you do.  As it stands, there is still a commitment to RTB the CF-18s, but without any articulate explanation of…why.

My advice, smile. Stick to photo ops, that is why you were elected.  And for goodness sake, do not open your mouth, you appear much cleverer without speaking.


----------



## ModlrMike (24 Dec 2015)

Canuck_Jock said:
			
		

> My advice, smile. Stick to photo ops, that is why you were elected.  And for goodness sake, do not open your mouth, you appear much cleverer without speaking.



Or as others have said "'Tis better to remain silent and be thought a fool than open your mouth and remove all doubt."


----------



## Jarnhamar (24 Dec 2015)

Canuck_Jock said:
			
		

> My advice, smile. Stick to photo ops, that is why you were elected.


Comment reminded me of this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdemFfbS5H0


----------



## PuckChaser (24 Dec 2015)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Comment reminded me of this
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdemFfbS5H0



I'm pretty sure that was the theme song for the Liberal campaign.


----------



## George Wallace (24 Dec 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> ......... For those who thought we'd be better treated by this guy, he's got the same attitude as the rest of Canada, mile-wide but inch deep, except he really only cares that we do what he wants to make him look good. Chretien 2.0.



Actually, I am inclined to think PET 2.0.


----------



## PuckChaser (24 Dec 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Actually, I am inclined to think PET 2.0.



I wasn't around for PET, so can't accurately make that comparison.   8)


----------



## Loachman (24 Dec 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I also got my annual Christmas thanks message from the PM on DWAN yesterday.



You actually read that? I didn't know that anybody did. I just deleted it as I do with any mindless spam.


----------



## PuckChaser (24 Dec 2015)

Loachman said:
			
		

> You actually read that? I didn't know that anybody did. I just deleted it as I do with any mindless spam.



I gave it a chance. The minister's one was good. Trudeau's was a freaking joke.


----------



## Old Sweat (24 Dec 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I wasn't around for PET, so can't accurately make that comparison.   8)



Believe me, you are fortunate.


----------



## Altair (5 Jan 2016)

So Nanos has decided it will continue to bore us all with meaningless polls.

Trudeau's approval ratings are at 67 percent.

It's highest in the maritimes at 79 percent, no surprise, it was lowest in Alberta, no surprise, at 57 percent, big surprise. 57 percent of albertans of all people think Trudeau is doing a good job.

Ya, the honeymoon is still on nomatter what some cranky journalists on the hill(and some people on here) say.


----------



## PuckChaser (5 Jan 2016)

I think Nik Nanos is trying to stay relevant. There's been marginal changes, so how can you actually gauge an approval rating? Numbers after the budget will start to mean something.


----------



## Altair (5 Jan 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I think Nik Nanos is trying to stay relevant. There's been marginal changes, so how can you actually gauge an approval rating? Numbers after the budget will start to mean something.


Yes, budget time is going to be fun.

Let's see what promises trudeau can keep and how much they will cost. Fingers crossed on the new CCB and veterans benefits.


----------



## PuckChaser (5 Jan 2016)

Trudeau has to do the CCB, it was a hallmark promise. Where he's going to get the money for it, is anyone's guess. My money is that VAC will take a backseat, considering we lost $1B already from the not revenue neutral tax cut/hike.


----------



## Altair (5 Jan 2016)

I'm hoping not.

He has been doing a good job so far, so I don't expect him to blow it come budget time.

As far as where he gets the extra money from, well he has deficit spending in the works so it's simply a question of how big and for how long.


----------



## Jarnhamar (5 Jan 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> Let's see what promises trudeau can keep


Upholding promises shouldn't be optional.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (5 Jan 2016)

Well by the sounds of it he's not going to get it from the revenue generated from selling MJ


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Jan 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Upholding promises shouldn't be optional.


It _shouldn't_ be, but platforms are only written to get elected - budget time is when the REAL horse trading re:  what gets done when happens.

And that's true no matter what colour the stationery of the winning party is.


----------



## jollyjacktar (5 Jan 2016)

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> Well by the sounds of it he's not going to get it from the revenue generated from selling MJ



Ohhhh, dope.  For a second there I thought you meant "Michael Jackson".


----------



## PuckChaser (5 Jan 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> As far as where he gets the extra money from, well he has deficit spending in the works so it's simply a question of how big and for how long.



$10B was deficit spending just for infrastructure. Part of the CCB will be eaten dollar for dollar by UCCB, but CCB isn't taxable. Trudeau also was counting on his tax hike being revenue neutral, so its another $1B down, plus $500M a year for "climate change" guilt money". I make the median income in Canada, and will be getting close to $12K a year from CCB. If there's 500,000 families like me at the median with 3 kids, CCB for us alone costs $6B a year. Tax Free. CCB will be upwards of $10B that we can't just knit money to pay for, it's coming from something.


----------



## a_majoor (5 Jan 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> $10B was deficit spending just for infrastructure. Part of the CCB will be eaten dollar for dollar by UCCB, but CCB isn't taxable. Trudeau also was counting on his tax hike being revenue neutral, so its another $1B down, plus $500M a year for "climate change" guilt money". I make the median income in Canada, and will be getting close to $12K a year from CCB. If there's 500,000 families like me at the median with 3 kids, CCB for us alone costs $6B a year. Tax Free. CCB will be upwards of $10B that we can't just knit money to pay for, it's coming from something.



Frédéric Bastiat explained part of this through the parable of the broken windows: creating the illusion of economic activity by doing pointless and even counterproductive things, while not counting the opportunity costs of projects that need to be deferred because the money was spent for fixing the broken windows.

F.A Hayek also explained how "booms" inflated by credit bubbles created the seeds of their own demise (for an entertaining explanation I suggest Fear the Boom and Bust, which does this as a song....). Less amusing are real life examples like the Great Depression, Japan's "lost decade" and the 2008 economic crisis.

So ultimately you and I are paying for it now by declining standards of living, diminished economic growth and diminished expectations for our children and grandchildren, who will be stuck with the enormous bill. My remaining hope is some near future governments will look at the massive debts (both nationally and provincially) and simply hold their breath and write large portions off as "odious debt" (the entire reckless spending spree of the McGuinty/Wynn Liberals should be first on the block, but that's just me). While the repercussions of jettisoning hundreds of billions of dollars of odious debt on the market are alarming, the current state of affairs being the "start state" is even more so.


Odious Debt defined buy Alexander Nahum Sack, the legal scholar who formalized the concept:



> When a despotic regime contracts a debt, not for the needs or in the interests of the state, but rather to strengthen itself, to suppress a popular insurrection, etc, this debt is odious for the people of the entire state. This debt does not bind the nation; it is a debt of the regime, a personal debt contracted by the ruler, and consequently it falls with the demise of the regime. The reason why these odious debts cannot attach to the territory of the state is that they do not fulfil one of the conditions determining the lawfulness of State debts, namely that State debts must be incurred, and the proceeds used, for the needs and in the interests of the State. Odious debts, contracted and utilised for purposes which, to the lenders' knowledge, are contrary to the needs and the interests of the nation, are not binding on the nation – when it succeeds in overthrowing the government that contracted them – unless the debt is within the limits of real advantages that these debts might have afforded. The lenders have committed a hostile act against the people, they cannot expect a nation which has freed itself of a despotic regime to assume these odious debts, which are the personal debts of the ruler.


----------



## Brad Sallows (5 Jan 2016)

>$10B was deficit spending just for infrastructure.

$5.25B for infrastructure (3 x $1.75B for each of "public", "green", and "social" infrastructure spending above what had been committed by CPC).  The purposes of the remaining $4.75B were never really directly explained; that extra amount was necessary to create the pot of money to fulfill other (non-infrastructure) promises which would require new funds.  (A defunct program or policy can't be turned back on for free.  You could go into the list of campaign promises and attach costs to all of them and find out whether the extra $5B is even enough.)  Talk of "public infrastructure" spending dominated the media and served its purpose of providing a smokescreen for the other, fuzzier types of "infrastructure" spending and non-infrastructure spending - basically, new program/policy spending.  The "plan" is basically to jack up program spending and hope that revenues catch up soon.


----------



## PuckChaser (5 Jan 2016)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> The "plan" is basically to jack up program spending and hope that revenues catch up soon.



Maybe the MND should explain to the Liberal brain trust that's running this show the old mantra the CAF has used: Hope is not a valid COA.


----------



## a_majoor (5 Jan 2016)

Hope isn't a COA for Gerald Butts, funneling $5 billion to deserving Liberal crony's and clients is.


----------



## PuckChaser (5 Jan 2016)

Already gave a giant tax cut to those making $200K a year, upper middle class Liberal voters rejoiced.


----------



## Altair (6 Jan 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Already gave a giant tax cut to those making $200K a year, upper middle class Liberal voters rejoiced.


As did everyone making over 45k a year, but let's never mind them.

Please, continue on with the LPC bashing.


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Jan 2016)

If it's true, and, of course that's a *Big IF*, then this initiative ~ a _Free(er) Trade_ deal with China ~ is very good public policy, but risky politics.

I can imagine, actually I can confidently predict that both the loony left and the ill-informed, anti-Trudeau right will be shouting and screaming (and slobbering) against this on equally poor social, economic, strategic and financial grounds.

But, again IF it's true, then 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.


----------



## PuckChaser (6 Jan 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> As did everyone making over 45k a year, but let's never mind them.
> 
> Please, continue on with the LPC bashing.


I'm a Sig Op, not a Math Op, but it doesn't take a genius to see someone making $200k at the top of the bracket is going to save a lot more money on tax than someone making $46k.

If he really wanted to cut taxes for the middle class, make a new bracket 45-100 at 20.5% and 100-200 at 22%. Then you have a very targeted tax break, and it starts becoming more revenue neutral.

But continue with your head in the sand, please.


----------



## dapaterson (6 Jan 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I'm a Sig Op, not a Math Op, but it doesn't take a genius to see someone making $200k at the top of the bracket is going to save a lot more money on tax than someone making $46k.
> 
> If he really wanted to cut taxes for the middle class, make a new bracket 45-100 at 20.5% and 100-200 at 22%. Then you have a very targeted tax break, and it starts becoming more revenue neutral.
> 
> But continue with your head in the sand, please.



Have you even looked at the tax tables?  (http://www.kpmg.com/Ca/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/PersonalTaxRates/Federal-and-Provincial-Income-Tax-Rates-and-Brackets-and-Surtaxes-for-2015-and-2016.pdf)

The tax bracket for 2015 is 44,702–89,401, 22%.  That is what's being lowered to 20.5%.  So anyone who makes $89,402 or more will receive the exact same tax credit.  Or, in your words, it's a targeted tax cut.

But don't let the facts get in the way of your rant.


----------



## Jarnhamar (6 Jan 2016)

It sounds like the PM may be breaking yet another campaign "promise".  Apparently legalizing pot in Canada isn't as easy as he thought since it breaks a few global treaties.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-legalizing-pot-global-treaties-1.3390745


> The Liberal government will have to do substantial work on the international stage before it can follow through on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's promise to legalize marijuana, new documents suggest. That work will have to include figuring out how Canada would comply with three international treaties to which the country is a party, all of which criminalize the possession and production of marijuana.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (6 Jan 2016)

So, he's just discovering that which everyone rediscovers every year around this time: It's a lot easier to make a New Year resolution than to keep it, or in political terms, it's easy to make promises when in opposition, but a lot harder to implement them in office.  ;D

BTW, anybody noticed that the whole matter of "stoping the bombing campaign and bringing the CF-18's home" has completely dropped off the MSM radar screens?  Last I checked, the mission has now a little under two months to go but it is still going on with the CF-18's in full use. Not doing anything to extend it would bring it to an end, but I would hardly call that keeping your campaign promise.


----------



## Journeyman (6 Jan 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Not doing anything to extend it would bring it to an end, but I would hardly call that keeping your campaign promise.


But he will.  

It's an act of omission rather than commission, but by doing nothing the aircraft come home by "policy commitment ENDEX" (rather than actual campaign ENDEX):  he can tell Canadians he brought the nasty war-mongering element home;  he can tell the Allies that Canada committed to the bombing campaign until March and lived up to our word;  he can devote attention to the next photo op.


----------



## larry Strong (6 Jan 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> As did everyone making over 45k a year, but let's never mind them.
> 
> Please, continue on with the LPC bashing.



You mean the extra $20 I am going to see on my pay check. What a ******* joke  

Cheers
Larry


----------



## Altair (6 Jan 2016)

Larry Strong said:
			
		

> You mean the extra $20 I am going to see on my pay check. What a ******* joke
> 
> Cheers
> Larry


The extra that everyone who makes between 45-90k will see no matter if they are single or married, single income or joint, those with kids and those without?

Sorry if one of your specialty taxes breaks was touched and replaced with one that helps the population on a whole.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (6 Jan 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> So, he's just discovering that which everyone rediscovers every year around this time: It's a lot easier to make a New Year resolution than to keep it, or in political terms, it's easy to make promises when in opposition, but a lot harder to implement them in office.  ;D
> 
> BTW, anybody noticed that the whole matter of "stoping the bombing campaign and bringing the CF-18's home" has completely dropped off the MSM radar screens?  Last I checked, the mission has now a little under two months to go but it is still going on with the CF-18's in full use. Not doing anything to extend it would bring it to an end, but I would hardly call that keeping your campaign promise.



Well I am not going to fuss on that one, I am hoping on esteemed MOD is making some logical arguments in Cabinet.


----------



## a_majoor (6 Jan 2016)

Altair is falling for the sort of primitive economics which politicans and con men use to bamboozle people.

The short run benefit of everyone getting $20 is that you see the shiny pile of loonies and feel grateful to whoever gave them to you, which is the entire point. Now stop and think how much you are going to do with that $20? 

The boutique tax cuts were at least designed as incentives for particular outcomes (although in general I don't agree with that approach) and provided meaningful amounts of benefits for those who qualified. Broad based tax cuts, which are affordable _if governments would stop overspending _ are also far more effective in providing benefits both to the individuals, since they are getting a meaningful amount of money back, and provide a broad and deep economic boost since large numbers of people can choose to save and invest in a much broader range of market alternatives than bureaucrats. (As libertarians will tell you, the very best income tax based system is a flat tax, and the best tax system of all is to eliminate income taxes in favour of consumption taxes).

The effect of a very shallow tax cut as is being given here is to boost consumption, which has far less effects on economic performance and growth, but does have a very visible short term effect. In our context it will be even less than imagined, since much of what is being consumed is produced off shore (with only $20, I'm going to have to shop for some made in China widget at Wal Mart to meet my needs).

While I have often used F.A Hayek as the reference for economic theories (he correctly predicted the negative effects of credit fuelled booms, such as the Great Depression, Japan's lost decade and the 2008 economic crisis), another economist is starting to attract my attention: Frédéric Bastiat. The opportunity costs to the Canadian economy by these smoke and mirrors tricks will be enormous.


----------



## PuckChaser (6 Jan 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Have you even looked at the tax tables?  (http://www.kpmg.com/Ca/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/PersonalTaxRates/Federal-and-Provincial-Income-Tax-Rates-and-Brackets-and-Surtaxes-for-2015-and-2016.pdf)
> 
> The tax bracket for 2015 is 44,702–89,401, 22%.  That is what's being lowered to 20.5%.  So anyone who makes $89,402 or more will receive the exact same tax credit.  Or, in your words, it's a targeted tax cut.
> 
> But don't let the facts get in the way of your rant.



While you were busy picking apart the red herring that is tax brackets, while ignoring the actual math, I looked up the Maclean's article that describes it more clearly for you:

http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-truth-about-justin-trudeaus-tax-cuts/



> ...
> 
> What might surprise many middle-income voters, though, is how the $3 billion in tax savings will be distributed. David Macdonald, senior economist at the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, an Ottawa-based think tank, used a Statistics Canada model to project how the Liberal proposal would affect families at various income levels. To get the maximum benefit, an individual must be making nearly $90,000, and having two earners in a family, both making that much or more, generates the highest savings. That leaves the tax cut for those who make considerably less looking very modest.
> 
> ...



Meanwhile, the Liberals decried the Tory income splitting plan as "benefitting only rich people", while their "tax cut" helps out the upper middle class bracket (and dual income households who both make upper middle class money) far more than it does the hardest hit Canadians below the $100K line. As a middle class taxpayer, I'm getting $117. Income splitting gave me $1500.


----------



## JLB50 (6 Jan 2016)

I must say that, in many ways, I am very much in favour of his agenda, and I think he is generally doing a good job domestically.  However, I do feel that he is quite naive with respect to the security issues facing this country.

Others have already said this, but it's well worth repeating: if the PM isn't willing to use force against sick bloodthirsty groups like Isis, then who would he be willing to use force against?

It makes me wonder if, had he had been elected PM in the late 1930s when Hitler invaded Poland, how would he have responded?  Would he have told Canadians that using violence to stop violence is wrong?  Would he have told us that "we're not going to stoop to his level" and simply let the rest of the western nations deal with the evils of fascism?  I realize that's a hypothetical scenario, but I do have some serious doubts about the PM's ability to deal with matters of life and death and putting our armed forces in harm's way should the need arise.


----------



## McG (6 Jan 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> While you were busy picking apart the red herring that is tax brackets, while ignoring the actual math ...


Actually, correctly defining the tax brackets is critical to doing the actual math.  For a guy who has posted twice on the importance of the math, you are apparently not commenting from an informed possition.

In any case, if one really wants to create a targeted tax cut then one does not reduce the tax rate of a tax bracket.  The key is to shrink that bracket by raising the income threshold where it begins and lowering the income threshold where it ends.  To more accurately achieve thier stated intent the Liberals could have compressed the 22% tax bracket to range from approximately $55k to $75k.

Feel free to check.  I have done the math.


----------



## larry Strong (6 Jan 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> The extra that everyone who makes between 45-90k will see no matter if they are single or married, single income or joint, those with kids and those without?
> 
> Sorry if one of your specialty taxes breaks was touched and replaced with one that helps the population on a whole.



I am a working stiff in a black iron fab shop. Specialty taxes breaks......that's a joke. 

On a thousand dollars gross pay you will make about $15 before taxes. Some people need to guit drinking the koolaid. Yup, gonna be able to retire on that. 


Cheers
Larry


----------



## Altair (6 Jan 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> While you were busy picking apart the red herring that is tax brackets, while ignoring the actual math, I looked up the Maclean's article that describes it more clearly for you:
> 
> http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-truth-about-justin-trudeaus-tax-cuts/
> 
> Meanwhile, the Liberals decried the Tory income splitting plan as "benefitting only rich people", while their "tax cut" helps out the upper middle class bracket (and dual income households who both make upper middle class money) far more than it does the hardest hit Canadians below the $100K line. As a middle class taxpayer, I'm getting $117. Income splitting gave me $1500.


I've said it before and I'll say it again.

Income splitting helped a segment of the middle class, a segment you jut happened to be in.

Income tax cuts helps everyone who earns between 45 and 89k. 

Single people and single parents who earn 45 and 89k deserve some help too.


----------



## quadrapiper (6 Jan 2016)

JLB50 said:
			
		

> I must say that, in many ways, I am very much in favour of his agenda, and I think he is generally doing a good job domestically.  However, I do feel that he is quite naive with respect to the security issues facing this country.
> 
> Others have already said this, but it's well worth repeating: if the PM isn't willing to use force against sick bloodthirsty groups like Isis, then who would he be willing to use force against?


ISIS aren't a military problem for Canada: they're a domestic-security problem caused by a foreign group (so the business of the RCMP, CSIS, and so on) _and_ a foreign-policy and trade issue (and even that only because of where they are, not what they are), so Global Affairs' and those departments dealing with internal trade-related matters. They represent nothing like the hegemonizing threat of the Soviets, Nazis, or Japanese.

That they are evil is clear: sending Canadian forces of any kind to deal with them, though, is perhaps better considered as a part of other Ministries' response. If _evilness_, demonstrated by e.g. killing civilians, torture, mandated rape, etc. is cause for CAF involvement, there's plenty of other groups (I'm thinking primarily of Africa) who must be placed on the to-do list. Many of those are less effectively opposed than ISIS.

What sort of response would you like to see, by the way? Continued air contribution? Operators on the ground training locals? Operators engaging ISIS directly? To what end, at what scale - individuals with local units, or as their own raiding force with vehicles, helicopters, etc? Or something larger: turn out "the army" for a maximum-effort short campaign, or commit to an Afghanistan-style long series of rotations?


----------



## daftandbarmy (6 Jan 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> It sounds like the PM may be breaking yet another campaign "promise".  Apparently legalizing pot in Canada isn't as easy as he thought since it breaks a few global treaties.
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-legalizing-pot-global-treaties-1.3390745



Meanwhile, in science land....

“there is a strong body of epidemiologic evidence to support the view that regular or heavy cannabis use increases the risk of developing psychotic disorders….”

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/abcs-child-psychiatry/201601/does-marijuana-cause-psychosis


----------



## cavalryman (6 Jan 2016)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Meanwhile, in science land....
> 
> “there is a strong body of epidemiologic evidence to support the view that regular or heavy cannabis use increases the risk of developing psychotic disorders….”
> 
> https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/abcs-child-psychiatry/201601/does-marijuana-cause-psychosis


If your goal is to increase the number of voters able to deal with the cognitive dissonance that results from blind belief in progressive ideology, then it's a feature, not a bug. [


----------



## JLB50 (6 Jan 2016)

True, Isis isn't the same thing as what the Greatest Generation had to face during the WW2 years.  But I do think that Canada should  play a more significant role than it is currently playing.  It just seems to me that the PM is hoping that if he ignores it long enough, the problem will go away. And while I'm personally not in favour of boots on the ground, I can't understand why he is ending the air strikes against them. I just don't feel that he's being transparent enough in his motives.


----------



## suffolkowner (6 Jan 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> It sounds like the PM may be breaking yet another campaign "promise".  Apparently legalizing pot in Canada isn't as easy as he thought since it breaks a few global treaties.
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-legalizing-pot-global-treaties-1.3390745



It doesn't seem to be stopping individual states from proceeding with legalization/decriminalization


----------



## Altair (6 Jan 2016)

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> It doesn't seem to be stopping individual states from proceeding with legalization/decriminalization


Amsterdam seems alright as well.

In other news, the new CCB will be effective come July 1st


----------



## Colin Parkinson (6 Jan 2016)

Frankly the Conservatives should said we amend the CCC to reflect whatever you decide in each province and territory and then they could hand the whole stinking bomb to the Provinces to deal with over the next 5-10 years.


----------



## suffolkowner (6 Jan 2016)

I'm kind of loving this thread, it's all over the place. On that note West Canadian Select is below $20 a barrel. I'm thinking Trudeau would have been better off letting Harper have this round. Everything from the election can be thrown out if we don't hit bottom pretty soon.


----------



## daftandbarmy (6 Jan 2016)

cavalryman said:
			
		

> If your goal is to increase the number of voters able to deal with the cognitive dissonance that results from blind belief in progressive ideology, then it's a feature, not a bug. [



Reality: the antidote to 'Hopey - Preachy'


----------



## PuckChaser (6 Jan 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> I've said it before and I'll say it again.
> 
> Income splitting helped a segment of the middle class, a segment you jut happened to be in.
> 
> ...


But you're a big fan of CCB payments, benefiting only the segment of Canadian households with children. Where's the outrage at the single individuals, or DINK families? Are they not important to the Liberals.

Spin works both ways, friend.


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Jan 2016)

JLB50 said:
			
		

> True, Isis isn't the same thing as what the Greatest Generation had to face during the WW2 years.  But I do think that Canada should  play a more significant role than it is currently playing.  It just seems to me that the PM is hoping that if he ignores it long enough, the problem will go away. And while I'm personally not in favour of boots on the ground, I can't understand why he is ending the air strikes against them. I just don't feel that he's being transparent enough in his motives.



Boots are already on the ground - and judging from these reports, they "advising" from one tactical bound behind the forward edge of the battle area.



> "Our advise and assist forces positioned themselves primarily... on the north side of [Sinjar] mountain where the Kurd commanders positioned themselves, with the mission really to advise these Kurd commanders on how to synchronize the flow of forces into the battle, on how to refine their ongoing logistics operations, and how to do things like triage wounded and how to manage their casualty collection sites and things like this. Genuine advise and assist," Warren said.
> 
> "There were a handful of personnel on top of the mountain helping the Peshmerga forces identify and develop targets down there on the ground."



http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/special-forces-isis-iraq-combat-1.3318451



> Canadians on the ground laid down supporting fire against the militants to defend friendly forces during a combat operation that began Wednesday and stretched into Thursday, Maj.-Gen. Charles Lamarre, director of staff, strategic joint staff, told a briefing Thursday night.
> 
> As Kurdish forces moved forward to retake terrain, they came under fire. “Our guys were close enough and able to respond with fire onto those ISIL positions,” Lamarre told the briefing at defence headquarters, using another term for Islamic State.



http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/12/17/canadian-soldiers-help-repel-isis-attack.html

At this rate the aircraft will be removed and the Canadian Army will be advising at point of bayonet.


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Jan 2016)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, is another assessment of the new, Justin Trudeau government:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/the-trudeau-government-is-looking-a-lot-like-the-harper-government/article28046655/


> The Trudeau government is looking a lot like the Harper government
> 
> SUBSCRIBERS ONLY
> 
> ...



_Caveat lector_: my assessment is that John Ibbitson thinks that 40% of those of us who voted made a mistake and, amongst other things, reelected the old Librano$ ...

Additionally, it is, still, early going and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau may have enough guile and real leadership to shift his party, as his father did, from *campaigning from the left and then governing from the right* to governing from the left, too.

But, for those who are convinced that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, like President Barack Obama, represents real change, consider three things:

     1. This is still the Liberal Party of Canada, it's a big, traditionally successful, highly skilled "machine" that aims to secure and maintain *power*;

     2. The ministry consists of some bright, young newcomers and some very smart, seasoned professionals but, not matter which, no minister is ever "on top" of her/his department and they come to every meeting with detailed briefs
         and positions prepared by these guys ~

         
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



         (Remember, always that "Yes, Minister" was a documentary, not a comedy.) and

     3. "Events, dear boy, events."


----------



## Altair (7 Jan 2016)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, is another assessment of the new, Justin Trudeau government:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/the-trudeau-government-is-looking-a-lot-like-the-harper-government/article28046655/
> _Caveat lector_: my assessment is that John Ibbitson thinks that 40% of those of us who voted made a mistake and, amongst other things, reelected the old Librano$ ...
> ...


Could also be that Trudeau isn't just blinding pandering to his base and is governing for all Canadians. 

Not that it matters, a lot of right leaning folks around here seem to hate him for breathing their air.


----------



## Jarnhamar (7 Jan 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> Not that it matters, a lot of right leaning folks around here seem to hate him for breathing their air.



Well with all the silly campaign promises he's breaking he seems more and more okay every day.


----------



## PuckChaser (7 Jan 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> Not that it matters, a lot of right leaning folks around here seem to hate him for breathing their air.



Much like those that think he walks on water, and we shouldn't question the decisions and actions of our new overlord, right?

You're really starting to move away from supporting your position intelligently, and just trolling people who disagree for the sake of creating arguments.


----------



## Altair (7 Jan 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Much like those that think he walks on water, and we shouldn't question the decisions and actions of our new overlord, right?
> 
> You're really starting to move away from supporting your position intelligently, and just trolling people who disagree for the sake of creating arguments.


Are you saying that I'm not being very objective?

Weird argument to make considering how I have openly wondered what promises are going to die come budget time. I'm pragmatic. Trudeau is a politician. My best hope is that he makes some headway on some of his promises.

As for my last comment, I cannot for the life of me think of one positive thing you have wrote about trudeau. Same for George Wallace. Like literally every single thing he's done since becoming leader of the LPC has been a disaster. 

As for the first half of my comment, it's a different take on E.R. Campbell's view. One not quite so...cynical? How that translates to trolling is beyond me.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (7 Jan 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> You're really starting to move away from supporting your position intelligently, and just trolling people who disagree for the sake of creating arguments.



Pot - it's kettle.  You're black, over.


----------



## PuckChaser (7 Jan 2016)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Pot - it's kettle.  You're black, over.



I've used personal examples on how Trudeau's policies directly effect me, a median income, middle-class Canadian with children (Trudeau's target demographic). Let me know when that approaches trolling Liberal supporters. I was unaware using real-world examples to debate topics is trolling, but hey, learn something new on the internet everyday.


----------



## Kirkhill (7 Jan 2016)

Next....


----------



## Eye In The Sky (7 Jan 2016)

quadrapiper said:
			
		

> ISIS aren't a military problem for Canada: they're a domestic-security problem caused by a foreign group (so the business of the RCMP, CSIS, and so on) _and_ a foreign-policy and trade issue (and even that only because of where they are, not what they are), so Global Affairs' and those departments dealing with internal trade-related matters. They represent nothing like the hegemonizing threat of the Soviets, Nazis, or Japanese.



Unless I misunderstand the meaning of hegemonizing, I think what they are doing be said to qualify.  They may be at a smaller scale now than the say, the Nazi's were in their peak, but can we say for certain that will remain the case in the near/distant future?



> That they are evil is clear: sending Canadian forces of any kind to deal with them, though, is perhaps better considered as a part of other Ministries' response. If _evilness_, demonstrated by e.g. killing civilians, torture, mandated rape, etc. is cause for CAF involvement, there's plenty of other groups (I'm thinking primarily of Africa) who must be placed on the to-do list. Many of those are less effectively opposed than ISIS.



And perhaps we can maintain what we've contributed to the MESF while concurrently contribute to a blue-hats boots on the ground mission to, as you mentioned, Africa.  The taking/holding of ground in Iraq/Syria should be done by folks in that region; and there are many irons in that fire with different objectives/end-states.  The 'advisors' mission can go on, along with the ATF-I operation.  The question, I think, is  "is there political will and public support to spend the $ all of this takes".  Bombs and bullets cost money, kill people and are usually done in a 'risk' environment.  

MESF has a primary task to support and enable the GoI forces to do the hard(er) work of taking back real estate.  It is of course far more complex than that simple statement but that is the nuts and bolts of it.

How much of our entire force are we able and willing to deploy on the ground, in the air and on the water across all missions/Ops in the near, mid and distant futures and how much $ are we as a country willing to spend?  I am not sure that has been defined yet.



> What sort of response would you like to see, by the way? Continued air contribution? Operators on the ground training locals? Operators engaging ISIS directly? To what end, at what scale - individuals with local units, or as their own raiding force with vehicles, helicopters, etc? Or something larger: turn out "the army" for a maximum-effort short campaign, or commit to an Afghanistan-style long series of rotations?



IMO, there will be no maximum-effort short campaign [if there was going to be, why wait this long, and who would it consist of?] and if there is, it shouldn't involve conventional ground forces from our ORBAT.  Continue to assist and enable; the ground fight conventional ORBAT should be from the region itself.  That is another kettle of fish though, IMO.  

The most prominent fact to consider is there is no easy or timely solution in the ME.  Therefore, we can still be involved but in a capacity we are now and if/when things go really south, we are not right at ground zero.

 :2c:


----------



## Remius (11 Jan 2016)

Here's an interesting project...

https://www.trudeaumetre.ca/


----------



## PuckChaser (11 Jan 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> Here's an interesting project...
> 
> https://www.trudeaumetre.ca/



What a fantastic website. Too bad there wasn't one previously, for Harper/Martin/Chretien. At least we can start somewhere.


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Jan 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> What a fantastic website. Too bad there wasn't one previously, for Harper/Martin/Chretien. At least we can start somewhere.




Indeed, but it's unfair to hold Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to a (high) standard we have never applied to anyone else.

I agree it's a good start, as long as we understand that we have no fair basis for comparison with e.g. Prime Ministers Harper, Chrétien, Mulroney or Trudeau (père).


----------



## PuckChaser (12 Jan 2016)

I think it was up to the media to hold politicians to account for broken promises, be they Tory or Liberal. They dropped the ball, so private citizens had to pick it up.

It would be nice to have historical data to compare to, but with what we have, it should be used as a barometer of success/failure, without comparisons to anyone else.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (12 Jan 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> Here's an interesting project...
> 
> https://www.trudeaumetre.ca/



This is achieved?  "Do not use prorogation to avoid difficult political circumstances."

It's achieved until he prorogues Parliament.  Whether it is under difficult political circumstances would be subjective.  It's up to the Governor General to prorogue Parliament upon the recommendation of the Prime Minister and any law or regulation changing that reality has no effect.


----------



## Remius (12 Jan 2016)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> This is achieved?  "Do not use prorogation to avoid difficult political circumstances."
> 
> It's achieved until he prorogues Parliament.  Whether it is under difficult political circumstances would be subjective.  It's up to the Governor General to prorogue Parliament upon the recommendation of the Prime Minister and any law or regulation changing that reality has no effect.



Read the accompanying notes.  Basically they are putting it in the achieved column until he does.  Like all those promises they can swing from achieved to broken and back again.

They also have him as having broken his promise on pulling out the CF-18s.  I agree with their reasoning on that one.


----------



## PuckChaser (12 Jan 2016)

Most commenters agreed that the prorogation should be "in progress", until the next election. Minor error though.


----------



## Brad Sallows (12 Jan 2016)

"Do not use prorogation to avoid difficult political circumstances."

Duh. Not really at risk of being "broken" when you have a majority vice minority.


----------



## Remius (13 Jan 2016)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> "Do not use prorogation to avoid difficult political circumstances."
> 
> Duh. Not really at risk of being "broken" when you have a majority vice minority.



To be fair, that promise was likely made when they probably didn't think they'd get a majority. But yes.  In a majority there is not likely going to be a prorogation used in that fashion, so I guess they get a freeby on this one.


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Jan 2016)

Those who voted for "change" and trusted Justin Trudeau to bering "change" away from the tight, central control of the Stephen Harper years are going to get some "change" ...






... back to a system, peioneered by Pierre Trudeau and used by Ontario premier Kathleen Wynne, of even tighter control from the centre.

The Ottawa Citizen reports that Matthew Mendelsohn, formerly an Ontario deputy minister (several different provincial portfolios) who worked with Queen’s Park veterans Katie Telford, now Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s chief of staff, and Gerald Butts, his principal secretary, has joined the Privy Council Office as the first deputy secretary responsible for “results and delivery.”

His job, the Citizen reports, is to "ensure the Liberals’ priorities are watched, tracked and delivered by the next election in 2019."

This is a return to, even beyond, the state of affairs when Pierre Trudeau's friend, Michael Pitfield, was parachuted into the PCO with the express mission of making the public service dance, wholly, to the government's tune. Public servants and scholars resisted on the grounds that PCO is responsible for the "machinery of government," for making the whole of government work, all the time, respecting all the laws, not just the ones favoured by the government of the day. The idea of an "independent" and *apolitical* public service is a complex and difficult thing, especially if (when) we accept that the public service is the in the _service_ of the _public_, *no*t of the government of the day.

So, boys and girls, we're getting "change," but, in my view, it is dangerous change that benefits them ...

                                                                                     
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




                                                                                                                         ... but not Canada.


----------



## jollyjacktar (16 Jan 2016)

Which means business as usual.


----------



## Stoker (16 Jan 2016)

Whats frustrating is that everything that's going wrong with the economy or anything else now is still being blamed on Harper. Its almost like a personality cult around Trudeau like he's the second coming.


----------



## ModlrMike (16 Jan 2016)

To be fair, everyone blames the last guy. That being said, there comes a time where you have to accept responsibility for your own actions. Pfffft... this is politics, that will never happen.


----------



## Kirkhill (16 Jan 2016)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Those who voted for "change" and trusted Justin Trudeau to bering "change" away from the tight, central control of the Stephen Harper years are going to get some "change" ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



But this is of a piece with the appointment of US and UN ambassadors who are "Establishment" supporters personally connected to Himself.  And you praised that move.  Consultants and Lawyers with feet in both the Liberal and the Progressive Conservative parties and Knowlton Hill.

Toronto and Montreal are rallying again.  Manning and Harper have received exactly the same treatment as Diefenbaker.  For exactly the same reasons.


----------



## cavalryman (16 Jan 2016)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Whats frustrating is that everything that's going wrong with the economy or anything else now is still being blamed on Harper. Its almost like a personality cult around Trudeau like he's the second coming.


It worked for Obama.  Abysmally incompetent and yet he got re-elected for a second term.


----------



## dapaterson (16 Jan 2016)

cavalryman said:
			
		

> It worked for Obama.  Abysmally incompetent and yet he got re-elected for a second term.



If by "incompetent" you mean "drew down forces in hopeless wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and killed Osama Bin Laden", you're right on the money.


----------



## PuckChaser (16 Jan 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> If by "incompetent" you mean "drew down forces in hopeless wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and killed Osama Bin Laden", you're right on the money.


I had no idea Obama was a SEAL, and took part in the raid.

Look where the draw down has gotten us in Afghanistan and Iraq now. Purely political to pop smoke and leave those countries. We broke it, we needed to buy it, but Obama needed political points, so the mission was never properly transitioned.


----------



## Jed (16 Jan 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> If by "incompetent" you mean "drew down forces in hopeless wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and killed Osama Bin Laden", you're right on the money.



Wow, I previously thought you had a grip on the situation dapaterson. I am dissappointed.


----------



## Brad Sallows (16 Jan 2016)

>Whats frustrating is that everything that's going wrong with the economy or anything else now is still being blamed on Harper.

Blame away.  The NDP and LPC demanded a huge spending package for 2009 and got what they wanted.  The NDP and LPC, the provincial governments, and most of the left and centre-left in Canada demanded the federal government not balance its budget "on the backs of" people and provinces (ie. not cut transfers) and got what they wanted.

This is exactly the economy they demanded.


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Jan 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> But this is of a piece with the appointment of US and UN ambassadors who are "Establishment" supporters personally connected to Himself.  And you praised that move.  Consultants and Lawyers with feet in both the Liberal and the Progressive Conservative parties and Knowlton Hill.
> 
> Toronto and Montreal are rallying again.  Manning and Harper have received exactly the same treatment as Diefenbaker.  For exactly the same reasons.




No, it isn't, not at all ... appointing friends as ambassadors is a well established custom and, in my opinion, and in the case of our relationship with the USA, a smart one, too. It's also a move the Americans understand and it has the advantage of keeping the _Global Affairs_ bureaucrats away from the really important business ... let them dither on about UNSC seats and such.

The PCO appointment is a horse of anoter colour ... in fact it's a beast of another species, entirely. It puts a partisan political "manager" inside what is meant to be the very centre of an _apolitical_ civil service. I think it's dangerous and a very bad move.


----------



## daftandbarmy (16 Jan 2016)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> To be fair, everyone blames the last guy. That being said, there comes a time where you have to accept responsibility for your own actions. Pfffft... this is politics, that will never happen.



'You will find three envelopes in the drawer....'


----------



## Altair (16 Jan 2016)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >Whats frustrating is that everything that's going wrong with the economy or anything else now is still being blamed on Harper.
> 
> Blame away.  The NDP and LPC demanded a huge spending package for 2009 and got what they wanted.  The NDP and LPC, the provincial governments, and most of the left and centre-left in Canada demanded the federal government not balance its budget "on the backs of" people and provinces (ie. not cut transfers) and got what they wanted.
> 
> This is exactly the economy they demanded.


If you believe that to be the case, the conservatives should have stuck to the principles instead of sacrificing them to stay in power.

That said, I don't believe the federal stimulus of the latest 2000s to have caused a complete collapse in commodity prices we are seeing now.

I did find it hypocritical for the CPC to attack the ndp and LPC over deficits when they were running  them themselves.

I also found it it hypocritical for the ndp and LPC to attack the CPC on the deficits they ran because in doubt they would have done any different. 

Hypocrisy all around.


----------



## Brad Sallows (17 Jan 2016)

>I did find it hypocritical for the CPC to attack the ndp and LPC over deficits when they were running  them themselves.

Are you being deliberately obtuse?  The CPC did not want to run deficits, and set and achieved a target date for re-balancing the budget.  The federal budget was in surplus prior to the 2008 recession, and the deficit was caused by the recession: fall in revenues, increase in social expenditures, and one-time spending program (the EAP).  The recession was an external event, and the EAP was forced by the demands of the LPC and NDP on the then-minority CPC government.

The NDP campaigned on a reputation [for] balanced budgets, although that seems to have been a lie - it is reasonable to assume the federal party knew about Notley's plans to blow a hole in the AB budget after the federal election.

The LPC made a choice to campaign on deficits - it was not forced on them by events (eg. a recession) or by the other parties.

If the CPC were still the government, it is reasonable to assume they would still be exerting strong efforts to balance the budget.  Contrarily, we know - we need not assume - the LPC has no particular interest in balancing the budget, but is intent on deficit spending and is willing to see the first few deficits rise to at least double the values they cited during the campaign.  The past government is not in a position to execute on its choice; the new government is.  The new government owns the current fiscal situation with respect to deficit or surplus.

It is entirely reasonable for the CPC to criticize the new government for its choices and actions, which were not forced on the new government by circumstances or other parties.


----------



## Altair (17 Jan 2016)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >I did find it hypocritical for the CPC to attack the ndp and LPC over deficits when they were running  them themselves.
> 
> Are you being deliberately obtuse?  The CPC did not want to run deficits, and set and achieved a target date for re-balancing the budget.  The federal budget was in surplus prior to the 2008 recession, and the deficit was caused by the recession: fall in revenues, increase in social expenditures, and one-time spending program (the EAP).  The recession was an external event, and the EAP was forced by the demands of the LPC and NDP on the then-minority CPC government.
> 
> ...


Thats where you and I disagree. 

The CPC could have tried to convince the GG to call another election, could have let the coalition take over and run their stimulas, they did not need to cave on the issue. If they felt it was so bad a idea, they could have let the LPC NDP and BQ own it.

Instead, they prorogued parliament and then set off on running deficits so in my view they need to own them. Not to mention, the CPC had a majority government from 2011 onward and they still ran deficits. So yes, I did find it hypocritical to be going around saying

"CPC deficits good, but beware, NDP, LPC deficits bad". 

Kind of like how I find it hypocritical for the LPC and NDP to say CPC deficits bad knowing full well they would have run large deficits themselves if they were in power.


----------



## CombatMacguyver (17 Jan 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> Thats where you and I disagree.
> 
> The CPC could have tried to convince the GG to call another election, could have let the coalition take over and run their stimulas, they did not need to cave on the issue. If they felt it was so bad a idea, they could have let the LPC NDP and BQ own it.



Exactly.  The options were try to make something of the bulls**t the other parties were forcing upon them or allow the separatists and communists to become the defacto governing powers.

You're saying you would've chosen the latter option?!  Yikes.


----------



## Altair (17 Jan 2016)

CombatMacgyver said:
			
		

> Exactly.  The options were try to make something of the bulls**t the other parties were forcing upon them or allow the separatists and communists to become the defacto governing powers.
> 
> You're saying you would've chosen the latter option?!  Yikes.


The communist party of Canada didn't have any seats and as far as I know was not involved in the coalition.

I'm saying two things. 

One. They did not HAVE to cave. They could of stuck to their principles. They chose to stick to power, which is fine, but they need to own the decisions they made to stay in power.

Two. They had a majority goverment from 2011 onwards. No more NDP and LPC pressure.They continued to run deficits. That's solely on them.

 So yes, pure hypocrisy to say that their deficits were good and the other parties deficits are bad.


----------



## Brad Sallows (17 Jan 2016)

>The CPC could have...

We'd have had the EAP spending either way.  Might as well stay in power, ne?

>Not to mention, the CPC had a majority government from 2011 onward and they still ran deficits

You keep ignoring the "why", which renders your conclusions vacuous.  It's not as if the Conservatives had a multi-year attack of March Madness and ran out spending money willy-nilly.

Paul Martin balanced the budget in part by cutting transfers to provinces, and upset a lot of people - mostly the political left and centre-left - who thought it was a bad idea.  Stephen Harper balanced the budget without cutting transfers to provinces.  By the left's measure and the concensus of most of the talking heads bleating today, Harper's kung-fu is better.

"CPC deficits good, but beware, NDP, LPC deficits bad".

But that simpleton's rendering is not the distinction.  The distinction is that the CPC deficits were "good" because of necessity and the purpose served.  The conventional wisdom is, "deficits during recession and to promote recovery good; deficits to expand program spending or without the excuse of a recession bad."  The new government's enthusiasm for deficit spending is "bad" because much of the new spending will have nothing to do with one-time "stimulus" or "investment" purpose and will establish (or re-establish) programs which contribute to a structural deficit.  It is also "bad" because the Canadian economy is not structured in a way that allows conventional Keynesian austerity/stimulus to have much effect, and because a commodities price slump is not the demand shock to which Keynesian stimulus is applicable.


----------



## PuckChaser (17 Jan 2016)

I think we gained a lot more from belt tightening in the public service and budgets than we did on the "stimulus" package. The CPC also didn't put nearly as much money into it as the NDP (lesser so the LPC) wanted. We'd be significantly screwed had Harper turned the reigns over.

No deficits are good, regardless of who runs them.


----------



## CombatMacguyver (17 Jan 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> The communist party of Canada didn't have any seats and as far as I know was not involved in the coalition.
> 
> I'm saying two things.
> 
> ...



I was insinuating that the Liberals and NDP are the hyperbolic Communists but whatever.  The CPC ran those deficits because of the EAP, not in spite of it.  Sudden cancelling of the EAP upon gaining a majority wasn't realistic as it would've likely resulted in costs incurred anyways (see cancelled helicopters, gas plants, _et cetera ad nauseum absurdum_)

So I still vehemently disagree with you.


----------



## Altair (17 Jan 2016)

CombatMacgyver said:
			
		

> I was insinuating that the Liberals and NDP are the hyperbolic Communists but whatever.  The CPC ran those deficits because of the EAP, not in spite of it.  Sudden cancelling of the EAP upon gaining a majority wasn't realistic as it would've likely resulted in costs incurred anyways (see cancelled helicopters, gas plants, _et cetera ad nauseum absurdum_)
> 
> So I still vehemently disagree with you.


Ya, wasn't going to engage in your hyperbole. Same way you wouldn't engage in mine if I called the CPC fascists.

Disagree all you want, but if they felt eap was a bad idea, something they shouldn't do, then they should have stuck to their principles and not done it. If that meant the other guys doing it, so be it. If the deal they made with the opposition was to run eap in order to stay on power, then own it. Those are CPC deficits. To then turn around and say the others would run deficits and that's a bad thing after doing so since 2008 is hypocrisy. Plain and simple. It would have been better if they never brought up the issue.


			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >The CPC could have...
> 
> We'd have had the EAP spending either way.  Might as well stay in power, ne?
> 
> ...


Like I said, it was fine that they ran eap themselves to stay in power. I'm just calling on them to own up to that decision. 

That may all be true, jury is still out on it, I'll wait till the budget and see how the economy responds before passing judgement,  but at the end of the day I was addressing how the CPC chose to frame this. They chose to frame this as the other guys will run deficits while not talking about how their goverment ran deficits. While I know you can only fit in so much content in a attack ad, especially when you need to make a snide remark on someone's hair or how ready they are, they chose to frame this in a simplistic form and it was downright hypocritical.


----------



## ballz (17 Jan 2016)

I have to say I agree with Altair and support his POV on this. If a string of deficits was inevitable due to a minority government, I would have preferred to see the CPC say "if that's what Canadians want, no problem, someone else can run them, because we won't."

Canadians would have come crawling back to the CPC shortly after letting the LPC, NDP, and BQ govern as a coalition, crawling back with a majority mandate and a "just fix this mess for God's sake" attitude. If the CPC is going to run deficits anyway why do I care if the LPC or the CPC is in power. Of course, hindsight is 20/20.

Sometimes medicine tastes bad, but we've got to swallow it. Instead, we treat our heroin (stimulus) withdrawal symptoms by taking a little more heroin (stimulus spending). Eventually we'll have to own our withdrawals or be that addict that's found dead in a ditch.


----------



## PuckChaser (17 Jan 2016)

They were able to frame that argument because they were able to bring us back to within ~$1B CAD of being in the black, with the Liberals willing to ramp spending up near 2009 stimulus levels. They never said it was wrong to run deficits, but wrong to run them right now and used that to contrast policies. Opposition parties also hammered the CPC on everything from not enough, too much, when are you returning to balance, almost immediately after EAP was announced.


----------



## Altair (17 Jan 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> They were able to frame that argument because they were able to bring us back to within ~$1B CAD of being in the black, with the Liberals willing to ramp spending up near 2009 stimulus levels. They never said it was wrong to run deficits, but wrong to run them right now and used that to contrast policies. Opposition parties also hammered the CPC on everything from not enough, too much, when are you returning to balance, almost immediately after EAP was announced.


It's a silly argument and what that should have been avoided IMHO. 

Run deficits for years, then complain about the other guys running deficits.

It's silly and I really don't think it resonated well.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (17 Jan 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> No deficits are good, regardless of who runs them.



The only OECD country (besides Canada, and I question the current numbers) that currently runs a surplus is Norway.  I do not understand our fetish surrounding deficits.

Our central government debt to GDP (depending on which source you use) hovers around 30%, which is enviable.  The overall government debt (includes provinces) to GDP ratio is less encouraging, at around 93% - up from 76% in 2008 - but it is trending down, and nowhere near the US level of 123%.

Debt as a percentage of GDP worries me more than deficits - a view shared by many economists.  If deficit spending on things like infrastructure increase GDP (and hence the indebtedness ratio) then I have no issues with the idea - deficits for "entitlements" that do not have a positive impact on GDP - not so much.

So, all of that to say that we are the only country other than Norway (a very special case) that runs a surplus....


----------



## dapaterson (17 Jan 2016)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> So, all of that to say that we are the only country other than Norway (a very special case) that runs a surplus....



With competent leadership, Alberta could have been Norway.  Instead, it's back to the '80s with Please God let there be another Oil Boom. I promise not to piss it all away next time.


----------



## CombatMacguyver (17 Jan 2016)

ballz said:
			
		

> I have to say I agree with Altair and support his POV on this. If a string of deficits was inevitable due to a minority government, I would have preferred to see the CPC say "if that's what Canadians want, no problem, someone else can run them, because we won't."



You say that now, but at the time we were on what, like the 3rd election in three years?  I'm sure you would've been all hunky-dory about blowing more millions on yet another election resulting in the status quo.... _again_.


----------



## CombatMacguyver (17 Jan 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> Ya, wasn't going to engage in your hyperbole. Same way you wouldn't engage in mine if I called the CPC fascists.



Lol... fascist.  Hyperbole has to at least have some root in truth.


----------



## PuckChaser (17 Jan 2016)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> The only OECD country (besides Canada, and I question the current numbers) that currently runs a surplus is Norway.  I do not understand our fetish surrounding deficits.
> 
> Our central government debt to GDP (depending on which source you use) hovers around 30%, which is enviable.  The overall government debt (includes provinces) to GDP ratio is less encouraging, at around 93% - up from 76% in 2008 - but it is trending down, and nowhere near the US level of 123%.
> 
> ...



Debt is there to be paid back, that's why its a liability on a balance sheet. The government is constantly telling us to take on less debt, be fiscally responsible, but you advocate the "do as I say, not as I do" model? In 2013/14, the Federal government spent $29.3B CAD on debt interest charges, or basically more than DND and a few other departments combined. That's a pretty big pot of money we piss away every year. Imagine the infrastructure Trudeau could buy with almost $30B a year. He might actually be able to afford all his campaign promises.

I also remember the old say, "If everyone else jumped off a bridge, would you do it too?"


----------



## Brad Sallows (17 Jan 2016)

>Disagree all you want, but if they felt eap was a bad idea, something they shouldn't do, then they should have stuck to their principles and not done it.

A similar discussion took place on these fora regarding Senate reform - the CPC should immolate themselves for principles, blah blah blah.  It would be very convenient for the other parties.  However, few people in politics or interested in politics believe that the best way to achieve their aims is not to first obtain and retain control of the legislative assembly.  You may keep beating the drum calling for ideological purity.

>Like I said, it was fine that they ran eap themselves to stay in power. I'm just calling on them to own up to that decision.

Now you're trying to redirect the discussion to something else.  Don't bother.  The CPC never denied running deficits.  The EAP was right out in the open, and the government openly stated that it would maintain transfers and allow revenue growth and other spending restraint to eventually restore balance.  The point is whether the CPC can fairly criticize the LPC for the deficit spending the latter wants to do.  I have explained the distinctions between the reasons for running deficits, and why the distinctions are relevant to attaching value judgements of "good" / "bad" (or "less harmful" / "more harmful" for those who are adamantly opposed to deficits under any circumstances).  You are at liberty to pretend there is no difference.


----------



## Jed (17 Jan 2016)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> The only OECD country (besides Canada, and I question the current numbers) that currently runs a surplus is Norway.  I do not understand our fetish surrounding deficits.
> 
> Our central government debt to GDP (depending on which source you use) hovers around 30%, which is enviable.  The overall government debt (includes provinces) to GDP ratio is less encouraging, at around 93% - up from 76% in 2008 - but it is trending down, and nowhere near the US level of 123%.
> 
> ...



The problem is that no political party has the political sway with the people to retain power and use the country's bureaucracy to employ Keynesian theory appropriately. "You want the truth? You can't handle the truth."


----------



## Altair (17 Jan 2016)

CombatMacgyver said:
			
		

> Lol... fascist.  Hyperbole has to at least have some root in truth.


If you cannot see the irony in that statement I cannot help you.


----------



## Brad Sallows (17 Jan 2016)

Debt-to-GDP ratio is a popular measure because it is thought to be a useful proxy for "affordability".  A more accurate measure would be debt-to-revenue.

The pitfall is that people who are looking for excuses to spend will pick a value of that ratio and claim that as long as the actual ratio is below threshold, all is well - which is true, unless maintenance of the ratio is destabilized.  Program spending proceeds apace, so that the deficit is structural, and the spenders indulge themselves right up to their self-imposed threshold.

The problem should be obvious: a recession or change in the cost of servicing debt destabilizes the ratio in an upward direction.  If structural spending is already in deficit, the deficit grows itself and squeezes out program spending (or the government turns the screws on sources of revenue, which tends to depress economic activity - hence GDP - and worsen the ratio).  Again, I observe that all of the factors which helped break our 1980s federal fiscal death spiral are not currently available to us (ie. dollar is already low, inflation is already low, cost of servicing debt is already low, taxes are already low, most of the opportunities to liberate trade restrictions have been taken, none of our major trading partners show signs of imminent resurgence, the operating surplus can not be improved except with measures which would be increasingly politically difficult for a CPC government and are beyond acceptability for a LPC government).


----------



## Altair (17 Jan 2016)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >Disagree all you want, but if they felt eap was a bad idea, something they shouldn't do, then they should have stuck to their principles and not done it.
> 
> A similar discussion took place on these fora regarding Senate reform - the CPC should immolate themselves for principles, blah blah blah.  It would be very convenient for the other parties.  However, few people in politics or interested in politics believe that the best way to achieve their aims is not to first obtain and retain control of the legislative assembly.  You may keep beating the drum calling for ideological purity.
> 
> ...


If the CPC didn't want to immolate themselves as you put it, that's fine. But don't go pinning it on the LPC NDP and BQ that they ran deficits. Not going to fly. That's the decision they made to retain power.

I don't think I am. I started this by pointing out that they were being hypocritical for saying that the NDP and LPC would run deficits while they themselves had run significant deficits. Every time I mention it people say that they were forced to do it and that's where the conversation starts to veer off. I might add, that while I do not argue with your economic points, good vs bad deficits, but those are not arguments the CPC made. They simply said that they other guys plan to run permanent deficits. The discussion never really expanded beyond that.


----------



## CombatMacguyver (17 Jan 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> If you cannot see the irony in that statement I cannot help you.



I rest my case


----------



## ballz (17 Jan 2016)

CombatMacgyver said:
			
		

> You say that now, but at the time we were on what, like the 3rd election in three years?  I'm sure you would've been all hunky-dory about blowing more millions on yet another election resulting in the status quo.... _again_.



Yes, I do say that now. I guess you missed this part in your rush to respond to the first sentence...



			
				ballz said:
			
		

> Of course, hindsight is 20/20.





			
				PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> If deficit spending on things like infrastructure increase GDP (and hence the indebtedness ratio) then I have no issues with the idea - deficits for "entitlements" that do not have a positive impact on GDP - not so much.



GDP measures consumption by measuring spending. It does not measure the strength of an economy. Any government spending increase will increase the GDP, whether it is on infrastructure or on "entitlements." They both have a positive effect on GDP. This is the problem with using the GDP to support spending. *Of course* it grows the GDP, but at what cost? (government debt)

It doesn't measure *production,* which is the true measure of an economy. Neither infrastructure or entitlements directly increase production. Infrastructure can create efficiency and pave the way for more production, if its useful infrastructure and not a bridge-to-nowhere. The government is poor at deciding what infrastructure will have the most positive impact. They generally believe that a bridge-to-nowhere will boost the economy because it boosts spending. We can thank John Maynard Keynes for this type of idiocy.



			
				Jed said:
			
		

> The problem is that no political party has the political sway with the people to retain power and use the country's bureaucracy to employ Keynesian theory appropriately. "You want the truth? You can't handle the truth."



Maybe we just need to take a closer look at Keynesian theory and realize we should stop trying to use it.


----------



## CombatMacguyver (17 Jan 2016)

ballz said:
			
		

> Yes, I do say that now. I guess you missed this part in your rush to respond to the first sentence...



So just to get this right:  You're saying that you don't like the approach the Conservative Party took and you would've found it preferable had they called yet another election _but in hindsight_ you agree with the path they chose?

What is this, Schrodinger's political theory?

Yea, I'm confused...


edit: typo correction


----------



## Rocky Mountains (17 Jan 2016)

Keynesian economics?  The interesting thing is that you don't have to do anything to provide stimulus for the economy other than govern responsibly.  The system works automatically.  When the economy craters, revenues go down and social program spending goes up.  The system simply responds with a deficit.  Many would argue that special stimulus spending is unnecessary.  Building productive infrastructure that will lead to lower costs down the road is a great idea but infrastructure that creates ongoing future costs maybe isn't so good.


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Jan 2016)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> No, it isn't, not at all ... appointing friends as ambassadors is a well established custom and, in my opinion, and in the case of our relationship with the USA, a smart one, too. It's also a move the Americans understand and it has the advantage of keeping the _Global Affairs_ bureaucrats away from the really important business ... let them dither on about UNSC seats and such.
> 
> The PCO appointment is a horse of anoter colour ... in fact it's a beast of another species, entirely. It puts a partisan political "manager" inside what is meant to be the very centre of an _apolitical_ civil service. I think it's dangerous and a very bad move.



Didn't see this response - amongst all the other.

I get the benefits of having sympatico people working with you, and acting as your intermediaries, but that argument can apply to the people that interact with your cabinet, your parliament, your provinces, your civil service, your bankers, your press.  

In most jobs you don't get to pick the people you work with.  You get them issued to you.   I am not keen on having my parliamentary representatives pick a government leader and then discover that he or she comes with a complete Court of social engineers for whom we are expected to pay.

If we pay for them then we should issue them - the neutral civil service.  And if they aren't neutral (say for example they demonstrate bias by booing one PM while fainting at the feet of another - not that that would ever happen) then they should be fired and their successors disenfranchised and rendered truly apolitical.


----------



## Jed (17 Jan 2016)

ballz said:
			
		

> Yes, I do say that now. I guess you missed this part in your rush to respond to the first sentence...
> 
> GDP measures consumption by measuring spending. It does not measure the strength of an economy. Any government spending increase will increase the GDP, whether it is on infrastructure or on "entitlements." They both have a positive effect on GDP. This is the problem with using the GDP to support spending. *Of course* it grows the GDP, but at what cost? (government debt)
> 
> ...



I would be all for that.


----------



## Brad Sallows (17 Jan 2016)

>But don't go pinning it on the LPC NDP and BQ that they ran deficits.

If you want to be precise, the EAP is pinned on the opposition - they applied pressure; the CPC reacted.  The remaining deficits are pinned on the recession - the CPC didn't have to lift a finger for the balance to switch from surplus to deficit.


----------



## Altair (17 Jan 2016)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >But don't go pinning it on the LPC NDP and BQ that they ran deficits.
> 
> If you want to be precise, the EAP is pinned on the opposition - they applied pressure; the CPC reacted.  The remaining deficits are pinned on the recession - the CPC didn't have to lift a finger for the balance to switch from surplus to deficit.


And again, I don't agree. 

The opposition applied the pressure, sure, but the CPC did not need to cave to it. They did, they own it.

Was EAP on the way in regardless? Yes, most likely unless the GG agreed for there to be another election.  Should the CPC tried to have stay in power? Sure. But when you make a deal to bring in eap in order to stay in power then you need to own it, that's all I'm saying. If the were principled and just let the coalition do eap then I wouldn't say squat, but they didn't.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (17 Jan 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I also remember the old say, "If everyone else jumped off a bridge, would you do it too?"



I would if a fucking train was coming.

So what is it that we know that all other OECD countries don't?


----------



## Brad Sallows (17 Jan 2016)

>The opposition applied the pressure, sure, but the CPC did not need to cave to it. They did, they own it.

You keep claiming the CPC "own it".  I agree - but in the context that all 3 major parties own it.  Either you agree with me, or you need to prove the NDP and LPC do not also own it - despite their insistence upon it.  Good luck with erasing the internet.


----------



## Brad Sallows (17 Jan 2016)

>I do not understand our fetish surrounding deficits.

The explanation lies in human nature.  Canada had a close call with fiscal disaster, and on working our way out of it turned it into a moral crusade.  As a matter of practical politics, it is easier to turn spending on than to turn it off (diffuse costs, concentrated benefits), similar to the way in which the pressure to extend the reach of government is often stronger than the pushback (hence the fuss over erosion of constitutional protections we observe in the US).  So the default position should be resistance.

My understanding of the circumstances that allowed us to break our deficit spiral problem makes me skeptical that we could do it again.  The world economy, or the economic circumstances of any particular nation, is uncertain terrain and when any collection of experts claim to provide useful advice we should not be inclined to accept it - records of consistent predictive accuracy are extremely rare.  Canada's economy is fragile - to the circumstances I noted above, add the high level of consumer debt.  Given the fragility and uncertainty and consequences of the risk, fiscal moderation is the most prudent default position.

[Add: much of the heat centres around the notion of what is "infrastructure" and "infrastructure investment".  Replacing infrastructure prematurely with no improvement is a waste (opportunity cost).  Replacing infrastructure prematurely with improvements may be beneficial, provided the improvements pay for themselves within the remaining lifespan of the original.  Adding new infrastructure may be beneficial, provided it does not amount to overbuilding (Chinese Disease).  Much of the demand for infrastructure originates from municipalities, but much of that demand stems from municipalities with low commitment to basic housekeeping and high levels of distraction on bread-and-circus issues and social posturing.  Replacing water and sewer pipes and upgrading roads is dull and mundane, but the cities that plan and execute it properly are not the ones crying for funding.  The specific problems I read about all seem to have more to do with dysfunctional municipal politics, or municipal-provincial personality conflicts which cause worthwhile projects to go undone.  These are not problems to be solved by the federal taxpayer.  They are problems to be solved by the cities and provinces.  Media would do us a huge favour by digging into these conflicts and embarrassing the principals into behaving like adults.]


----------



## Altair (17 Jan 2016)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >The opposition applied the pressure, sure, but the CPC did not need to cave to it. They did, they own it.
> 
> You keep claiming the CPC "own it".  I agree - but in the context that all 3 major parties own it.  Either you agree with me, or you need to prove the NDP and LPC do not also own it - despite their insistence upon it.  Good luck with erasing the internet.


 I have said repeatedly that the LPC and NDP were hypocrites by bashing the deficits the CPC ran because they would have run them if they were in that position.

What more you want from me I do not know.


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Jan 2016)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> I would if a fucking train was coming.
> 
> So what is it that we know that all other OECD countries don't?




Any nation's (or provinces, or municpality's) debt must be examined line-by-line to determine its utility. And we must remember that there is a political dimension to utility that doesn't, cannot show up on a spreadsheet: how much is social harmony worth? How much social harmony would we lose if we _*reformed*_, say, health care or education financing or old age security?

Many economist favour debt which can be used to improve real property - roads, bridges, harbours, airports, etc, and which can be repaid before the end of life of the project. Some of the projects discussed during the Liberal election campaign were social in nature and social spending tends to be never-ending because, contrary to Maynard Keynes' dictum, it cannot be "switched off" when the economy pulls out of one of its periodic recessions.

I'm not opposed to *some* stimulus, it was not opposed to some even before the current commodities crisis, but I am opposed to any that cannot be "switched off," which means I will likely oppose most of what the Liberals propose.

As to: "what do we know that all the other OECD countries don't?" I don't know, except that we had spending pretty well under control in a (very slow, to be sure) growing economy and, therefore, didn't really *need* to _stimulate_ anything. Again some economist favoured some, carefully targeted, _stimulus_ because the recovery was so anaemic, but the ones I read didn't favour any increase in e.g. social housing or "green" energy.


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Jan 2016)

Perhaps "Debt if necessary, but not necessarily debt".

Here is the debt profile of the nation that invented modern debt financing.







In times of crisis (predominantly when keeping the French in their place - but that is to digress) the debt spiked.  When the crisis passed, commerce ensued, the government collected taxes and paid down the debt so that it had the capacity to borrow again the next  time the French a crisis occurred.  Exactly like using a credit card.

Debt is bad when it is so large that people will no longer lend you money.  If the unexpected crisis shows up when you're credit card is maxed out you are in a world of hurt.  Therefore the prudent borrower keeps their borrowing as low as possible as long as possible.

How much you can afford to pay back, how much debt you can carry, how much risk you are willing to accept in the event of the French showing up at your door again,  those are all subjects of interminable debate.  I have been married to a French-Canadian woman for 32 years.  I know whereof I speak.

Edit: By the way the comparable Debt to GDP ratio for Canada is 64.8%, according to the Fraser Institute (Federal and Provincial Debt combined).  The Federal number is 34.9%.  The other 30% is generated by the Provinces with Ontario and Quebec taking pride of place.  The Feds owe 692 BCAD, Ontario owes an additional 298 BCAD while Quebec owes 188 BCAD.

And the issue is that Ontario and Quebec wish to borrow more money on the back of Canada's AAA credit rating because their own credit ratings (A+ for Ontario and Quebec both according to S&P - or the same level as Ireland).

Essentially they want Alberta and Saskatchewan to co-sign their loans.  Unfortunately Alberta and Saskatchewan have hit a crisis of their own and are unable to take on the extra load.


----------



## Old Sweat (17 Jan 2016)

And to turn away from financial matters, here is a post media column that criticizes an apparent unwillingness to express outrage at and to take action agains terrorism. It is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act.

Michael Den Tandt: Where is the fury and resolve to fight back? Trudeau’s silence on terrorism is deafening


BY NATIONAL POST, MICHAEL DEN TANDT JANUARY 17, 2016 8:32 PM 

It’s early still in the life of this government. Yet with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Grits closing in on 100 days since their Oct. 19 electoral triumph, a pattern begins to emerge. It’s one that does the new regime and its leader little credit. It smacks of an inability or unwillingness to perceive sentiment beyond the urban Liberal echo chamber. It bespeaks a lack of imagination — including an inability to imagine threats to the government’s capacity to endure and succeed long-term. Tunnel vision and obduracy are not supposed to set in quite so soon.

Let’s begin with this: Trudeau’s Achilles heel. Every politician seems to have one. For this PM, for the longest time, it was his tendency to blurt silly things about serious geopolitical issues at importune times. There was his tone-deaf statement in an interview with the CBC that the Boston Marathon bombers must have felt excluded; his offhand praise of China’s system of government; his curious joke about the Russians invading Ukraine over hockey. Most memorably, there was the juvenile quip about former prime minister Stephen Harper whipping out Canada’s CF-18s to “show them how big they are.”

That series of gaffes, combined with Trudeau’s decision in the fall of 2014 to vote against Canadian participation in the U.S.-led air war against the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant, was a factor in the collapse in public support that led to the Liberals entering last year’s election campaign an underdog. That they recovered and won resoundingly is a testament to Trudeau’s political skills and the quality of the campaign he ran. None of that mitigates that his perceived instincts and judgment about foreign policy — especially as concerns the war against Islamist, jihadist terrorism — are his greatest weakness.

Tonally this manifests as an inability, or unwillingness, to emit more than the minimum necessary wattage in public responses to terrorist atrocities perpetrated by ISIL and its fellow travellers. That was on display immediately after the massacre in Paris last November. It was on display again this past weekend, in the aftermath of Islamist killing sprees in Jakarta, Indonesia and Ouagadougou, Burkina-Faso, that left seven Canadians dead.

Has the government, and Trudeau personally, condemned these atrocities? Certainly they have. Canada “strongly condemns the deadly terrorist attacks,” the PM said in a prepared statement in response to the Burkina-Faso massacre. On his personal Twitter feed, he offered his condolences to the families, friends and colleagues of those murdered. In the statement, he proposed a “speedy recovery” to the injured. “We are deeply saddened by these senseless act of violence on innocent civilians,” the release went on.

My question: Where is the expression of fury at the sociopaths who chose to murder these good people in cold blood? Where is the resolve to fight back, the passion for justice?

It’s not as though this government is incapable of displaying revulsion. Two weeks ago, when a hooligan on a bike pepper-sprayed Syrian refugees newly arrived in Vancouver, Immigration John McCallum said he was “shocked and appalled” at the attack — and rightly so. It was a vile, cowardly assault. Trudeau’s personal Twitter feed immediately lit up with a condemnation of the perpetrator. Again, rightly so.

But where are the passionate condemnations of terrorists who murder innocent Canadians in the pursuit of their demented ends? Burkina-Faso was not a pepper-spraying. Surely there should be horror and fury, in addition to the now customary sadness? Former Liberal leader Bob Rae took to Twitter Sunday to call the attack “an appalling act of cruelty.” Where is the corresponding vehemence on the part of his successor and his ministers?

It looks as though two things are at work. First, the PM and his ministers are taking pains to avoid the bellicose vitriol that characterized the Harper government’s communications about Jihadism, that being all-too American-Republican for their taste. Second, they are leery, with good reason, of being accused of hypocrisy due to the continuing void — intellectual, practical and moral — in their policy vis-à-vis combating ISIL.

Where is that policy? It’ll be three months this week since the federal election. The defence minister, Harjit Sajjan, has travelled to Iraq on a fact-finding mission. Trudeau and his foreign-policy team have had ample time to consult Canada’s allies. They’ve had time to hear reports from Canadian Forces generals who understand military strategy and tactics. Canadian citizens are among the victims in the plague of Jihadist murder that seems to me to be having its intended effect — to terrorize. What is the government’s response?

A period of orientation is understandable. Three months in, the silence grows deafening. Leaving Canada’s CF-18s in place, while claiming they’re doing no good and should be pulled out? Claiming a robust ground mission is in the works, while also abjuring any suggestion that Canada will ever be involved in ground fighting?

It’s incoherent. As long as it remains so, it will weaken Trudeau, while shoring up the arguments of his critics and opponents.


----------



## a_majoor (17 Jan 2016)

Virtue signalling means that you only have to _say_ the right things, not that you must _do_ anything.....


----------



## ballz (17 Jan 2016)

CombatMacgyver said:
			
		

> So just to get this right:  You're saying that you don't like the approach the Conservative Party took and you would've found it preferable had they called yet another election _but in hindsight_ you agree with the path they chose?



Maybe read the entire paragraph, that will help.

I am saying in hindsight, I disagree with the path they chose. But that is with the benefit of hindsight. At the time, I was cussing the other three parties just like everyone else.

In hindsight, I would have preferred if they say "if you want deficits, have 'em, but we won't be the ones to run 'em."


----------



## Journeyman (18 Jan 2016)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> BY NATIONAL POST, MICHAEL DEN TANDT JANUARY 17, 2016 8:32 PM
> 
> That they recovered and won resoundingly is a testament to Trudeau’s political skills and the quality of the campaign he ran.


Garbage.  It was a testament only to a widely-held dislike of Harper, not remotely to Trudeau’s political skills.  As Den Tandt himself argues, Trudeau's political skills thus far are limited to "an inability or unwillingness to perceive sentiment beyond the urban Liberal echo chamber."

I personally cannot wait for Trudeau to do _anything_  substantive -- 'give him time, his government is new' is wearing thin.


----------



## Altair (18 Jan 2016)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Garbage.  It was a testament only to a widely-held dislike of Harper, not remotely to Trudeau’s political skills.  As Den Tandt himself argues, Trudeau's political skills thus far are limited to "an inability or unwillingness to perceive sentiment beyond the urban Liberal echo chamber."
> 
> I personally cannot wait for Trudeau to do _anything_  substantive -- 'give him time, his government is new' is wearing thin.


If that was true, mulcair would be prime minister now.


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Jan 2016)

Well, there is one bright spot on the horizon ... contrary to my expectations, Chrystia Freeland ~ who, along with Pink Lloyd Axworthy, proves, to my satisfaction, that a first rate education can still produce third rate minds ~ has mastered one simple fact: "It's important for us to understand that we don't have a veto," on the TPP deal. We are either all the way in or all the way out of a trade block that will account for 40% of the global economy. 

I understand that most _NDP_ partisans and many _Liberals_, of the terminally bloody stupid variety, oppose the TPP and oppose free(er) trade in general, but not even *Trudeau~Wynne~Butts~Telford~Freeland* can be dumb enough to opt out of this .... can they?  :dunno:


----------



## Journeyman (18 Jan 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> If that was true, mulcair would be prime minister now.


         :not-again:

I cannot imagine Canadians _ever_  providing the NDP with a federal victory.  They peaked in 2011, becoming the Official Opposition for the only time, but they're back in their habitual, distant third place in the House.  

Even those votes, I imagine, were largely because Mulcair (a Quebec LIBERAL politician, by the way) avoided most of the NDP's traditional, extreme union-driven policies, campaigning on things like _~shudder~_  balanced budgets -- you know, like the Conservatives.


----------



## Altair (18 Jan 2016)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> :not-again:
> 
> I cannot imagine Canadians _ever_  providing the NDP with a federal victory.  They peaked in 2011, becoming the Official Opposition for the only time, but they're back in their habitual, distant third place in the House.
> 
> Even those votes, I imagine, were largely because Mulcair (a Quebec LIBERAL politician, by the way) avoided most of the NDP's traditional, extreme union-driven policies, campaigning on things like _~shudder~_  balanced budgets -- you know, like the Conservatives.


In the first half of the campaign it was pretty easy to imagine that, the NDP was polling in the 40s. Liberals a distant third.

The trudeau victory was no shoe in, people were wondering how far they would fall if he bombed in the first debate.


----------



## George Wallace (18 Jan 2016)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Garbage.  It was a testament only to a widely-held dislike of Harper, not remotely to Trudeau’s political skills.  As Den Tandt himself argues, Trudeau's political skills thus far are limited to "an inability or unwillingness to perceive sentiment beyond the urban Liberal echo chamber."
> 
> I personally cannot wait for Trudeau to do _anything_  substantive -- 'give him time, his government is new' is wearing thin.



That sums up my sentiments of the past election.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (18 Jan 2016)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> :not-again:
> 
> I cannot imagine Canadians _ever_  providing the NDP with a federal victory.  They peaked in 2011, becoming the Official Opposition for the only time, but they're back in their habitual, distant third place in the House.
> 
> Even those votes, I imagine, were largely because Mulcair (a Quebec LIBERAL politician, by the way) avoided most of the NDP's traditional, extreme union-driven policies, campaigning on things like _~shudder~_  balanced budgets -- you know, like the Conservatives.



I was impressed how far he got the NDP, they were actually a contender, but his party hardcore managed to stab him in the back. I grew up in a NDP family, I am not surprised by the infighting.


----------



## a_majoor (18 Jan 2016)

The "Libranos" meme is actually prevalent across much of the Western world's political class, and while Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit) may be speaking for the United States, much of what he says is oh so applicable here as well. The highlighted portion should be what concerns us (as it is the part which is universal), and of course would arouse the fiercest opposition from the political class in general and "Big Government" parties, bureaucrats and government cronies in particular:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/01/18/glenn-reynolds-constitution-amendments-convention-greg-abbott-column/78933518/



> *Glenn Reynolds: Blow up the administrative state*
> Glenn Harlan Reynolds 6:02 a.m. EST January 18, 2016
> 
> Constitutional convention could wrest power from political class and return it to states and people.
> ...


----------



## Altair (18 Jan 2016)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> And to turn away from financial matters, here is a post media column that criticizes an apparent unwillingness to express outrage at and to take action agains terrorism. It is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act.
> 
> Michael Den Tandt: Where is the fury and resolve to fight back? Trudeau’s silence on terrorism is deafening
> 
> ...


Yes, I suppose you want Trudeau pissing blood and vinegar over an attack in Burkina Faso and Indonesia, all the while unable to very much about the domestic security situations in foreign countries. Unless you want him to send the jets there and start bombing targets?

As opposed to getting hot under the collar for a incident that happened on Canadian soil by a Canadian, something that he does have a bit more control over.

Meh? Seriously, what is he suppose to do about AQIM?


----------



## Loachman (18 Jan 2016)

From the 17 January 2016 Hamilton Spectator 
http://www.thespec.com/news-story/6236139-trudeau-leads-moment-of-silence-at-peterborough-mosque-for-burkina-faso-victims/

Trudeau leads moment of silence at Peterborough mosque for Burkina Faso victims 

PETERBOROUGH, Ont. - Justin Trudeau led a moment of silence for the victims of this weekend's terrorist attack on a luxury hotel in Burkina Faso, an outrage that left six Canadians among the dead. 

The prime minister condemned the attacks Saturday on the Splendid Hotel and nearby Cappuccino Cafe in the West African country as a "brutal act of violent terrorism." 

Quebec media reports say four members of one family are among the six victims, and they are identified as retired teacher Yves Carrier, his wife Gladys Chamberland and their two adult children. 

Trudeau was speaking on Sunday at a restored mosque in Peterborough, Ont., which was firebombed in the aftermath of deadly attacks in Paris last November, a slaughter for which the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant claimed responsibility. 

Most of his remarks focused on the "reprehensible" crime perpetrated against the mosque, saying it doesn't define the community, nor the country, and that the "criminals" who carried it out failed in their attempt to sow hatred and division. 

Trudeau says the community responded with hope, love and compassion, and quickly helped rebuild the house of worship. 

Mark Steyn's comments at http://www.steynonline.com/7427/mohammed-millinery:

Canadians are dead, and so is satire. Six Quebeckers get slaughtered by Islamic terrorists in Burkina Faso, and to honor their memory Prime Minister Justin Trudeau leads a moment of silence ...at a mosque.

As for "gender segregation" in the Muslim world, let's go back to that Peterborough mosque where Justin Trudeau had his moment of silence to dishonor the Canadian dead at Islam's hands. The mosque is run by Imam Shazim Khan, who gave an interesting speech in Toronto a few years back. "Gender segregation"? Bring it on!

"There is no need for her to go out. There is no need for her to call anybody. There is no need for her to talk to anybody...

"She only makes available herself to her husband and she protects herself and she stays away from everything that her husband doesn't like in order to please him and to make the marriage work..."

Incidentally, Trudeau's imam says that, if David Cameron thinks "gender segregation" is bad now, wait till the hereafter:

"The Prophet PBUH said he said because of this ingratitude [of the wives towards their husbands] that is why most inhabitants of hell are women."


----------



## Old Sweat (18 Jan 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> Yes, I suppose you want Trudeau pissing blood and vinegar over an attack in Burkina Faso and Indonesia, all the while unable to very much about the domestic security situations in foreign countries. Unless you want him to send the jets there and start bombing targets?
> 
> As opposed to getting hot under the collar for a incident that happened on Canadian soil by a Canadian, something that he does have a bit more control over.
> 
> Meh? Seriously, what is he suppose to do about AQIM?



Apparently, according to this story in the Globe and Mail reproduced under the Fair Dealing provision of the Copyright Act, is just what his Minister of Global Affairs is proposing. 

Dion urges Canada to ‘fight’ with allies in wake of Burkina Faso attacks

GLORIA GALLOWAY, STEVEN CHASE AND LES PERREAUX
OTTAWA, ST. ANDREWS, N.B. and MONTREAL — The Globe and Mail
Published Sunday, Jan. 17, 2016 8:13PM EST
Last updated Monday, Jan. 18, 2016 7:52AM

A murderous rampage by al-Qaeda-linked militants in Burkina Faso that claimed the lives of six Quebeckers and at least 22 other people demonstrates the ease with which terror can be spread in disparate parts of the world and Canada’s Foreign Minister says the international community must unite in its determination to stop it.

Four attackers, two of them women, stormed the Splendid Hotel in the capital city of Ouagadougou on Friday night, killing 18 people during a 12-hour siege. They also marched though a nearby café where another 10 victims lost their lives. Those who died were of multiple nationalities – American, Swiss, Dutch, Portuguese, Italian and the six from Canada who were in the West African country to work at schools and orphanages.

In the end, the perpetrators of the attacks, claimed by al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, were also killed. But authorities in the region as well as the government here in Canada said efforts must be made to thwart future carnage.

The prime ministers of Burkina Faso and Mali, a country that is a hot spot for the jihadi movement, agreed Sunday to work together by sharing joint intelligence and joint security patrols. And Canada has offered to assist the authorities of Burkina Faso in their investigation of the deadly incident.

Foreign Affairs Minister Stéphane Dion said the attack in Burkina Faso is a reminder that Canada is not safe from terror threats. It follows explosions and a gun fight involving affiliates of the Islamic State in Jakarta last week that killed another Quebecker, as well as massive assaults on Paris in November that left 130 dead and a suicide bombing in Turkey earlier this month that killed 10.

“You have seen it in Burkina Faso, Turkey, Paris and we are affected by that and we need to fight with our allies,” Mr. Dion said during a Trudeau government cabinet retreat in New Brunswick. “They are everywhere,” he said of terrorists, adding Canada must “fight in strong co-operation with our allies: military, police and intelligence services.”

The Canadian victims came from the tight-knit Quebec City bedroom community of Lac-Beauport.

Yves Carrier, 65, was a well-respected school principal who dove into volunteer work after he retired a few years ago. His wife, Gladys Chamberland, was a provincial civil servant who had joined Mr. Carrier on his most recent missions. Their son, Charlelie Carrier, was a 19-year-old student. His half-sister, Maude Carrier, a 37-year-old mother of two, was a school teacher. Family friends Louis Chabot and Suzanne Bernier were also educators in the local school system.

Mr. Carrier had organized previous missions with a small Quebec aid group, Centre amitié de solidarité internationale de la région des Appalaches, and the Notre-Dame du Perpétuel Secours order of nuns who have been working in Burkina Faso since 1955. One of the nuns identified the remains of the six Quebeckers.

“Every two years Mr. Carrier formed new groups and came back again to help at different levels,” Sister Lise Desrochers said. “He did it in love and respect. His groups were always comfortable in what they did.”

An audio tape released by the North African affiliate of al-Qaeda claiming responsibility for the carnage was titled A Message Signed with Blood and Body Parts. Witnesses said the attackers arrived in a vehicle with licence plates for neighbouring Niger and spoke with an Arabic accent while screaming in French.

Both the café, which was set ablaze, and the hotel were popular with Westerners. Survivors said the militants appeared to be targeting which victims to kill.

Bruce Hoffman, the director of the Center for Security Studies at Georgetown University, said terrorist activities by groups such as al-Qaeda, Boko Haram and the Islamic State have been spreading throughout the region.

“I think it’s more opportunistic than anything,” he said of the Burkina Faso attack. “These groups don’t have international capabilities, but they certainly have transnational ones that play upon the weakness of border controls but also of local security forces.”

Killing locals does not generate international attention and outrage, Dr. Hoffman said, but killing Westerners is front-page news around the world, which is the aim of the terrorists.

Michael Zekulin, a terrorism expert who teaches at the University of Calgary, said al-Qaeda and the Islamic State are actually in direct competition with each other.

As the Islamic State has “been ascending so rapidly, a lot of us have been wondering basically where al-Qaeda is,” Dr. Zekulin said. Al-Qaeda has “spent the past 25 years being the vanguard of this movement and basically these guys have come along and usurped them. And usually they don’t take too kindly to that.”

But the objectives of both terrorist organizations are the same, Dr. Zekulin said, and the reality is that “there are groups like this operating all over the world.”

In a separate incident, two Australian humanitarian workers were abducted Friday by extremists in northern Burkina Faso. Surgeon Ken Elliott and his wife, Jocelyn, reported to be in their 80s, were abducted in the northern town of Djibo where they had run a medical centre for 40 years.

Cicely McWilliam of Save the Children Canada said that although the Burkina Faso attacks do not appear to have deliberately targeted aid workers, there is no question that the world has become more dangerous for people who provide humanitarian assistance – and more difficult for those they are trying to help. “We do our best to mitigate, but it doesn’t mean we can eliminate all risk,” Ms. McWilliam said.

Mr. Dion said Canadian aid workers overseas must stay cautious but should not succumb to fear. He urged them to remember “how much it’s needed” and to avoid scaling back their work abroad. “We should not allow the terrorists to stop us from doing the right thing.”


----------



## Brad Sallows (18 Jan 2016)

Regarding Trudeau's "brilliance", consider what might have been: if Jack Layton had lived, his personality appeal would easily have equaled or surpassed Trudeau's, and Layton likely would not have played into the Liberal's hands by adopting "ABC".  I suspect Layton would have finished what he set out to do: replace the Liberals with the NDP.  Mulcair, consciously or not, threw the NDP under the bus.  The stars will not likely align that well for the NDP in the lifetime of any currently serving MP.


----------



## Altair (18 Jan 2016)

Unless the Canadian military and or rcmp is sent to guard every hotel, mall, gathering place from london to Shanghai there is little Trudeau can do to keep Canadians safe overseas.

Especially in places like the Middle East and parts of Africa. So I honestly don't know what dion is going on about. 

If this happened in Toronto Montreal or Vancouver, ya, get angry, spring into action, the works. I honestly don't see how a attack in Africa by a group who from what I'm reading is trying to one up isil warrants the same response. Especially since there is little to nothing we can do about it.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (18 Jan 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> If that was true, mulcair would be prime minister now.



I think that as the campaign dragged on voters began to perceive how creepy Mulcair truly was.  Close to the election I saw him as odder and odder.


----------



## PuckChaser (18 Jan 2016)

At least Trudeau called it terrorism this time, instead of saying they were marginalized by society.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (18 Jan 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> Unless the Canadian military and or rcmp is sent to guard every hotel, mall, gathering place from london to Shanghai there is little Trudeau can do to keep Canadians safe overseas.
> 
> Especially in places like the Middle East and parts of Africa. So I honestly don't know what dion is going on about.
> 
> If this happened in Toronto Montreal or Vancouver, ya, get angry, spring into action, the works. I honestly don't see how a attack in Africa by a group who from what I'm reading is trying to one up isil warrants the same response. Especially since there is little to nothing we can do about it.



French and American Special Forces were the ones who responded to the attack so yes there is something we could be doing about it.  

You should do a little more research on the Magreb, you're clearly not very up to speed on the region.


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Jan 2016)

I am going to open a very Canadian can of worms here.

It is no secret that Quebecers and Acadians take a very different view of military force than do those of us with connections to the Union Jack.  That said, it is noteworthy that the "discussions" with the Muslim community have created a decidedly less nuanced response to the use of said military force than has historically been the case.

The latest problems have resulted in the death of 7 Quebecers.  They are not the first Quebecers to feel this pain.  I can also think of the Warrant Officer that was run down in Quebec.

I think there is a greater resonance in Quebec on these matters precisely because of the great overlaps Quebec, France, the Francophonie in general and the Maghreb in particular, the immigration to Quebec of francophone Muslims and the particular hate-on for France that the Islamists appear to have.

This may result in a different response on the use of force compared to that to which we are used. (Churchill would be proud....)


----------



## Old Sweat (18 Jan 2016)

That thought had crossed my mind, especially as Dion had ruled out any combat role in Iraq and Syria - specifically JTF2 - in an interview only a few days before the incident. That is not to say there is anything dishonest or even hypocritical in his reaction to what is a new atrocity.


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Jan 2016)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> That thought had crossed my mind, especially as Dion had ruled out any combat role in Iraq and Syria - specifically JTF2 - in an interview only a few days before the incident. *That is not to say there is anything dishonest or even hypocritical in his reaction to what is a new atrocity.*



Agreed.


----------



## Altair (18 Jan 2016)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> French and American Special Forces were the ones who responded to the attack so yes there is something we could be doing about it.
> 
> You should do a little more research on the Magreb, you're clearly not very up to speed on the region.


I think I'm quite up to speed on the region, thank you kindly.

I think you missed my point. There were American and French forces in the area, and they did respond. Those Canadians still died. Nothing short of having military or rcmp at every hotel that Canadians visit is going to save them when these things happen.

That's what I meant when I said there is very little we can do.


----------



## George Wallace (18 Jan 2016)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Mark Steyn's comments at http://www.steynonline.com/7427/mohammed-millinery:
> 
> Canadians are dead, and so is satire. Six Quebeckers get slaughtered by Islamic terrorists in Burkina Faso, and to honor their memory Prime Minister Justin Trudeau leads a moment of silence ...at a mosque.
> 
> ...



Interesting comments there.  It gives the impression that "equality" is a factor that he can overlook.  That is not the way our society has evolved.  It is not acceptable.


----------



## YZT580 (18 Jan 2016)

My dear Altair, it is quite evident what Dion is doing.  He is setting the stage for a blue beret intervention in that area.  Our assistance against terrorism, the operating costs of those F18's will go towards supporting a couple of platoons in Mali.  That is one of those things that was hinted at during the campaign just passed. The French legion are not operating under a UN mandate but a French one.  Dion will send our troops out hamstrung by ROE that castrate their actions and make them liable for any nose bleed that occurs.  That is the liberal way!  When it happens, and it will, just remember you heard it here first.


----------



## Altair (18 Jan 2016)

YZT580 said:
			
		

> My dear Altair, it is quite evident what Dion is doing.  He is setting the stage for a blue beret intervention in that area.  Our assistance against terrorism, the operating costs of those F18's will go towards supporting a couple of platoons in Mali.  That is one of those things that was hinted at during the campaign just passed. The French legion are not operating under a UN mandate but a French one.  Dion will send our troops out hamstrung by ROE that castrate their actions and make them liable for any nose bleed that occurs.  That is the liberal way!  When it happens, and it will, just remember you heard it here first.


Tour pay?


----------



## The Bread Guy (18 Jan 2016)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> That thought had crossed my mind, especially as Dion had ruled out any combat role in Iraq and Syria - specifically JTF2 - in an interview only a few days before the incident. That is not to say there is anything dishonest or even hypocritical in his reaction to what is a new atrocity.


Well, we've helped "fight the fight" here in the recent past - maybe more of the same to circle the Franco-political square?


			
				YZT580 said:
			
		

> ... He is setting the stage for a blue beret intervention in that area.  Our assistance against terrorism, the operating costs of those F18's will go towards supporting a couple of platoons in Mali ... Dion will send our troops out hamstrung by ROE that castrate their actions and make them liable for any nose bleed that occurs ...


That's possible, too - we'll have to see what unfolds where.


----------



## George Wallace (18 Jan 2016)

Is this a sign that this Government has now relegated Canada to the back burner of NATO and Five Eyes communities?  

http://www.msn.com/en-us/health/watch/canada-not-invited-to-anti-isis-meeting/vp-BBopaAo


----------



## jollyjacktar (18 Jan 2016)

Sure sounds like it.


----------



## PuckChaser (18 Jan 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Is this a sign that this Government has now relegated Canada to the back burner of NATO and Five Eyes communities?
> 
> http://www.msn.com/en-us/health/watch/canada-not-invited-to-anti-isis-meeting/vp-BBopaAo



After the Liberals made so much hay out of our Security Council seat that we never really had, being dumped out of an actual alliance that does things (NATO) meeting is a bigger snub IMHO.


----------



## Old Sweat (18 Jan 2016)

I'm not sure. Peacekeeping has pretty well been relegated to African troops in the region. It may be that the Magreb provides a face-saving option to our government. Besides there is the oppurtunity to do the "right thing" whatever it is in the minds of the Liberals. It also probably c ould have been the course adopted by the CPC although the region is even less of a vital Canadian area of interest that the Middle East.


----------



## ModlrMike (19 Jan 2016)

The post colonial nations do not want their previous imperial masters coming back to keep the peace. Unless we're specifically invited, it ain't gonna happen.


----------



## Altair (19 Jan 2016)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> The post colonial nations do not want their previous imperial masters coming back to keep the peace. Unless we're specifically invited, it ain't gonna happen.


Maybe seeing as how canada has never been masters of anyone we get a pass?


----------



## The Bread Guy (19 Jan 2016)

Before we talk about "peacekeeping", shouldn't there be some peace to keep, with all sides agreeing not to shoot at each other anymore?

Paint my naive ...


----------



## Loachman (19 Jan 2016)

http://www.ottawasun.com/2016/01/18/trudeaus-mosque-visit-raises-questions

Trudeau’s mosque visit raises questions 

By Anthony Furey, Postmedia Network
First posted: Monday, January 18, 2016 12:07 PM EST | Updated: Monday, January 18, 2016 12:24 PM EST

Shortly after six Canadians were killed by Islamist terrorists Prime Minister Justin Trudeau held a moment of silence for the deceased at a Peterborough mosque.

Either the PM doesn’t understand how awful the optics of this are or he doesn’t care. It’s hard to say which one is more worrisome.

Over the weekend, al-Qaida affiliates took hostages at a hotel in Burkina Faso, killing 28 people including six from Quebec.

They were friends and family travelling to build schools as part of a humanitarian effort.

It’s natural to assume this would garner a powerful response from our prime minister, who is our collective voice on the world stage.

But instead of political leadership, in a statement Trudeau said he was “condemning” what he called a “terrible crime” as well as being “deeply saddened by these senseless acts of violence on innocent civilians.”

This tells us how he feels as a person, but nothing about what he thinks as a leader.

If his soft statement wasn’t bad enough, the real tone deaf manoeuvre from Trudeau came Sunday morning.

The PM attended an open house at a Peterborough mosque that had been set ablaze by an arsonist back in November. Before the open house, according to his itinerary, he held a private meeting with the board members of the Kawartha Muslim Religious Association.

That’s quite the coup for the mosque - a private sit-down with the PM. And he came to them, no less.

When he later took to the podium to speak, his strongest words were not concerning the terror attack, in which six died just the day before, but for the mosque arson, in which nobody died and which took place months ago.

“I have not met a single Canadian who was not as profoundly disturbed as I was to see this kind of hate crime taking place,” he said. Back in November the PM called the mosque attack an act “of hatred and racism”.

These are far stronger words than those he used to condemn the terrorist attack. Besides, the arsonist has yet to be identified, so it’s unclear what the motives for that attack were and if Trudeau’s words were even correct.

By comparison, we know the Burkina Faso attack was an al-Qaida linked job. But Trudeau didn’t mention this in either his written statement or at the mosque.

All the six dead Canadians received on Sunday was Trudeau’s call for a moment of silence for those murdered in “a brutal attack of violent terrorism”. The lopsided optics of this whole affair certainly raise questions about the PM’s priorities.

He could have made two separate announcements. But instead he rolled them together, making the Burkina Faso statement a footnote to his pilgrimage to the mosque.

To complicate matters, the Peterborough mosque doesn’t appear to be a shining example of liberal values the PM and much of the media would have you believe.

In YouTube videos posted in 2009, entitled Marriage: Are You Ready? Shazim Khan, prior to holding his current post as imam of the Peterborough mosque, gave a lecture in which he explained it’s “a major sin” for a wife to not have sex whenever her husband wants and “there is no need for her to go out” if her husband provides for her, along with other sexist musings.

Did Trudeau and his staff know about these apparently misogynist statements?

The prime minister seems so blinded by political correctness, by a desire to appear tolerant in the eyes of the intolerant, that he has no problem visiting a mosque whose imam delivered a lecture that would likely receive an approving nod from the very people who killed Canadians only days before in the name of their religion.


----------



## Altair (19 Jan 2016)

Priorities being acts of hatred being committed in Canada as opposed to acts of terror being committed internationally?

This is such a silly debate. Not like the guy can do much to keep every Canadian overseas safe. Domestic acts of hatred and racism, he can do something about that.


----------



## George Wallace (19 Jan 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> Priorities being acts of hatred being committed in Canada as opposed to acts of terror being committed internationally?
> 
> This is such a silly debate. Not like the guy can do much to keep every Canadian overseas safe. Domestic acts of hatred and racism, he can do something about that.



So?  With cases like this, what is he doing?

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/i-felt-helpless-ottawa-teen-relates-harrowing-story-of-sex-attack-at-bus-stop-to-court


----------



## Kat Stevens (19 Jan 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> Priorities being an act of hatred arson in which nobody was injured being committed in Canada as opposed to acts of terror resulting in the deaths of six Canadian citizens being committed internationally?
> 
> This is such a silly debate. Not like the guy can do much to keep every Canadian overseas safe. Domestic acts of hatred and racism, he can do something about that.



For clarity.


----------



## Kirkhill (19 Jan 2016)




----------



## Altair (19 Jan 2016)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> For clarity.


*BREAKING NEWS*

Canadians are not safe...when they're in impoverished African countries.

Are we really going to try to pacify the entire planet with military power so that people who frown on the use of tripadvisor can safely go to whichever hell hole they feel like? I mean, surely you see the cynicism in only giving a **** about these countries that have been shitholes since the day before forever when a few western people get attacked there.


----------



## daftandbarmy (19 Jan 2016)

Loachman said:
			
		

> http://www.ottawasun.com/2016/01/18/trudeaus-mosque-visit-raises-questions
> 
> Trudeau’s mosque visit raises questions
> 
> ...



Nicely summed up.... the Trudeau platform, in song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-xWhG4UU_Y


----------



## Kat Stevens (19 Jan 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> *BREAKING NEWS*
> 
> Canadians are not safe...when they're in impoverished African countries.
> 
> Are we really going to try to pacify the entire planet with military power so that people who frown on the use of tripadvisor can safely go to whichever hell hole they feel like? I mean, surely you see the cynicism in only giving a **** about these countries that have been shitholes since the day before forever when a few western people get attacked there.



MORE BREAKING NEWS
The optics of his anemic statement about SIX CANADIAN DEATHS as a mere footnote to his bleatings of moral outrage at what, pending investigation, is an act of arson, criminal but not tragic, are terrible.  You really think this is okay?  I realize he has to look out for his support base, but this goes beyond the pale, and quite frankly is callous.  "Oh by the way, 6 Canadians died and that sucks" is not what I would expect from the leader (Dear Leader?) of my country.


----------



## Altair (19 Jan 2016)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> MORE BREAKING NEWS
> The optics of his anemic statement about SIX CANADIAN DEATHS as a mere footnote to his bleatings of moral outrage at what, pending investigation, is an act of arson, criminal but not tragic, are terrible.  You really think this is okay?  I realize he has to look out for his support base, but this goes beyond the pale, and quite frankly is callous.  "Oh by the way, 6 Canadians died and that sucks" is not what I would expect from the leader (Dear Leader?) of my country.


I really think that in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter.

If Harper were the dear leader, he wouldn't have been at the mosque, he would have been on TV with his outrage at the situation and at the end of the day done nothing.

Trudeau on the other hand, was at the mosque, made a simple statement on the attack, had a moment of silence and will do nothing. 

At the end of the day, AQIM will go on doing what it does, Burkina Faso will continue to be a poor impoverished area of Africa and canada will continue to not do much there, and what we're talking about here is the superficial tone the leader has taken.

In short, what you're asking of Trudeau is to say things that make you feel warm and fuzzy about it.Nothing, but sound tough while doing nothing.


----------



## daftandbarmy (19 Jan 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> I really think that in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter.
> 
> If Harper were the dear leader, he wouldn't have been at the mosque, he would have been on TV with his outrage at the situation and at the end of the day done nothing.
> 
> ...



Harold Macmillan, was asked by a young journalist after a long dinner what can most easily steer a government off course, he answered "Events, dear boy. Events". 

We might see the tyranny of 'events' begin to intrude on the Trudeau reverie....


----------



## Kirkhill (19 Jan 2016)

Back on the financial front:

Because of comments made on the procurement threads (FWSAR, F-35, CSC et al) about the impact of exchange rates it got me to thinking about managing that volatility.  In the private sector it is generally done by buying futures, ie, if a project requires the purchase of foreign equipment then the vendors currency is purchased when the exchange rate is low so as to buy the stuff when the rate is high.  That way you lock in the price of the kit and make more money, or at least reduce your costs.

So that got me to wondering what the Canadian Government had been doing.  It doesn't buy futures per se.  It actually buys currency - foreign reserves.

It turns out that between 2008 and 2015 the Government's holdings in US Dollars increased from a low of 19.257 BUSD in 2007 to the current level of 48.229 BUSD, or a 150% increase.

Likewise the gold reserves were increased and the IMF position was strengthened.

What this means is that on purchases, like the F-35 for example the Government has the option of paying for those aircraft with US dollars laid down in 2008 when the Canadian dollar was trading above par.  Effectively taking that variability out of the discussion.  

In reality much of that money is actually used to pay off interest on foreign loans.  There are other demands on that money than just  the defence budget.

But.

It is as I was reading the Department of Finance table linked above that I discovered this curious fact.

In 2005, Paul Martin's last full year on the job Canada held gold reserves equivalent to 56 BUSD based on December 2015 valuations.

In 2006, Steven Harper immediately started building all foreign reserves, including gold.

That reached a high point of 181 BUSD in gold by 2012.

Since then the Government has been drawing down the gold account, presumably to offset the depreciating dollar.

At the time the Liberals took over the reins in November there was still 102 BUSD in that account, as of November 30th.

By December 30th that account had nosedived back to 58 BUSD, or the same level it had been at when Paul Martin was making the decisions - effectively wiping out all the additional reserves that Harper had squirreled away against a rainy day.

One month. US$ 44,000,000,000.  

Where did it go? What was it used for?  I am not suggesting anything nefarious.  Honest people can disagree on managing finances.

But what was the rationale?  And what does it say about how the Liberals plan to manage the books?


----------



## Kirkhill (19 Jan 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> I really think that in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter.
> 
> If Harper were the dear leader, he wouldn't have been at the mosque, he would have been on TV with his outrage at the situation and at the end of the day done nothing.
> 
> ...



Actually, it is a fair bet that he would have been at the table in Paris discussing with the US, UK and Australia,  the Netherlands, Germany, Italy and France how to manage the campaign against ISIS.

Justin, on his first visit overseas and with the blood of 130 people still wet on the sidewalks of Paris, told the French he wasn't interested, just as he informed the Americans with his first phone call that he wasn't interested so he was pulling his fighters from the arena.  

John Manley worried that Canada had a reputation of getting up from the table when the bill was to be paid.  I don't think we need to worry about that anymore.  We aren't being invited to the table.


----------



## PuckChaser (19 Jan 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> Trudeau on the other hand, was at the mosque, made a simple statement on the attack, had a moment of silence and will do nothing.



Trudeau missed a big opportunity here, or more likely his handlers did. This was a preplanned event, but the tone needed to change. Seems like he just inserted the attacks in before going to the larger, canned speech. Had he taken the opportunity to help the Canadian Muslim community show it is just as appalled at the attacks, and that the rest of Canada is appalled at the arson, he'd have gone a long way to tone down the rhetoric.

Instead, he carried on with a canned event, regardless of external influences, which is starting to become a trend where keeping political promises regardless of consequences when the complex global and national situation changes. He's sticking to his party ideology, which is something Harper was decried for on a daily basis.


----------



## Altair (19 Jan 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Actually, it is a fair bet that he would have been at the table in Paris discussing with the US, UK and Australia,  the Netherlands, Germany, Italy and France how to manage the campaign against ISIS.
> 
> Justin, on his first visit overseas and with the blood of 130 people still wet on the sidewalks of Paris, told the French he wasn't interested, just as he informed the Americans with his first phone call that he wasn't interested so he was pulling his fighters from the arena.
> 
> John Manley worried that Canada had a reputation of getting up from the table when the bill was to be paid.  I don't think we need to worry about that anymore.  We aren't being invited to the table.


I fail to see how an attack in Burkina Faso by a ISIL rival in AQIM relates to the bombing of ISIL in the middle east.

George Bush logic there, attacked by militants funded by the Saudis, trained in Afghanistan, invade Iraq.


----------



## Altair (19 Jan 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Trudeau missed a big opportunity here, or more likely his handlers did. This was a preplanned event, but the tone needed to change. Seems like he just inserted the attacks in before going to the larger, canned speech. Had he taken the opportunity to help the Canadian Muslim community show it is just as appalled at the attacks, and that the rest of Canada is appalled at the arson, he'd have gone a long way to tone down the rhetoric.
> 
> Instead, he carried on with a canned event, regardless of external influences, which is starting to become a trend where keeping political promises regardless of consequences when the complex global and national situation changes. He's sticking to his party ideology, which is something Harper was decried for on a daily basis.


As long as we all agree that were are arguing over a leaders tone and nothing of substance.


----------



## George Wallace (19 Jan 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Instead, he carried on with a canned event, regardless of external influences, which is starting to become a trend where keeping political promises regardless of consequences when the complex global and national situation changes. He's sticking to his party ideology, which is something Harper was decried for on a daily basis.



An indication that he and his staff are incapable of adjusting to changing events/situations.  That would be OK in 1867 with no technology to transmit instant communication around the world; but in today's (This is 2016) world, that is not an acceptable method to govern.  

I would think that this is quite "substantial".


----------



## Altair (19 Jan 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> An indication that he and his staff are incapable of adjusting to changing events/situations.  That would be OK in 1867 with no technology to transmit instant communication around the world; but in today's (This is 2016) world, that is not an acceptable method to govern.
> 
> If you don't think that this is "substantial", then please don't comment on governance in the 21st Century.


If I wasn't here, the only dissent voice would be Kilo_302. [lol:


----------



## Kirkhill (19 Jan 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> I fail to see how an attack in Burkina Faso by a ISIL rival in AQIM relates to the bombing of ISIL in the middle east.
> 
> George Bush logic there, attacked by militants funded by the Saudis, trained in Afghanistan, invade Iraq.



I understand your failure to see.



> "me·tas·ta·size
> 
> məˈtastəˌsīz/Submit
> 
> ...


----------



## PuckChaser (19 Jan 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> As long as we all agree that were are arguing over a leaders tone and nothing of substance.


A leader says a lot with their tone. Think back to some of the poor leaders you've had in your career, and you'll notice that tone and speaking ability can destroy the impact of even the greatest direction being passed. This is especially true at the head of state level, where tone can impact how a country's populace perceives a situation.


----------



## Altair (19 Jan 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> A leader says a lot with their tone. Think back to some of the poor leaders you've had in your career, and you'll notice that tone and speaking ability can destroy the impact of even the greatest direction being passed. This is especially true at the head of state level, where tone can impact how a country's populace perceives a situation.


Actions speak louder than words.

No matter who is at the helm of this country I would expect the same level of inaction.


----------



## Altair (19 Jan 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> I understand your failure to see.


Care to explain then oh wise one?


----------



## Kirkhill (19 Jan 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> Care to explain then oh wise one?



No.


----------



## Altair (19 Jan 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> No.


Then excuse me if I find your post as ridiculous as I originally thought it was.


----------



## PuckChaser (19 Jan 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> Actions speak louder than words.
> 
> No matter who is at the helm of this country I would expect the same level of inaction.


So you fully expect Trudeau to either attend the funeral, attend the repatriation, or visit the family members? Otherwise we'll know exactly on what side of the fence he's on.


----------



## Altair (19 Jan 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> So you fully expect Trudeau to either attend the funeral, attend the repatriation, or visit the family members? Otherwise we'll know exactly on what side of the fence he's on.


Depends how many cameras are there, man loves a good photo op.

In all seriousness though, these are all cosmetic things, they don't help prevent these things from happening, Canadians in shitty third world countries are no safer, and at the end of the day, 6 Canadians were at the wrong place at the wrong time. From what I'm reading about this attack, it was to send a message to the french, the local government and to ISIL. Those Canadians weren't specific targeted for being Canadian,  they were just there when this went down.

No amount of tough words and rethoric changes that, no bombs in Iraq and syria changes that, and I'm a little confused as to why we are trying to read tea leaves about what is the proper way to express that terrorism sucks.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (19 Jan 2016)

The issue is radical Islam and wherever it pop up it's dirty head. There is a religious war being waged on us, despite our wishing it was not true. You need to whack the moles and cut off the radical portions from their quiet sympathizers and supporters.


----------



## Jed (19 Jan 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> Depends how many cameras are there, man loves a good photo op.
> 
> In all seriousness though, these are all cosmetic things, they don't help prevent these things from happening, Canadians in shitty third world countries are no safer, and at the end of the day, 6 Canadians were at the wrong place at the wrong time. From what I'm reading about this attack, it was to send a message to the french, the local government and to ISIL. Those Canadians weren't specific targeted for being Canadian,  they were just there when this went down.
> 
> No amount of tough words and rethoric changes that, no bombs in Iraq and syria changes that, and I'm a little confused as to why we are trying to read tea leaves about what is the proper way to express that terrorism sucks.




You sure cut your main man a lot of slack. Quite a contrast to your thoughts on our past incumbent.


----------



## daftandbarmy (19 Jan 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> Then excuse me if I find your post as ridiculous as I originally thought it was.



Please, tell me, are you actively trying to get banned?


----------



## a_majoor (19 Jan 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> After the Liberals made so much hay out of our Security Council seat that we never really had, being dumped out of an actual alliance that does things (NATO) meeting is a bigger snub IMHO.



I never really understood the burning desire by Canadian "Progressives" to receive acclaim from international thugs and dictators.


----------



## Remius (19 Jan 2016)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Please, tell me, are you actively trying to get banned?



For responding to a veiled insult?  I don't agree with Altair on a lot of things but someone took a shot at him first.   Some people are offended by his opinion.  That does not mean he's been offensive.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (19 Jan 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> After the Liberals made so much hay out of our Security Council seat that we never really had, being dumped out of an actual alliance that does things (NATO) meeting is a bigger snub IMHO.



This is not a NATO meeting - that would have about 20 more attendees.  The grouping matches up to the largest contributors of ground forces who are also conducting air strikes.  Because we are doing advice and assist but not "Building Partner Capacity", we were not on the list.  Australia, Italy and the Dutch are.

Sorry - no conspiracy here.

Canada routinely attends meeting that only ground troop providers are invited to.  We are invited to the broader coalition meeting in Brussels on 11 Feb hosted by SECDEF (along with 25 of our closest allies....) because the criteria were expanded to those providing both ground troops and strike aircraft.  A little birdie tells me we will be represented on 2 Feb in Paris anyway.


----------



## Cloud Cover (19 Jan 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> Actions speak louder than words.
> 
> No matter who is at the helm of this country I would expect the same level of inaction.


Too true. Former Liberal Deputy PM John Manley "You cannot sit at the table of democracy and when the bill comes get up and go to the bathroom."

It seems Mr. Trudeau intends to hide in the crapper until the sh*t storm passes. He will leave the bill to someone else, even when our own are butchered.


----------



## PuckChaser (19 Jan 2016)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> This is not a NATO meeting - that would have about 20 more attendees.  The grouping matches up to the largest contributors of ground forces who are also conducting air strikes.  Because we are doing advice and assist but not "Building Partner Capacity", we were not on the list.  Australia, Italy and the Dutch are.
> 
> Sorry - no conspiracy here.
> 
> Canada routinely attends meeting that only ground troop providers are invited to.  We are invited to the broader coalition meeting in Brussels on 11 Feb hosted by SECDEF (along with 25 of our closest allies....) because the criteria were expanded to those providing both ground troops and strike aircraft.  A little birdie tells me we will be represented on 2 Feb in Paris anyway.



The Liberal line is that we've been excluded before they took power, so its Harper's Fault (TM). If so, I'm surprised the anti-Liberal mainstream media held onto this tidbit so long, knowing the Liberals would win the election so they could embarrass them later.

But, carry on with your rose coloured glasses. Of course us pulling the fighters in a purely political promise has nothing to do with us not at the big boys table.


----------



## GAP (19 Jan 2016)

The opposition has created quite a zinger out of this. 

It's politics.....


----------



## PuckChaser (19 Jan 2016)

After calling out the Tories for creating "two-tier citizenship" for convicted terrorists with dual-citizenship, the Liberals decide to one-up them by creating two-tier refugees:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/refugee-travel-costs-loans-1.3406735



> Liberals' waiving of travel costs for Syrian refugees created 2-tier system
> Syrians who arrived prior to Nov. 4 and refugees from other countries must cover flights, medical checks
> 
> The first letter, dated Dec. 1, arrived before Christmas, while the second came just after the holiday. Both were from the government. Zouvik Baghjajian had been living in Canada for nearly five months by then, adjusting to her new life away from Syria.
> ...


----------



## PPCLI Guy (19 Jan 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> But, carry on with your rose coloured glasses. Of course us pulling the fighters in a purely political promise has nothing to do with us not at the big boys table.



Did you read what I wrote?  Any of it?  My glasses are clear, and informed by knowledge of the process, as I have indicated above.


----------



## Brad Sallows (19 Jan 2016)

Maybe ignoring casualties is the way to go.

Suppose it is nearly impossible to improve security without compromising liberty, and vice versa.  Suppose we have a marked preference for liberty.  Then we should be willing to tolerate some casualties as the cost of liberty.

But terror attacks typically have a political purpose (to apply political pressure).  So what?  If terror attacks gain no political traction, attackers may be motivated to try something else.

Hypothesis: if we can maintain a collective ho-hum about casualties among the plebes long enough, the assailants will notice they are getting no attention and start aiming their attacks at the patricians (the ruling classes and intellectuals and whatnot - politicians, executives, prominent media personalities, etc - and their families).  The rest of us can then go about our lives relatively free of anxiety.


----------



## jollyjacktar (19 Jan 2016)

I disagree.  I believe their response to us not paying attention would be to up the ante until we did.  The masses won't give such a shit if they're whacking the 1%, they'll care if they're in the bulls eye.  And panic or response from the masses is what they crave.


----------



## George Wallace (20 Jan 2016)

You can't make this stuff up:


Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.



> Could your past life nix a Senate spot? Liberals appoint hypnotherapist, singer to selection panel
> Glen McGregor, Postmedia News | January 19, 2016 10:05 PM ET
> 
> One of the panelists named by the Liberal government to a board that will select new senators tries to recover the past lives of people she treats using a largely debunked psychological technique.
> ...



More on LINK.


----------



## Remius (20 Jan 2016)

I'm not sure how they selected board members.  Maybe a broad spectrum?  It would be nice to see the full make up of this panel. I suspect her social activism, order or Canada and work in the arts might have been a factor.  But post media never mentioned any of that...

Edit to add: I don't know who heather bishop is.  If I relied on that article alone, she seems to be a bit of an oddball choice.  I had to google her to find the other info on her.  I guess not all media is pro liberal. 

That being said, I'm not even sure what criteria they using to select panel members.  Maybe they want different people from various backgrounds, recognized in their fields and most importantly willing to do the job.    :dunno:


----------



## McG (20 Jan 2016)

CBC has posted the full list along with questions as to how non-partisan the board really is.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberal-senate-advisory-board-1.3410090


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 Jan 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> Unless the Canadian military and or rcmp is sent to guard every hotel, mall, gathering place from london to Shanghai there is little Trudeau can do to keep Canadians safe overseas.
> 
> Especially in places like the Middle East and parts of Africa. So I honestly don't know what dion is going on about.
> 
> If this happened in Toronto Montreal or Vancouver, ya, get angry, spring into action, the works. I honestly don't see how a attack in Africa by a group who from what I'm reading is trying to one up isil warrants the same response. Especially since there is little to nothing we can do about it.



The good ol "there is nothing I can do, why bother even trying" approach.  I favour the 'do what you can, do something, give a fuck about your people' mindset.

I know, nothing the current government does/will do can be 'bad' in your mind.


----------



## Altair (20 Jan 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> The good ol "there is nothing I can do, why bother even trying" approach.  I favour the 'do what you can, do something, give a frig about your people' mindset.
> 
> I know, nothing the current government does/will do can be 'bad' in your mind.


I might get angry on budget day, and I found trudeau to be a hypocrite when he bills taxpayers for nannies.

But on a whole, not too many missteps yet IMHO. Nothing serious anyways.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 Jan 2016)

Hard to misstep when you just don't step at all, no?

6 Canadians were killed, murdered, slaughtered...while doing humanitarian work.  At least _pretend/appear _to be outraged by that.  

Please, despite your dislike for the speaker, I ask you to listen carefully to the message "_this week's events are a grim reminder that Canada is not immune to the types of terrorist attacks we have seen elsewhere around the world_", as this remains true to this very day.

Speech from a national leader

We haven't had a Paris-type event, or one like the most recent ones.  However, let us not forget about things like The Toronto 18 as well as the month of Oct 2014.


----------



## Altair (20 Jan 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Hard to misstep when you just don't step at all, no?
> 
> 6 Canadians were killed, murdered, slaughtered...while doing humanitarian work.  At least _pretend/appear _to be outraged by that.
> 
> ...


Hey, I agree that's the tone and kind of response when something like that happens in Canada,  when Canadians are targeted. Especially service members. 

I might be callous, but I personally feel that when one goes to a dangerous region and gets caught up in regional violence that it's not quite the same thing. Paris is one thing, it's a safe western city, but Burkina Faso doesn't qualify IMHO.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 Jan 2016)

We'll have to agree to disagree then;  I see it in the 'Canadians killed by terrorists' way, regardless of where it happens.


----------



## Altair (20 Jan 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> We'll have to agree to disagree then;  I see it in the 'Canadians killed by terrorists' way, regardless of where it happens.


Let's frame it this way.

Would you care one bit if this attack happened just after the Canadians had left? If no Canadians had died? That's my litmus test.

I cared about Paris, even with no Canadians among the dead. I didn't really care about Beirut which happened around the same time. Judging from.the lack of comments about the Beirut attacks on here, few people did. Now if Canadians just happened to be around the area of Beirut that got attacked, do we suddenly need express extra outrage?

We wouldn't care that a bunch of Africans died in Burkina Faso if those Canadian aid workers weren't in the wrong place at the wrong time and that's my distinction on the issue.


----------



## YZT580 (20 Jan 2016)

So if 6 Canadians were to die in Paris you would be profoundly disturbed by this vile crime of hatred but if six Canadians die in Afghan. or Pakistan while working there trying to help people raise their standards just a little bit well they shouldn't have been there and I am only deeply saddened.  If your thinking is typical of that of the party whose policies you espouse I am profoundly disturbed.  There is no moral compass in those thoughts just convenience and situational ethics.


----------



## Altair (20 Jan 2016)

YZT580 said:
			
		

> So if 6 Canadians were to die in Paris you would be profoundly disturbed by this vile crime of hatred but if six Canadians die in Afghan. or Pakistan while working there trying to help people raise their standards just a little bit well they shouldn't have been there and I am only deeply saddened.  If your thinking is typical of that of the party whose policies you espouse I am profoundly disturbed.  There is no moral compass in those thoughts just convenience and situational ethics.


My thoughts on this are my own, I'm not representing anyone but myself.

But I'll ask you, if those Canadians were at a different location, or just missed the attack, and therefore were not involved, how much would you care that a AQIM attack happened in Burkina Faso?  Where is your moral compass then? Is all human life sacred and equal or are Canadian lives that much more important and special than anybody else's? 

Now I'm not saying that Canadian lives don't matter, don't get me wrong. And if it was the case that these Canadians were singled out then my tune would change. But to be caught up in indiscriminate killing, again, wrong place, wrong time, tragic result.


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Jan 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> Let's frame it this way.
> 
> Would you care one bit if this attack happened just after the Canadians had left? If no Canadians had died? That's my litmus test.
> 
> ...



 :goodpost:  You're quite right. Much, most of this "outrage" is contrived, partisan nonsense. We, Canadians, do not, by and large, care even when Canadians are amongst the victims ... not unless, that is, we can use it to some advantage.


----------



## Good2Golf (20 Jan 2016)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> :goodpost:  You're quite right. Much, most of this "outrage" is contrived, partisan nonsense. We, Canadians, do not, by and large, care even when Canadians are amongst the victims ... not unless, that is, we can use it to some advantage.



We should care, and not just for Canadians.  Today 19 students at Bacha Khan University in Charsadda, Pakistan were killed by the Taliban.  Terrorism targeted against the less fortunate, or against those who would help them, or against those seeking to educate themselves, is a particular blight on mankind, that must be acted against.  The Canadian spirit should be to care for all these people, not just our own, and would be in keeping with our espoused care for, and self-professed sense of responsibility to protect.

G2G


----------



## Altair (20 Jan 2016)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> We should care, and not just for Canadians.  Today 19 students at Bacha Khan University in Charsadda, Pakistan were killed by the Taliban.  Terrorism targeted against the less fortunate, or against those who would help them, or against those seeking to educate themselves, is a particular blight on mankind, that must be acted against.  The Canadian spirit should be to care for all these people, not just our own, and would be in keeping with our espoused care for, and self-professed sense of responsibility to protect.
> 
> G2G


We should. 

We don't. 

These things are just small factoids in our day, noticed, processed, filed away under sad, but it happens. To actively care about every tragic occurance like this would be tiring. Unless a Canadian is involved and suddenly it's a tragic event that requires action at the highest level. 

To me it's cynical, but again,  I might be callous.


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Jan 2016)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> We should care, and not just for Canadians.  Today 19 students at Bacha Khan University in Charsadda, Pakistan were killed by the Taliban.  Terrorism targeted against the less fortunate, or against those who would help them, or against those seeking to educate themselves, is a particular blight on mankind, that must be acted against.  The Canadian spirit should be to care for all these people, not just our own, and would be in keeping with our espoused care for, and self-professed sense of responsibility to protect.
> 
> G2G




Yes, indeed, we_ should_ care, but I still agree with Altair (he's like a broken clock ... but he has to be right twice a day) that the overwhelming majority of Canadians don't care, and the degree to which we don't care rises with skin colour and distance.


----------



## Altair (20 Jan 2016)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Yes, indeed, we_ should_ care, but I still agree with Altair (he's like a broken clock ... but he has to be right twice a day) that the overwhelming majority of Canadians don't care, and the degree to which we don't care rises with skin colour and distance.


Thank you...I think.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 Jan 2016)

Some Canadians do still care, so I won't give up hope yet.

Hopefully our government cares about victims of terror attacks who are Canadians at least as much as I do.  

For the record, is there any undisputed fact known that the shit heads did not specifically target the folks who died including the Canadians?   Seems to me that the victims came from a variety of different countries, so personally I don't discount the possibility they MAY have been targeted vice collateral damage.   :2c:


----------



## Haggis (20 Jan 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> For the record, is there any undisputed fact known that the crap heads did not specifically target the folks who died including the Canadians?   Seems to me that the victims came from a variety of different countries, so personally I don't discount the possibility they MAY have been targeted vice collateral damage.   :2c:



AQIM's claim aside, various outlets reported that westerners were targeted.  It would appear, from those reports at least, that non-westerners were the collateral damage.


----------



## YZT580 (20 Jan 2016)

Those Canadians in Burkina were targeted.  The hotel is the hangout for most of the NGOs  including Canadians.  That is why it was chosen.  Perhaps they didn't know that the Canucks would be there specifically but they certainly knew that there would be some NGO presence.  It is the place where they unwind, share experiences and the like. (much like the sergeant's mess).  And this Canadian does care regardless of nationality.  ISIS and its look-alikes are a festering sore that need to be lanced.  True, we are selective in our actions but that in itself does not reduce the loathing with which we look upon the low-lifes who commit such things.  The previous govt. chose to attach itself to an effort aimed at ISIS in Iraq.  Chretien chose the Taliban in Afghanistan.  Numerous Canadians backed those actions with cash, letters, and in some cases with their own lives.  From a purely selfish standpoint, I don't want to see the headlines about an attack in Toronto so, if by dropping bombs or training Kurds in Iraq I can reduce that possibility then it is a great investment.  At the same time those who say "so what, they shouldn't have been there" are dangerously delusional. "First they came for the Jews, then they came for the Gypsies...you know how it ends.  

Consider this: in the last 6 years, Islamic terror-inspired fundamentalism has spread from a few isolated pockets in the sandbox to several dozen other areas.  It is a global problem.  When do we say "enough"?  It isn't hypocrisy to express revulsion even if I really can't do anything other than that.


----------



## jollyjacktar (20 Jan 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Some Canadians do still care, so I won't give up hope yet.
> 
> Hopefully our government cares about victims of terror attacks who are Canadians at least as much as I do.
> 
> For the record, is there any undisputed fact known that the crap heads did not specifically target the folks who died including the Canadians?   Seems to me that the victims came from a variety of different countries, so personally I don't discount the possibility they MAY have been targeted vice collateral damage.   :2c:



It was reported by survivors elsewhere that the terrorists were specifically targeting white people, they would go back and check to see if they were still moving and if so they were shot until they stopped.  The terrorists were communicating to each other in French and were looking to whack westerners.  So, not just because they were "Canadian" per se, but because they were: white, westerners, non-muslims and "just" there... all good snackbar points for the afterlife.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 Jan 2016)

Altair,

I think you see my point, I found you trying to make fact out of opinion WHT the opinion you have that basically says "wrong place, wrong time, too bad for them" and using that to explain away our PM response, which is being looked at critically by many  as uncaring and in bad taste.

Those 6 Canadians weren't unlucky, they were victims.   How many more have to die before " it matters" to you and the party you blindly support?

Think on that some.


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Jan 2016)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> This is not a NATO meeting - that would have about 20 more attendees.  The grouping matches up to the largest contributors of ground forces who are also conducting air strikes.  Because we are doing advice and assist but not "Building Partner Capacity", we were not on the list.  Australia, Italy and the Dutch are.
> 
> Sorry - no conspiracy here.
> 
> Canada routinely attends meeting that only ground troop providers are invited to.  We are invited to the broader coalition meeting in Brussels on 11 Feb hosted by SECDEF (along with 25 of our closest allies....) because the criteria were expanded to those providing both ground troops and strike aircraft.  A little birdie tells me we will be represented on 2 Feb in Paris anyway.




It doesn't really matter what those pesky little _facts_ might be ... the _perceptions_, fuelled by the media, are:

     1. Canada was "shut out" of an important meeting ~ because Justin Trudeau is pulling the CF-18s, just to keep an ill-considered campaign promise;

     2. Justin Trudeau is either sympathetic to _Da'esh_/IS** or, at least, he has a "tin ear" when it comes to sympathizing with victims of Arab terrorism; and

     3. He's a _pacifist_.

Now I suspect that none of those things are wholly true but I think some (many? even most?) Canadians believe that there is some, maybe a lot of truth in all of them.


----------



## Loachman (20 Jan 2016)

But just wait for War Measures Act II in the near future...


----------



## Altair (20 Jan 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Altair,
> 
> I think you see my point, I found you trying to make fact out of opinion WHT the opinion you have that basically says "wrong place, wrong time, too bad for them" and using that to explain away our PM response, which is being looked at critically by many  as uncaring and in bad taste.
> 
> ...


One. One person has to die. Heck, injured even.

It just matters where. Burkina Faso, again, does not pass my personal care test. Again, I'll ask, even though you avoid the question like the plague. 

If this attack had no Canadians involved in it, would you care? I'm pretty sure the answer is no. Just more senseless violence in Africa would be your probable response. 

As for if these 6 people were targeted for being Canadian,  it appears they were targeted for being white and western, but Canadian?  AQIM is trying to send canada a message? Seriously? I'm sure they didn't care if they were Canadian or Finnish. I'm positive the attack would have gone forward even if the canadians weren't there.

So you just try and think of why this is so important other than the fact 6 Canadians were there. And why 6 Canadians matter more than everyone who dies in foreign lands to terrorists acts.

Till you can answer that (I answered your question) am afraid we will just be talking in circles


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 Jan 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> One. One person has to die. Heck, injured even.



That makes me feel better.



> It just matters where. Burkina Faso, again, does not pass my personal care test. Again, I'll ask, even though you avoid the question like the plague.
> 
> If this attack had no Canadians involved in it, would you care? I'm pretty sure the answer is no. Just more senseless violence in Africa would be your probable response.



The answer, I think, you are looking for is would I care if no Canadians had died.

Simple answer is yes.  I do care myself.  I wish more people DID care about things that don't touch their own small lives directly;  I am sure the world would be a much gentler place.

Do I care MORE because there were Canadian casualties?  I most certainly do.  How could I not?  I am born and breed Canadian, and have served Canada in uniform for almost 27 years.  I would be concerned if someone like me didn't care MORE for his own country men and women, but perhaps I am a little old school compared to people who haven't been alive as long as I have been "in the service".

Comparison;  if there is a car accident back home and 3 people die, but I didn't know them it is tragic and sad and while I feel for the family it would be far worse for me personally if that same thing happened and it was my parents or close friends.  I don't think that makes me or others cold and uncaring, just human.



> As for if these 6 people were targeted for being Canadian,  it appears they were targeted for being white and western, but Canadian?  AQIM is trying to send canada a message? Seriously? I'm sure they didn't care if they were Canadian or Finnish. I'm positive the attack would have gone forward even if the canadians weren't there.



Agree, BUT due to timing...there were Canadians.  Jihadists aren't picky and likely considered it 'luck on their part'! but nonetheless, 6 of our citizens perished.



> So you just try and think of why this is so important other than the fact 6 Canadians were there killed.



I answered the underlined part with the yellow text.



> And why 6 Canadians matter more than everyone who dies in foreign lands to terrorists acts.



I think I answered that;  because I am  , Canadian deaths to terrorists hit closer to home for me.  I am sure if someone from Finland was watching the news and saw 6 Canadians were killed, it would be the same - they would 'feel it more' if it was 6 citizens from their own country.  I also suggest that is entirely normal and human, and wouldn't expect anything different.  



> Till you can answer that (I answered your question) am afraid we will just be talking in circles



It happens on here sometimes.   ;D


To get this sort of back on track...because of the thoughts, info and facts laid out in this part of the thread discussion, my view as a Canadian citizen is I found the response from the PM to be 'lacking' and inadequate, for many of the reasons in a few of the news articles picked up on.  At times like this, our PM speaks for our nation and I, for one, wished the speaking would have been more compassionate.

So there's the tie-back to the thread, on 'the first 100 days'.


----------



## YZT580 (20 Jan 2016)

So you just try and think of why this is so important other than the fact 6 Canadians were there. And why 6 Canadians matter more than everyone who dies in foreign lands to terrorists acts.

Till you can answer that (I answered your question) am afraid we will just be talking in circles
[/quote]

It matters regardless of colour, nationality, religious and sexual preference, height, sex, geographical location or government at the time. If I left out any grouping it was from forgetfulness and not because they don't matter.


----------



## Good2Golf (20 Jan 2016)

Loachman said:
			
		

> But just wait for War Measures Act II in the near future...



"How far do you intend to go?"

"Just watch me.."


----------



## jollyjacktar (20 Jan 2016)

I don't think he's got the balls his father did.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Jan 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I don't think he's got the balls his father did.



That's what I was just thinking. He may of learned politics at his father's knee but he has nowhere near the chutzpah his father had, and I doubt he ever will. I'm still convinced that he's nothing more than a frontman puppet, talking head for the old liebral elitists who are still running things behind the scenes.


----------



## Cloud Cover (20 Jan 2016)

Just a quick point on this issue of attacking white people. Given the rising number of christian converts to Islam, and how many of those are white or European stock, it really doesn't make much sense to base an attack on that signature alone. But,  white people in a hotel in Jakarta+ all sitting together at a table+ from Quebec and probably speaking French + none of whom have a sufficiently jihadi looking beard>> that is likely the signature these types of attacks are based on. 
It is not just skin color, or even nationality- it is race and religion and non-conformity with islam. Thats what makes this a global affair that requires a serious response by the leadership of the citizens of the countries who suffered deaths and causalities.  

It is NOT OK to attack and kill Canadian citizens anywhere in the world, regardless of why they are there, and certainly not acceptable to float the idea of "wrong place wrong time"= "sucks to you, the unlucky person blown into a pink mist."  

And the response we have from the PM is a shallow pout and some PC statements about diversity and tolerance. With respect, that does no good at all. I would be happier if he said nothing but actually did something, anything, that shows balls and retribution.  May his "winter jacket" be old and full of holes, and infested with the fleas from a thousand camels.     

Cheers


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Jan 2016)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Just a quick point on this issue of attacking white people. Given the rising number of christian converts to Islam, and how many of those are white or European stock, it really doesn't make much sense to base an attack on that signature alone. But,  white people in a hotel in Jakarta+ all sitting together at a table+ from Quebec and probably speaking French + none of whom have a sufficiently jihadi looking beard>> that is likely the signature these types of attacks are based on.
> It is not just skin color, or even nationality- it is race and religion and non-conformity with islam. Thats what makes this a global affair that requires a serious response by the leadership of the citizens of the countries who suffered deaths and causalities.
> 
> It is NOT OK to attack and kill Canadian citizens anywhere in the world, regardless of why they are there, and certainly not acceptable to float the idea of "wrong place wrong time"= "sucks to you, the unlucky person blown into a pink mist."
> ...




^^^ This!  :goodpost:


----------



## Journeyman (20 Jan 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> .... we will just be talking in circles


And to think it took only 21 pages for _that_  to kick in.


Altair, you mentioned earlier that you felt people were dismissing you because of your profile.  I've found that _*most*_  people here will weigh your words for what they are.  It is painfully obvious however, that there are people on both sides of ideology who are content to repetitively talk in circles.

I am afraid that maybe you are indirectly correct in that some folks figure you are obligated to refer to your watch when discussing 'time in,' and that perhaps when you have actually spent some time in these 'obscure shit-holes where people have it coming to them for merely being there,' you will have a different world view of peoples' lives.  Who knows.



On that note, I'm back in the <ignore> mode for likely another 20 pages or so.  Enjoy the :deadhorse:


----------



## The Bread Guy (20 Jan 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> That's what I was just thinking. He may of learned politics at his father's knee but he has nowhere near the chutzpah his father had, and I doubt he ever will.


Love or hate/agree or disagree with the old man, PMT Sr. had a vision he could explain - and enforce as needed.


----------



## Loachman (20 Jan 2016)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/where-is-the-pm-when-quebec-needs-him/article28272457/

LYSIANE GAGNON

Where is the PM when Quebec needs him? 

Lysiane Gagnon 

Special to The Globe and Mail

Published Wednesday, Jan. 20, 2016 6:00AM EST 

Last updated Tuesday, Jan. 19, 2016 6:04PM EST 

Terrorism doesn’t fit into Justin Trudeau’s sunny views. The Prime Minister didn’t see fit to join the hundreds of Quebeckers who gathered on Monday to honour the memory of the six Quebeckers killed by Islamist terrorists in Ouagadougou, although the day before he made a point of visiting a mosque in Peterborough, Ont., that had been damaged by arson.

Six humanitarian workers from Lac-Beauport, a suburb of Quebec City, were killed last Friday in Burkina Faso’s capital in attacks claimed by a group known as al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb. The day before, another Quebecker, Tahar Amer-Ouali, was killed in a terrorist attack by the Islamic State in Jakarta. Not since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, have so many Canadians died in terrorist attacks.

Apparently, the Prime Minister’s Office didn’t see the point in changing Mr. Trudeau’s schedule so that he could attend the grieving ceremony in Lac-Beauport on Monday. The least he could have done would have been to express a bit of emotion and anger. “Instead,” wrote La Presse columnist Vincent Marissal, “what we had were a mild condemnation and empty words, and nothing about the government’s plan to fight terrorism.”

Mr. Trudeau reacted to the tragedy that struck home with a feeble, conventional expression of condolences, as if he were a reluctant visitor to a funeral home. In a statement issued Saturday, he said he was “deeply saddened by the senseless acts of violence against innocent civilians,” phrasing that suggests these acts were done randomly by a few mad people with no specific agenda.

Last November, he had the same reaction to the mass killings in Paris. Alone among world leaders – even U.S. President Barack Obama departed from his characteristic phlegm to express his revolt at the attacks and resolve in fighting terrorism – Mr. Trudeau reacted with a brief and spineless expression of condolences that left many observers puzzled.

The Paris attacks were not enough to change his plan to recall Canadian fighter jets from the coalition fighting the Islamic State. He stuck to his candid pacifist stand even as the other members of the coalition were stepping up their military efforts. The result is that Canada has lost its standing among its allies.

Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan was shut out of a high-level strategic meeting between the coalition partners being held Wednesdayin Paris. Even Italy and the Netherlands will be represented, but Canada’s chair will be empty.

The government hasn’t yet announced the plan that is supposed to replace the fighter jets mission, nor did it say how it intends to protect the hundreds of Canadians involved in humanitarian work in Africa (about a dozen Quebec non-governmental organizations are operating in Burkina Faso).

Former prime minister Stephen Harper was too warlike. Now, we have the other extreme: a prime minister who hates conflicts and sees the world through a New Age prism in which everything can be solved with love and understanding. Unfortunately, the country he leads doesn’t live in a dream world.

Maybe Mr. Trudeau’s timidity is also due to the fear of raising anti-Muslim sentiments. But this is a misplaced fear: Canadians are not stupid and they know that the huge majority of Muslims have nothing to do with radical Islam. And Muslims are often the first victims of the murderous groups who reign by terror over large parts of the Middle East and Africa.


----------



## Loachman (20 Jan 2016)

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/01/20/a-steady-economic-hand-but-a-shaky-foreign-grip-for-trudeau-tim-harper.html

A steady economic hand but a shaky foreign grip for Trudeau: Tim Harper

Stay-the-course in troubled economic waters is good, but inaction on foreign files can be costly, Trudeau learns

CHRIS WATTIE / REUTERS file photo 

It’s not as if Justin Trudeau and Finance Minister Bill Morneau are not aware of what has transpired in the 92 days since the Liberals celebrated their majority, writes Tim Harper. 

By:Tim Harper National Affairs, Published on Wed Jan 20 2016

OTTAWA—Maybe it’s because the length of the campaign served Justin Trudeau so well that the prime minister sometimes sounds like he is still campaigning instead of governing.

When it comes to the Canadian economy, this never-ending campaign talk is serving Trudeau, and Canadians, well.

But the same recipe of inaction on our role in an anti-ISIS coalition is costing this government.

This is a government with a strong mandate and four years ahead of it, and despite the initial urgency attached to a long list of campaign promises, it is moving very deliberately, whether on refugees, electoral and Senate reform, national security or foreign policy.

First, the economy.

Trudeau has little choice at the moment but to promote the three-Cs — calm, control and confidence — while all those around him are seemingly running around with their hair on fire.

The opposition demands a meeting. Journalists demand an earlier budget. Editorial boards demand faster, deeper stimulus spending.

Budgets are best delivered when they are ready, not expedited because there is bubbling panic in the land. The prime minister is a communicator and if times are troubled, his message has to be “we have a plan, we’ve got this.”

It’s not as if Trudeau and Finance Minister Bill Morneau are not aware of what has transpired in the 92 days since the Liberals celebrated their majority.

Here’s a reminder.

On the day Trudeau was elected, the Canadian dollar was worth 77.2 cents (U.S.).

Tuesday it traded at 68.6 cents.

A barrel of oil was at $45.89 (U.S.) last Oct. 19. Midday Tuesday it sat at $29.04.

The loonie and oil were at 12-year lows.

On election day, the Toronto Stock Exchange composite index stood at 13,756.81. Tuesday, it opened at 11,942.17.

The International Monetary Fund has downgraded its growth outlook for Canada in 2017.

Perhaps most troubling, the Parliamentary Budget Officer says Canadians now owe $171 for every $100 of disposable income. Household debt is at its highest level in 25 years and we have grown more debt than any other G7 country in the past 15 years. 

Trudeau cannot raise the price of oil or boost Chinese economic growth but by showing alarm or an unseemly urgency — or, perhaps suggesting this is a “buying opportunity” — he could risk making the situation much worse.

“The priority that the Canadian government has is to grow the economy in meaningful ways for middle-class Canadians and for those working hard to join the middle class,’’ he said. “That means putting Canadians to work.’’ 

That is nothing more than campaign boilerplate, but it is a statement from a man who will not be pushed off course.

He and a handful of cabinet ministers are off to Davos, Switzerland with the message that Canada is spending, it is a welcoming environment for investors, and is much more than a resource-based economy. This is the anti-Stephen Harper message. The former prime minister used Davos as a backdrop in 2012 when he called his effort to get crude oil to Asia a “national priority.’’

But a lot has happened on another front in 90 days since the election.

There have been terrorist slaughters in Paris and San Bernardino, Calif. Seven Canadians have been killed in terror attacks.

Our allies are stepping up the fight against Islamic State but the Trudeau government has dithered, not backing away from its pledge to withdraw six CF-18s from the coalition, but offering ever-shifting rationales and timelines, without announcing any commensurate contributions on the ground to counter the perception it is retreating from the fight.

Meanwhile, Canadian planes have flown 2,038 bombing, refuelling and reconnaissance sorties.

Late last week two CF-18 Hornets struck an ISIS fighting position east of Mosul and another pair of CF-18s hit an ISIS fighting position north of Tikrit.

The current mandate for the fighters expires in March, but here the Trudeau government’s deliberations are seen as inaction and 90 days of indecision. That has become costly.

It has cost Ottawa a seat at the table at a Paris meeting of “significant contributors” to the anti-ISIS coalition chaired by U.S. Defence Secretary Ashton Carter.

Snub or not, it is a barometer of where our allies see Canada. Our standing ebbs the longer it takes to make a decision on a training commitment.

A leader can go a long way resisting pressure for a knee jerk response to a discouraging domestic economic ledger. But the Trudeau Liberals are learning the same luxury of time may not exist on the international front.

Tim Harper is a national affairs writer. His column appears Monday, Wednesday and Friday. tharper@thestar.ca twitternutgraf1


----------



## PuckChaser (20 Jan 2016)

Steady economic hand until the $8B a year Child Benefit hits the budget this February.


----------



## jmt18325 (20 Jan 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Steady economic hand until the $8B a year Child Benefit hits the budget this February.



It doesn't cost an additional $8B per year.


----------



## Loachman (20 Jan 2016)

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/john-ivison-how-can-the-liberals-leave-others-to-defend-our-national-security

John Ivison: How can the Liberals leave others to defend our national security?

John Ivison | January 19, 2016 7:35 PM ET

Tyler Anderson / National PostOne of the reasons advanced by Justin Trudeau for not supporting military action was that the previous war in Iraq in 2003 was justified by faulty intelligence.

Tuesday, October 7, 2014 will go down as a day of ignominy for the Liberal Party of Canada.

For crass electoral reasons, the party voted that day against the Conservative motion to send CF-18 fighters to join the coalition arranged against the barbarians of the Islamic State, the militant group who, at the time, were knocking at the gates of Baghdad.

Calculating that the war would become unpopular, particularly in Quebec, the Trudeau Liberals locked themselves into a position advocating a “military role of a non-combat nature.”

That they still haven’t found a face-saving way to fix that blunder is now Canada’s disgrace.

Camille Carrier, the mother of Maude Carrier, who was killed in a terror attack by Islamic fundamentalists in Burkina Faso on Friday, said she is ashamed of Canada. “I have plenty of friends in France who are ashamed of us,” she said, as she called for military action against jihadist forces.

One of the reasons advanced by Justin Trudeau for not supporting military action was that the previous war in Iraq in 2003 was justified by faulty intelligence. “The world is still living daily with the consequences of that mistake,” he said.

But the French, who strongly opposed George W. Bush’s cavalier interventionism 13 years ago, are in the vanguard of the fight against ISIL.

The Trudeau government has been able to maintain the pretence that our allies are not upset with us over its decision to withdraw the CF-18s from the fight.

Diplomatic niceties have persuaded countries like France and the U.S. that embarrassing the new government overtly will not profit them.

But comments last week by Ash Carter, the U.S. secretary of defence, appear aimed squarely at Ottawa.

“Any nation that cares about the safety of its people or the future of its civilization must know this - America will continue to lead the fight but there can be no free riders,” he said in remarks to the 101st Airborne Division at Fort Campbell, Ky. “Many nations are already contributing greatly. Many can do more.”

This week he will meet with the defence ministers of nations with a “significant stake” in accelerating the efforts against ISIL — France, Australia, German, Italy, the U.K. and The Netherlands.

No mention of Canada. Because Canada has given the impression it does not take the jihadist threat seriously, the countries that do have decided they will not take Canada seriously.

Harjit Sajjan, the new defence minister, is a serious man who was still just a candidate for parliament when the Liberals decided to oppose the deployment. He tried to downplay the snub Tuesday, saying it doesn’t put Canada on the outside.

But he knows he is putting a brave face on a situation he would have found humiliating as a soldier.

When the decision to deploy was made, the goal was containment. Stephen Harper said the mission was aimed at “degrading” ISIL’s capabilities and halt its spread in the region.

Carter made clear that ambition has now grown to “destroying the ISIL parent tumour in Iraq and Syria” and then crushing its ability to fight elsewhere in the world.

He said he has now personally reached out to the defence ministers of 40 countries to ask them to “step up” and contribute more to the fight.


It’s still not clear what Canada’s response will be. Sajjan said last week he is still assessing that role after a Christmas visit to Iraq
. 
It’s still not clear what Canada’s response will be. Sajjan said last week he is still assessing that role after a Christmas visit to Iraq.

But it seems whatever we do, we will cling to the notion of a military, non-combat role.

This, despite the unprovoked attack last week by jihadist zealots that left six Canadians dead for the crime of building a school in Burkina Faso.

This, despite a UN Security Council resolution that calls for members to “take all necessary measures” to prevent and suppress terrorist acts committed by ISIL.

This, despite this country’s proud record in Afghanistan and beyond in defence of human rights and justice.

We know that more attacks are being planned, here and abroad, whether we fight back or not.

Which raises the question posed by Hilary Benn, the British Labour Party’s foreign affairs critic, in a blistering speech in the House of Commons: “Can we really leave to others the responsibility to defend our national security?”

The question should be put squarely to the new prime minister - the leader of the party that advocated “responsibility to protect” - at the first opportunity. And the answer received, should be a resolute “No - we will not take a free ride.”

One of the comments:

Jackson Lively

The concept of Muslim immigration began with Islam’s prophet. Soon after Muhammad arrived to Yathrib (Medina) together with his close friend and father of his wife Aisha, Abu Bakr, they were joined by a ring of other friends and followers, known in Islamic history as “Companions.” They formed in Medina the first body of Muslim immigrants in history and very soon changed the face of Medina, making it the city of the victorious Islam. Immigration transformed Muslims from weak and scattered groups of individuals loyal to their religious leader, into a consolidated army, then a united community and finally, into a socio-religious political state. If Muhammad and his group had never immigrated to Yathrib in 622 AD, there would never have been any Islamic social, economic and political expansion.

Muslims learned and remembered this lesson, and since then the concept of Hijrah- Immigration- as a means of supplanting the native population and reaching the position of power became a well-developed doctrine in Islam. Immigration in Islam is not a Western liberal romance about how the newcomers gratefully search for opportunities for a better life in liberty and offer their talents and loyalty to the benefit of their new homeland. Immigration as Islam sees it is an instrument of Islamic expansionism that employs religious and ethnic separatism in order to gain special status and privilege, then subvert, subdue, and subjugate non-Muslim societies and pave the way for their total Islamization and implementation of Shari’ah law.

It´s not “immigration”, it´s not “refugees”; it´s an INVASION. And Saudi Arabia, a bastion of Islam, is organizing, financing and supporting it.


----------



## PuckChaser (20 Jan 2016)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> It doesn't cost an additional $8B per year.



I'm a median income Canadian at $75,000 household income, and I have 3 kids. Trudeau will pay me $1000, tax free a month. If there's 500,000 families like me (very plausible), that's $6B a year alone. Not to mention all the lower income Canadians with large families who will get a whole lot more.

Tell me again how my math is off.

Edit: Here's an idea on how many families with children there are in Canada: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/famil50a-eng.htm As a summary, there's over 5 million.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Jan 2016)

Found a vid of our government's policies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRC4Vk6kisY


----------



## jmt18325 (20 Jan 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Tell me again how my math is off.



It replaces all the current child benefit programs (UCCB, CCTB, and Income Splitting).  It's supposed to be a net increase of about $2B per year.


----------



## daftandbarmy (20 Jan 2016)

Loachman said:
			
		

> http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/john-ivison-how-can-the-liberals-leave-others-to-defend-our-national-security
> 
> John Ivison: How can the Liberals leave others to defend our national security?
> 
> ...



Just wondering: does this guy write for 'The Donald'?


----------



## PuckChaser (20 Jan 2016)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> It replaces all the current child benefit programs (UCCB, CCTB, and Income Splitting).  It's supposed to be a net increase of about $2B per year.



I make $330 a month taxed, so $247.50 after tax (25%) for UCCB and CCTB. Income Splitting gives me ~$1800 a year. That's $4770 out of my $12,000, or a total of $3,615,000 a year for 500,000 families in my situation. Your Liberal math is off by $1.6B, as was it for the "revenue neutral" middle class tax cut that cost us ~$2B a year.


----------



## jmt18325 (20 Jan 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I make $330 a month taxed, so $247.50 after tax (25%) for UCCB and CCTB. Income Splitting gives me ~$1800 a year. That's $4770 out of my $12,000, or a total of $3,615,000 a year for 500,000 families in my situation. Your Liberal math is off by $1.6B, as was it for the "revenue neutral" middle class tax cut that cost us ~$2B a year.



First of all, the CCTB isn't taxed.  Second.  The UCCB is given to families that make over $150K per year.  Under the new program, they'll get nothing.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Jan 2016)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> It replaces all the current child benefit programs (UCCB, CCTB, and Income Splitting).  It's supposed to be a net increase of about $2B per year.



Just like taxing the upper class is cost neutral. Oh wait.........


----------



## PuckChaser (20 Jan 2016)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> First of all, the CCTB isn't taxed.  Second.  The UCCB is given to families that make over $150K per year.  Under the new program, they'll get nothing.



Page 5 of this document: https://www.liberal.ca/files/2015/05/Fairness-for-the-Middle-Class.pdf

People will still get money until they hit $190k under 6, $160k over 6. Its ok though, as with all Liberal promises, its written in sand in a windstorm. We'll be lucky to see any money.


----------



## Altair (20 Jan 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Page 5 of this document: https://www.liberal.ca/files/2015/05/Fairness-for-the-Middle-Class.pdf
> 
> People will still get money until they hit $190k under 6, $160k over 6. Its ok though, as with all Liberal promises, its written in sand in a windstorm. We'll be lucky to see any money.


If you do get it I hope you stop complaining and enjoy it .


----------



## PuckChaser (20 Jan 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> If you do get it I hope you stop complaining and enjoy it .



I like money. Its my money the Liberals are giving back to me, which is a good thing. Its also going to put me near sunshine list territory. What I'm concerned with, is that this attempt to buy votes (Harper was accused of the same thing with income splitting and UCCB boost), in such poor economic times, will massively increase the debtload for decades to come. You're also never going to be able to turn it off, because people are entitled to their entitlements.

I'd be willing to just keep my UCCB and income splitting if it meant fiscal prudence during a downturn in the economy. If that's complaining, you really need to rethink your definition. In fact, I'm already planning on building a deck, upgrading my kitchen, and paying off my debt to give myself a better fiscal outlook in the future. The Liberals might want to learn a lesson from that.


----------



## Brad Sallows (20 Jan 2016)

>Trudeau has little choice at the moment but to promote the three-Cs — calm, control and confidence — while all those around him are seemingly running around with their hair on fire.

Amazing what a change of party can do to the press.  My recollection is that the Harper government was subjected to a lot of pressure to "do something" whenever economic stats were trending unfavourably, and when they tried the "3C" talk, they were attacked for it.


----------



## Remius (21 Jan 2016)

So now that we are more or less at the 100 day mark (give or take a few days), I guess I can sum up those 100 days as this:

*NOTHING SUBSTANTIVE*

Now, it isn't a criticism per se as i was expecting a certain degree of handover issues and getting their bearings and all, however we are living in unstable times.  And by no means do I think that the CPC would managing this any better but the LPC is currently governing.

On the Economy:  This, to me is the real test.  Until we see a budget it will be hard to gauge.

But so far, the only real changes are cosmetic and superficial.  The real test is starting now.  With the next 4 years.  

As far as i am concerned the grace period is now over.


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Jan 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> So now that we are more or less at the 100 day mark (give or take a few days), I guess I can sum up those 100 days as this:
> 
> *NOTHING SUBSTANTIVE*
> 
> ...




Sorry, but you're jumping the gun a bit. It's been three month, and a day, since Prime Minister Justin Trudeau won the election but up to and including 3 Nov 15 Stephen Harper remained prime minister. Prime Minister Trudeau was not sworn in, did not take office until 4 Nov 15 ... his 100th day will be on 5 Feb 16.


----------



## Remius (21 Jan 2016)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Sorry, but you're jumping the gun a bit. It's been three month, and a day, since Prime Minister Justin Trudeau won the election but up to and including 3 Nov 15 Stephen Harper remained prime minister. Prime Minister Trudeau was not sworn in, did not take office until 4 Nov 15 ... his 100th day will be on 5 Feb 16.



Correct.  I forgot to factor that in.  So in about two weeks then.  I suspect that my opinion will not have changed by then unless something substantial happens.


----------



## PuckChaser (21 Jan 2016)

I wouldn't say nothing substantial will happen, but I think the summary will likely be "they over promised, and under delivered".


----------



## Loachman (21 Jan 2016)

http://www.winnipegsun.com/2016/01/20/trudeau-davos-and-7-cauliflower

Trudeau, Davos and $7 cauliflower  

By Mark Bonokoski, Postmedia Network  

First posted:  Wednesday, January 20, 2016 05:06 PM CST  | Updated:  Wednesday, January 20, 2016 05:11 PM CST  

OTTAWA – The lowly cauliflower, which will likely make no appearance on any crudité tray when Prime Minister Justin Trudeau again meets with the super-rich and powerful in Davos today, began trending last week on social media.

In a matter of hours, it became a tangible indicator of just how far the Canadian loonie has fallen, aided and abetted by a barrel of oil that is hovering south of $30.

Suddenly the cauliflower, almost inedible to kids unless slathered in the melted particulates of Cheez Whiz, was experiencing the feeling that comes with star power.

Chances are slim, however, that it will be used as a symbol of our dire fiscal circumstances at the World Economic Forum in Switzerland where the PM, other international leaders and the super elites of business, are more likely dipping into bowls of caviar than pulling a cauliflower floret off a tray of veggies from the Davos equivalent of Loblaws.

This rise to celebrity status began, for historical reference, after Melissa Lantsman, former director of communications for Harper finance minister Joe Oliver, posted on her Facebook page a picture of a display of cauliflower that was selling for $6.99 a head, and then wrote, “Ludicrous. This is the price of cauliflower in Justin Trudeau’s Canada.”

This, naturally, did not go unnoticed by the media types who mine Facebook and Twitter for such nuggets.

The very next day, in fact, the National Post’s John Ivison led off his column thusly, “Justin Trudeau pronounced himself ‘tremendously optimistic’ about the Canadian economy.

“(But),” added Ivison, “he obviously hasn’t paid $7 for a bloody cauliflower in recent days.”

This, of course, is entirely relatable to the average Canadian. One cannot easily wrap the mind around $300 billion provincial debts, or the running of multi-billion dollar federal deficits, but the average Canadian can relate, for example, to the squandering of $16 for a glass of orange juice that one-time Conservative cabinet minister Bev Oda once audaciously billed to taxpayers.

Or the gall of Senator Nancy Ruth, born of privilege, publicly admitting her unwillingness to put up with the breakfast fare of “ice-cold Camembert and broken crackers” served to her on taxpayer-paid flights.

Yes, it is these small things that are easily understood by the average Canadian, like a shoelace snapping with no time left, as so brilliantly put by beat poet Charles Bukowski.

Or the $7 cauliflower that Melissa Lantsman posted on her Facebook page.

As symbolism goes, it was tough to beat, which is why it was snapped by columnists and cartoonists alike to illustrate how the 68-cent loonie is driving up the price of any and all imported food to the point that it is, well, “ludicrous.”

Few things, after all, are more basic than a cauliflower, a baseborn vegetable which was selling for $1.99 only three months ago.

Damn you, Justin Trudeau!

What is needed, of course, but what we are not getting, is an economic single-mindedness coming out of this new Liberal government, complete with the hands-on involvement of an all-party finance committee and the accelerated delivery of Finance Minister Bill Morneau’s first budget.

Nothing will come out of more global gallivanting, or from the luxury of Davos, that will assist with the immediacy of a Canada’s economic malaise.

The price of cauliflower speaks to that.

That, and the fact that the actual barrel our oil is sold in costs only slightly less than the oil that’s in it.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (21 Jan 2016)

I am no fan of the Liberals, but I cannot blame the global price of oil on them or the CPC. There is a limited amount of ability to do anything other than ride it out. Oil will recover somewhat, but it will be a long time before another boom. Hopefully 2 of the 9+ LNG terminals on the west coast get built, that will help the west. Forestry should be doing better, but that is dependent on the US housing market. The question is will the dollar remain low long enough to push manufacturing back up here and will there be enough demand for those products to make such a move worthwhile.


----------



## a_majoor (21 Jan 2016)

Sadly, even a .30 dollar sin't going to help Canadian manufacturing, since the Liberals have spent the last decade hollowing out the sector in Ontario with high energy prices, ridiculous regulation and massive tax hikes. Even counting on servicing the oil patch with manufactured goods and services is no longer an option, the Alberta NDP has made it clear their long term goal is to dismantle the "Alberta Advantage" (but before they get all the blame, we also need to remember that after Ralph Klein, the Alberta PC party elected leaders who ran the province as Liberals based on their policy choices).

The only realistic policy choice that has a chance of succeeding is to eliminate regulatory and tax barriers to increased productivity, in order to increase the available pool of wealth. Crony capitalism, running debts to funnel money to your friends and raising taxes on the general population all count as "fail", so far as that is concerned.

But we knew this even before the election, didn't we.....


----------



## Kirkhill (21 Jan 2016)

Michael Den Tandt "takes a breath".

And thanks to Mercedes Stephenson for highlighting this.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/michael-den-tandt-its-not-okay-that-canadas-stepping-back-from-the-war-between-civilization-and-a-program-of-genocide-slavery-and-mass-rape


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Jan 2016)

The "withdraw the CF-18s from combat" decision, which resulted, directly, from a televised quip about how Prime Minister Harper was going to just "whip out our CF-18s and show them how big they are" is coming back to haunt Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, along with what seems, to me, to be a bad case of political 'tine deafness" when it comes to Canadians killed by terrorists.

The media criticised him for the initial taunt back in Oct 14 and it was more critical during the 2015 campaign when Prime Minister Trudeau "doubled down," as I guess he probably had to do, politically, and turned the quip into a promise. Now the media, even the Toronto Star, can smell "blood in the water" and the journalists are circling, like sharks, ready to take a bite out of Prime Minister Trudeau's political credibility. 

It's not that the media is anti-Trudeau, it is, mostly, just trying to hold political feet to the fire ... even when the feet belong to a media darling.

The fact is that Prime Minister Trudeau put himself in this pickle and no one is going to help him out.


----------



## Kirkhill (21 Jan 2016)

It may be deeper than that ERC.

Trudeau's fans spent years thumping the Scary Harper tub and arguing that he was needlessly creating fear by presenting the world as a scary place.  

They don't want to believe that. Trudeau, I don't think, wants to believe that.

I think he will do everything in his power to prevent giving any credence to the notion that Harper might have been right.

It is just too scary.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (21 Jan 2016)

As I have told friends during the holiday season:

A Canadian school teacher has the right to tell his students that there are no monsters under the bed.

And a school teacher that becomes leader of a third party has the right to tell his constituency that there are no monsters under the bed.

But if that leader happens to become Prime Minister of all Canadians and responsible for their safety, he doesn't have the right, after being briefed, to personally continue to believe the fallacy that there are no monsters under the bed, and act accordingly.

Too much is at stake for him to put his personal belief before the safety of the nation.


----------



## jmt18325 (21 Jan 2016)

Despite media sensationalism, you're probably safer than you've ever been.


----------



## Kat Stevens (21 Jan 2016)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Despite media sensationalism, you're probably safer than you've ever been.



Oh, you really need to spell this one out for me.


----------



## PuckChaser (21 Jan 2016)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Despite media sensationalism, you're probably safer than you've ever been.



Thanks to Justin, no doubt.


----------



## Jarnhamar (21 Jan 2016)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Despite media sensationalism, you're probably safer than you've ever been.



Are you accessing army.ca via some kind of high powered internet signal booster from another plant?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Jan 2016)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Despite media sensationalism, you're probably safer than you've ever been.



I'll call bullshit on that one until you convince me otherwise.


----------



## jollyjacktar (21 Jan 2016)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Despite media sensationalism, you're probably safer than you've ever been.



I'll join in the skepticism party as well.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (21 Jan 2016)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Despite media sensationalism, you're probably safer than you've ever been.



He is quite right actually.

Before my retirement from the CF, I had to go to places and do things that were a lot more dangerous than siting here at my computer nowadays ... And you really don't want to know what I did in my youth before the CF - Trust me on that  :nod:


----------



## jmt18325 (21 Jan 2016)

People live longer lives than...well...ever.

The population is larger than...well...ever.

There is less war in the world than at almost point in history (despite ongoing conflicts).

Your chance of being killed by terrorists is smaller than your chance of being hit by lightning.  

Your chance of dying due to disease is steadily decreasing.  

There are certainly challenges - the mentioned terrorism, future outbreaks of disease, zombies, etc.  Still, I stand by my assertion.


----------



## jmt18325 (21 Jan 2016)

It seems there's even data to back that up:

http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-10-23/world-actually-safer-ever-and-heres-data-prove


----------



## PuckChaser (21 Jan 2016)

Clearly we need to disband the CAF then, no need for us and the police since its so safe.


----------



## Brad Sallows (21 Jan 2016)

With respect to the little things, we are probably "safer than ever".

With respect to non-human-induced dinosaur-killing events, we are probably at the same risk as ever.

With respect to human-induced dinosaur-killing events, the risk increases as technology advances.

And as we become ever more dependent on advanced technology and forget how to do basic things with basic tools, we become more fragile.


----------



## jmt18325 (21 Jan 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Clearly we need to disband the CAF then, no need for us and the police since its so safe.



I'm a proponent of spending more on defence, though I'm not of the opinion that another world wide conflict is in the near to medium term.  I believe in being prepared.


----------



## jmt18325 (21 Jan 2016)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> With respect to the little things, we are probably "safer than ever".



If, by little things, you mean disease, starvation, homicide, and conflict, yes.


----------



## jmt18325 (21 Jan 2016)

One thing I should say - the risk of dying from terrorism is higher than in the past - but is still infinitesimal.


----------



## PuckChaser (21 Jan 2016)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I'm a proponent of spending more on defence, though I'm not of the opinion that another world wide conflict is in the near to medium term.  I believe in being prepared.



We're not going to see a world conflict, the stakes are too high. If you feel so safe, I've got a couple countries you should spend a few days in, with a big Canadian flag on your backpack. There's also 6 Quebecers, and 2 CAF members who would disagree with your assertion, if they were alive to do so.


----------



## Brad Sallows (21 Jan 2016)

So far in the "100 days", most of the achievements are essentially PR.

Organizations and assemblies and meetings and whatnot can be divided into the ones where decisions are made, and the ones which are essentially photo-ops.

One of my impressions of Harper is that he could not be bothered to attend most of the useless fora, which is why we didn't see a lot of first ministers meetings, or stellar attendance and involvement at the UN.

But there is a faction in Canada to which appearances really, really matter.  This is their time.


----------



## jmt18325 (21 Jan 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> We're not going to see a world conflict, the stakes are too high. If you feel so safe, I've got a couple countries you should spend a few days in, with a big Canadian flag on your backpack. There's also 6 Quebecers, and 2 CAF members who would disagree with your assertion, if they were alive to do so.



Those are anecdotes and are of little value in a conversation like this - the post before mine is right though, this is supposed to be about Trudeau, so I'll desist.


----------



## jmt18325 (21 Jan 2016)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> So far in the "100 days", most of the achievements are essentially PR.



According to Trudeaumetre.ca, he has broken 3 promises and kept 12.  That deals with over 5% of his 4 year agenda.  That's far from the nothing people are making it out to be.


----------



## PuckChaser (21 Jan 2016)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> According to Trudeaumetre.ca, he has broken 3 promises and kept 12.  That deals with over 5% of his 4 year agenda.  That's far from the nothing people are making it out to be.



We've gone over that site before, and they list "not using prorogation" as achieved, even though he still has plenty of time to do it. The assumption is he won't, but people assumed his tax cut was revenue neutral too.


----------



## Brad Sallows (21 Jan 2016)

Nothing done yet involved any heavy lifting.


----------



## jmt18325 (21 Jan 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> We've gone over that site before, and they list "not using prorogation" as achieved, even though he still has plenty of time to do it. The assumption is he won't, but people assumed his tax cut was revenue neutral too.



The justification on the website is sound.  Until he uses it, it's achieved, and will switch to broken if and when that happens.  The same goes for the broken declaration for the F-18 pullout.


----------



## PuckChaser (21 Jan 2016)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> The justification on the website is sound.  Until he uses it, it's achieved, and will switch to broken if and when that happens.  The same goes for the broken declaration for the F-18 pullout.



Its sound justification if you want to see him complete more things. Its more appropriate that in that particular case, it be listed as "in progress".


----------



## jmt18325 (21 Jan 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Its sound justification if you want to see him complete more things. Its more appropriate that in that particular case, it be listed as "in progress".



I suppose it's a matter of opinion.  Really, that and the fighter jet promise cancel each other out.


----------



## PuckChaser (21 Jan 2016)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I suppose it's a matter of opinion.  Really, that and the fighter jet promise cancel each other out.



Which fighter jet one? The one where they said they would end the "combat" mission in Iraq that's still running 3 months later? Or the one where they said they would not purchase the F-35, but they will not exclude it from the process (meaning we get nothing if they keep that promise if/when it wins)?


----------



## jmt18325 (21 Jan 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Which fighter jet one? The one where they said they would end the "combat" mission in Iraq that's still running 3 months later?



That would be the one.  The promised to end the mission.  They have not at this time.  When they do (provided they don't extend it beyond the end of March) I'd expect that promise to flip.


----------



## PuckChaser (21 Jan 2016)

Ending the combat mission and not renewing it are 2 different things. They led the electorate to believe it would be immediate, and then reassess what else we could do. Instead, they dropped the ball. Those pilots and aircrews could have been home for Christmas had Trudeau really wanted to end it.


----------



## jmt18325 (21 Jan 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Ending the combat mission and not renewing it are 2 different things. They led the electorate to believe it would be immediate, and then reassess what else we could do. Instead, they dropped the ball. Those pilots and aircrews could have been home for Christmas had Trudeau really wanted to end it.



They could have been.  Of course, I'm almost positive that we were asked to stay until the end of our term or until a replacement could be found (Denmark, for example).


----------



## PuckChaser (21 Jan 2016)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Of course, I'm almost positive that we were asked to stay until the end of our term or until a replacement could be found (Denmark, for example).



They had nothing to lose and everything to gain by making a statement to that affect in the media. They didn't, so they likely weren't asked.


----------



## jmt18325 (22 Jan 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> They had nothing to lose and everything to gain by making a statement to that affect in the media. They didn't, so they likely weren't asked.



I find it unlikely that we'd still be there, if not for some type of obligation.  They have in fact repeated over and over again that the jets will be removed, 'responsibly', in consultation with our allies.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (22 Jan 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Which fighter jet one? The one where they said they would end the "combat" mission in Iraq that's still running 3 months later? Or the one where they said they would not purchase the F-35, but they will not exclude it from the process (meaning we get nothing if they keep that promise if/when it wins)?



Despite what the average person thinks, pulling out the CF-18s will not end the 'combat mission'.  It just won't be Canadian fighters and pilots hitting the 'release' switch.

Not that the actual bits and pieces (facts?) matter, rather just the appearance of them.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (22 Jan 2016)

I realize this was (partially) posted already 1 page ago, or the link to it was.  I thought it was worth posting the entire story.

Article Link

Michael Den Tandt: Why Canada must not step back from the war between civilization and a program of genocide, slavery and mass rape

“Take a breath,” said the guy on Twitter, in answer to something I wrote about the logical vacuum at the heart of the Liberal government’s Iraq policy. Apparently Canada’s stepping delicately back from the war between civilization and an aggressively expansionist program of genocide, slavery and mass rape should not cause undue alarm. It’s all happening so very far away, after all.

But I took the guy’s advice — long enough to remember the time, in the aftermath of the murder of Canadian diplomat Glyn Berry in Kandahar City, that I saw the effect of a mass-casualty suicide bombing up close.

It was a Tuesday in early February, 2006. The attack — which had killed Berry, cost Master Cpl. Paul Franklin his legs and seriously injured Pte. William Salikin and Cpl. Jeffrey Bailey — had occurred three weeks earlier. I had been in Kandahar two weeks, as a correspondent for the other national newspaper, and was very much a newbie. I had intended to spend that afternoon sorting my files and taking a break.

The call from my fixer, Jawed “Jojo” Yazamy — who would be gunned down in downtown Kandahar City in broad daylight, three years later, aged 23 — came late afternoon, with a couple hours of daylight left. A suicide bomber on a motorbike had crashed into the front gate of the police station and blown himself up. There were many dead and injured. Despite the late hour — there was no guarantee we’d be let back inside Kandahar Airfield if we returned after dark — we decided to go. Off we went down Highway One, me and two journalists from CTV, with Jojo at the wheel of his Toyota Land Cruiser, driving expertly and very fast, as he always did.  

The bomber had attacked a crowd of job applicants — teenaged boys mostly, who were seeking work as police officers. If successful they’d have earned about $13 a month, to start. Thirteen were killed in the initial explosion, which was so powerful it knocked the police station’s iron gates off their hinges. The injured had been taken to Kandahar’s Mirwais Hospital.

As we pulled up to the hospital a group of Afghan civilians were carting a big man’s body down the pale concrete steps, which were liberally stained with blood, as though it were an extra-large sack of cement. Rigor had set in and the body, still clothed, was covered in fine white dust. I remember thinking the dead man looked stiff, like Herman Munster, and also wondering if his death might be unrelated to the bombing because he seemed so clean.

We rushed through the front doors into the main lobby, where a tired-looking middle-aged man in a white coat waved us towards a stairwell offhandedly, as though such occurrences were routine, and it were no big deal for Western journalists to barge into his desperately under-equipped hospital as it coped with a mass-casualty bombing. Up we went to the burn ward.

There they lay, three survivors, every inch of their bodies except the whites of their eyes charred black with third-degree burns. They rested on filthy cots, too agonized to make a sound, their arms outstretched as though frozen in place by the burning. I could see they were alive, because they blinked. The smell of their burned flesh filled the room and the hallway outside. Their relatives milled nearby, some weeping, others smoking. We got the details we needed and quickly left.

I could not stop thinking, as we raced back towards KAF, that someone had done this to these boys deliberately — had conceived, planned and executed it with such ferocity and zealotry that they were happy to die themselves in the act. The story I wrote that night was trimmed for length and buried in the next day’s back pages. No Western troops had died, making this attack of secondary news value. Just like, one can’t help but remark, the slaughter of fellow Muslims by the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant.

Of course, ISIL is not the Taliban of a decade ago. As I’ve argued previously, it’s worse. Unlike the Taliban, who were content to massacre their own, ISIL is an exporter. “Caliph” Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi’s claim to legitimacy, within the addled confines of radical Islamist dogma, rests on his holding territory. He will continue exporting death and maiming, it stands to reason, until ISIL is destroyed and its territory taken away.

The current best effort to achieve this, led by dovish U.S. president Barack Obama, is by Western air power in support of local ground troops. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau can struggle, as he did again Wednesday in Davos, to explain why the as-yet-undefined expanded training mission is more within the scope of Canadian capability than flying bombing runs that protect Canadian allies. He can struggle, but he can’t succeed — because the policy makes no sense. Breath taken.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (22 Jan 2016)

Putting here this little gem of last night from the Bard from the Rock seems appropriate. I thought he was bang-on:

http://www.cbc.ca/player/play/2682364522


----------



## George Wallace (22 Jan 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Putting here this little gem of last night from the Bard from the Rock seems appropriate. I thought he was bang-on:
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/player/play/2682364522



Yes.   Rarer than the unicorns.


----------



## Jed (22 Jan 2016)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> People live longer lives than...well...ever.
> 
> The population is larger than...well...ever.
> 
> ...



Yep, true.  I guess we should all sit back and let sh!t happen.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (22 Jan 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Ending the combat mission and not renewing it are 2 different things. They led the electorate to believe it would be immediate, and then reassess what else we could do. Instead, they dropped the ball. Those pilots and aircrews could have been home for Christmas had Trudeau really wanted to end it.



Well had the pilots declared themselves refugees, they be back home by now


----------



## Good2Golf (22 Jan 2016)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Well had the pilots declared themselves refugees, they be back home by now



Actually, 40% of them would be.


----------



## Remius (22 Jan 2016)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> According to Trudeaumetre.ca, he has broken 3 promises and kept 12.  That deals with over 5% of his 4 year agenda.  That's far from the nothing people are making it out to be.



Most of those things are low hanging fruit.

To be fair,  I am not saying that he has done nothing.  Just nothing of real substance yet.  And also to be fair, I don't expect it of them in their first 100 days. The real test comes with the budget and crafting real legislation.  The Right To Die Legislation will likely be the first real substantive change they make.  how they craft that legislation will be important as it will affect our social fabric immensly and for generations to come. 

I also don't think they've done anything terribly wrong yet either.


----------



## quadrapiper (22 Jan 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> To be fair,  I am not saying that he has done nothing.  Just nothing of real substance yet.  And also to be fair, I don't expect it of them in their first 100 days. The real test comes with the budget and crafting real legislation.  The Right To Die Legislation will likely be the first real substantive change they make.  how they craft that legislation will be important as it will affect our social fabric immensely and for generations to come.


That there's nothing substantial happening yet is in some ways encouraging - between the differences in style of governance, rather a lot of novice ministers, and plenty of "leftover" substantial issues, I'd be more worried if, within the first few months, anything but the most time-sensitive issues were addressed. 


			
				Remius said:
			
		

> I also don't think they've done anything terribly wrong yet either.


Agreed.


----------



## George Wallace (22 Jan 2016)

Well.....I find it rather odd that he is preaching "Gender Equality" at Davos, yet has been ignoring it at home in Canada everytime he does photo ops in mosques.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (22 Jan 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Well.....I find it rather odd that he is preaching "Gender Equality" at Davos, yet has been ignoring it at home in Canada everytime he does photo ops in mosques.



.....or with the female Catholic Priests.   No, wait......


----------



## Jarnhamar (22 Jan 2016)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/burkina-faso-relative-trudeau-1.3414819



> Justin Trudeau phone call prompts husband of Burkina Faso victim to hang up
> Husband of Maude Carrier says Quebec premier Couillard handled situation better


----------



## PPCLI Guy (22 Jan 2016)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> .....or with the female Catholic Priests.   No, wait......



 :bowdown:


----------



## cavalryman (22 Jan 2016)

This is what my Scrabble app threw up this afternoon.  Should I take this as a message from above/beyond/below?


----------



## rmc_wannabe (22 Jan 2016)

cavalryman said:
			
		

> This is what my Scrabble app threw up this afternoon.  Should I take this as a message from above/beyond/below?



Exchange all seven tiles. Only chance you'll get for the next five years


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Jan 2016)

I mentioned it before ~ a certain "tone deafness," regarding Canadian victims. Now, according to Andrew Coyne in the _National Post__, he's displayed it again: this time an unnecessary, ill mannered "cheap shot" at his predecessor and a misstatement (misunderstanding?) of the nature of Canada's economy.

As we hover around the 85/100 day mark I find that my old, old assessment of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau remains: he lacks "bottom," as the Brits call it. Lack of bottom is more than just too little social or intellectual gravitas, it's the whole package, the man and his judgement, that is weak. 

He's nice, he's handsome, he has a charming wife and family, a brilliant smile and great hair, he's charismatic ... he's a bona fide celebrity, but does that make him ready to lead a G7 country in difficult times? No, not in my estimation.

I'm sorry, 40% of Canadian voters ... you fell for one of the oldest sales tricks in the book, you bought the sizzle, not the steak.

                         
	

	
	
		
		

		
			



_


----------



## jollyjacktar (23 Jan 2016)

A good analysis from Terry Milewski who is critical of the PM's performance, but what I really enjoyed was the commentary video from Rex Murphy, further down the page.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/isis-bombing-cf-18s-trudeau-milewskie-1.3416472


----------



## Rifleman62 (23 Jan 2016)

I was on my wife's iPad Mini. It seems devices display content differently(iPhone/Samsung S5)

Last night the CBC politics page had 15 articles of which eight were favorable with smiling photos of the PM. The "best" one was him leaning on a podium with his natural crap eating grin. Upchuck.

Sorry, just can't stand him. Anyway he is just the front man. I enjoyed that it was reported that a lady hung up on the phone call from him and said it was a canned speech.

Rant.


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Jan 2016)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I mentioned it before ~ a certain "tone deafness," regarding Canadian victims. Now, according to Andrew Coyne in the _National Post__, he's displayed it again: this time an unnecessary, ill mannered "cheap shot" at his predecessor and a misstatement (misunderstanding?) of the nature of Canada's economy.
> 
> As we hover around the 85/100 day mark I find that my old, old assessment of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau remains: he lacks "bottom," as the Brits call it. Lack of bottom is more than just too little social or intellectual gravitas, it's the whole package, the man and his judgement, that is weak.
> 
> ...


_




			“We’re going to move this place around,” Trudeau says. “This is very much the last guy’s style, not mine. I’ll have a smaller desk in the corner and a bigger couch so we can sit down and actually have discussions. I’ll put a reclining seat over there, for me to read.”
		
Click to expand...


Justin Trudeau as quoted in the Australian.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/inquirer/its-trudeaus-canada-once-again-justin-trudeau-makes-his-mark/news-story/622ba2290b2291ae8747c7019d5faa6d

Conversation and Reading prioritized over Working._


----------



## jollyjacktar (23 Jan 2016)

Only for subscribers it would seem.


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Jan 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Only for subscribers it would seem.



Yes, same for me ... fire-walled.


----------



## Altair (23 Jan 2016)

Which begs the question...

Who subscribes to the Australian?


----------



## dapaterson (23 Jan 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> Which begs the question...
> 
> Who subscribes to the Australian?



Wild thought here - people in Australia?


 ;D


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Jan 2016)

That's bizarre, now I'm locked out.

Apparently it was reprinted in the Australian but was originally a NY Times article.  Try this link?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/13/magazine/trudeaus-canada-again.html?_r=0


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Jan 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Wild thought here - people in Australia?
> 
> 
> ;D



And Canadians who wished they were.


----------



## jollyjacktar (23 Jan 2016)

Wow, after reading that puff piece, I believe they need to get a room.
 :boke:


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Jan 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Wow, after reading that puff piece, I believe they need to get a room.
> :boke:



Now, now, JJT.  Is that anyway to show respect for your Natural Governing Boss?


----------



## jollyjacktar (23 Jan 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Now, now, JJT.  Is that anyway to show respect for your Natural Governing Boss?



It's my day off...


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (23 Jan 2016)

cavalryman said:
			
		

> This is what my Scrabble app threw up this afternoon.  Should I take this as a message from above/beyond/below?



Not worth very much a T-R-U-D-E-A-U is, isn't it: 8 points. You'd better use it in a place where it counts double or triple (Events, Dear boy. Events) if you want to score.   

You're much better with a H-A-R-P-E-R, or even a C-L-A-R-K = both worth 11 points.

Or even better, a M-U-L-R-O-N-E-Y or a (god forbid) C-H-R-E-T-I-E-N = Bothe scoring you high at 13 points  ;D


----------



## daftandbarmy (23 Jan 2016)

But he has nice hair


----------



## Brad Sallows (23 Jan 2016)

"Disco Boy 
Run to the toilet, honey, 
Comb your hair"


----------



## a_majoor (24 Jan 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Wow, after reading that puff piece, I believe they need to get a room.
> :boke:



A safe room? I'd hate for reality to intrude and "trigger" them..... >


----------



## George Wallace (24 Jan 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> A safe room? I'd hate for reality to intrude and "trigger" them..... >



Reality?  Sorry, but I doubt reality plays a part in any of this.  Here are some street interviews taken in Vancouver:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJ66gS7CqYo


----------



## Altair (24 Jan 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Reality?  Sorry, but I doubt reality plays a part in any of this.  Here are some street interviews taken in Vancouver:
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJ66gS7CqYo


Seems like people related to him and his policies on Marijuana, environment and pulling the combat mission.

Good stuff. See, you can be fair and balanced george


----------



## PuckChaser (24 Jan 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> Seems like people related to him and his policies on Marijuana, environment and pulling the combat mission.



If that's not a list of BC stereotypes, I don't know what is....  8)


----------



## ModlrMike (24 Jan 2016)

From the you can't unring a bell file:

*Trudeau's Davos Speech Transcript Leaves Out Remark About Harper*
Full Article

The transcript of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's speech to the World Economic Forum in Davos is missing something.


----------



## George Wallace (24 Jan 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> Seems like people related to him and his policies on Marijuana, environment and pulling the combat mission.
> 
> Good stuff. See, you can be fair and balanced george



The name is George, and it is as balanced and fair as any of your comments.  But what the heck.  If you can't see the humour in what is being said, then I can't help you.


----------



## Altair (24 Jan 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> The name is George, and it is as balanced and fair as any of your comments.  But what the heck.  If you can't see the humour in what is being said, then I can't help you.


Sorry, George it is. 

I did see the humor, I tried to respond in kind. Didn't seem to work.


----------



## McG (24 Jan 2016)

Trudeau vs DiCaprio?
I guess we can agree the new PM has done at least one thing right in his first 100 days.   To Leo: “making statements like that to the media, at a time when a lot of people who are not making the kind of money you’re making and are losing their jobs, is not helpful.”

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/justin-trudeau-urged-leonardo-dicaprio-to-tone-down-criticism-of-canadian-oil-sands-source-says


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Jan 2016)

Two self entitled gits bitching about something neither one has a clue about.

Cue the Liberty Bell March! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rutX0I6NxU


----------



## George Wallace (25 Jan 2016)

Baffle gabble or logical way forward; you make up your own mind:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hF2RLIxJ-8g


----------



## Remius (25 Jan 2016)

So the real work has started with Parliament resuming today.

It would seem this week that the Liberals plan on repealing some legislation, announcing they will sign the TPP and have something finally to say about the fight againts ISIS.

This week might set the tone for this session of parliament.  Looking forward to seeing how this plays out.


----------



## Journeyman (25 Jan 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> This week might set the tone for this session of parliament.  Looking forward to seeing how this plays out.


Yes, Robbie Burns is always a good way to start a session.    :cheers:


----------



## jollyjacktar (25 Jan 2016)

And here I thought the real work today was going to be that Liberal MP putting in his member's bill once again tot change the lyrics to O'Canada.  As if there isn't more important things to do when they're in session.


----------



## dapaterson (25 Jan 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> And here I thought the real work today was going to be that Liberal MP putting in his member's bill once again tot change the lyrics to O'Canada.  As if there isn't more important things to do when they're in session.



But no talk of changing the French words which speak of carrying the sword and the cross...


----------



## jollyjacktar (25 Jan 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> But no talk of changing the French words which speak of carrying the sword and the cross...



That, flies under the radar, I suppose.  As a bloke, I wasn't aware they get swords and crosses.  Now I feel inadequate.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (25 Jan 2016)

You think that's bad, Dataperson?

You should see the other four stanzas in the french lyrics (yes, there are five of them, not just the first one that we sing all the time as the National Anthem).

The very first line of the second stanza translates to : "Under the gaze of God, by the mighty river ... [the Saint Lawrence, for those who didn't get it]. But the final straw is the last lines of the final Stanza: 

"Under the yoke of the Faith, We will again let ring out this creed: "For God and King"; We will gain let ring out this creed: "For God and King".


----------



## Journeyman (25 Jan 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> So the real work has started with Parliament resuming today.


Well, I'm more than happy to see how it plays out.  op:



It'll certainly be a nice change from this thread's habitual :deadhorse:


----------



## jmt18325 (25 Jan 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> And here I thought the real work today was going to be that Liberal MP putting in his member's bill once again tot change the lyrics to O'Canada.  As if there isn't more important things to do when they're in session.



So, you think that's all that they're going to work on?

To a lot of people, it's important symbolism.


----------



## Remius (25 Jan 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> And here I thought the real work today was going to be that Liberal MP putting in his member's bill once again tot change the lyrics to O'Canada.  As if there isn't more important things to do when they're in session.



Private member's bill.  Any MP can put them forward.

I suspect that this MP won't be sitting for very long and he's trying to get it tabled before he can no longer sit.  Some people like to get their stuff done before dying.


----------



## George Wallace (25 Jan 2016)

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/liberal-mp-launches-fresh-bid-to-get-in-all-thy-sons-command-out-of-o-canada-to-make-it-more-gender-neutral



> Stephen Harper’s Conservative government broached the idea in a 2010 throne speech, but abandoned it just two days later amid an angry backlash among core Tory party supporters.



So the "Sunny Days" will shine on this being accepted now?


----------



## Altair (25 Jan 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/liberal-mp-launches-fresh-bid-to-get-in-all-thy-sons-command-out-of-o-canada-to-make-it-more-gender-neutral
> 
> So the "Sunny Days" will shine on this being accepted now?


No.


----------



## jollyjacktar (25 Jan 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> Private member's bill.  Any MP can put them forward.
> 
> I suspect that this MP won't be sitting for very long and he's trying to get it tabled before he can no longer sit.  Some people like to get their stuff done before dying.



Can't say how long he intends to stick around.  He tried the same deal under the last government and it was defeated by the then majority CPC.


----------



## jollyjacktar (25 Jan 2016)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> So, you think that's all that they're going to work on?
> 
> To a lot of people, it's important symbolism.



Of course I don't, I can't use the nice little sarcasm face etc with my windows 10 upgrade.  

As for the "importance" of his private members bill, I'd wager a majority of Canadians are fine with the lyrics as they are and would instead be interested in the HoC working on other stuff.  You know, like the economy, bombing Daesh, healthcare, incoming Syrians....


----------



## jmt18325 (25 Jan 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> As for the "importance" of his private members bill, I'd wager a majority of Canadians are fine with the lyrics as they are and would instead be interested in the HoC working on other stuff.  You know, like the economy, bombing Daesh, healthcare, incoming Syrians....



I don't see how this bill takes away from those things.


----------



## Remius (25 Jan 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Can't say how long he intends to stick around.  He tried the same deal under the last government and it was defeated by the then majority CPC.



I suspect it will be defeated again.


----------



## jollyjacktar (25 Jan 2016)

"I don't see how this bill takes away from those things"

If they're talking about that, it robs from the rest.  Priorities should take precedent.  You won't convince me otherwise, nor I expect the great majority of Canadians.


----------



## jollyjacktar (25 Jan 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> I suspect it will be defeated again.


 
It may but with a Liberal majority this time it may fly.


----------



## jmt18325 (25 Jan 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> I suspect it will be defeated again.



Given that we're talking about ( a ) a dying MP, ( b ) something that Trudeau would agree with, and ( c ) something that the Liberals and NDP voted for in the past...


----------



## jmt18325 (25 Jan 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> If they're talking about that, it robs from the rest.  Priorities should take precedent.  You won't convince me otherwise, nor I expect the great majority of Canadians.



Government business only receives a certain percentage of the time in the House.  This bill comes from time allocated to private members.  It doesn't affect in any way government efforts on the economy or any other issue.


----------



## jollyjacktar (25 Jan 2016)

Sorry, as far as I am concerned there are more important matters to concern the HoC with.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (25 Jan 2016)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Given that we're talking about ( a ) a dying MP, ( b ) something that Trudeau would agree with, and ( c ) something that the Liberals and NDP voted for in the past...



You forgot "They'll make a point of passing it to poke the CPC in the eye."


----------



## jmt18325 (25 Jan 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> You forgot "They'll make a point of passing it to poke the CPC in the eye."



Well, the CPC abandoned their own pledge to do it due to partisan worries.


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Jan 2016)

It's no secret, I suppose, that I regard Chrystia Freeland as a _fool_ ~ she's a very well educated, very literate, very lettered fool, but a _fool_ all the same. And now she proves it: she says that Canada will go to New Zealand sign the TPP but she hints, suggests to the loony-left, anti-trade part of the Liberal base that Canada may not _ratify_ it.   :  Of course parliament has to debate it, but the Liberals have a solid majority so they can pass whatever they want ... to hint that we might not ratify the TPP weakens business confidence at the worst possible time and is an incredibly irresponsible, indeed a f'ing stupid thing for a minister to say in these economic circumstances. She's just pandering to the ignorant left wing of her party. If Justin Trudeau had a brain ~ which I'm starting to doubt ~ he would boot her _dumb_ ass out of cabinet right now.


----------



## Old Sweat (25 Jan 2016)

I wonder if, or probably how long before, JT imposes some discipline on his cabinet re a tendency to go off message and or say dumb things. Edward, you may remember Pearson's cabinet ministers used to run off at the mouth, but Trudeau the elder imposed a Harperesque gag on his cabinet. Or perhaps he doesn't see it as a political liability, yet.


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Jan 2016)

I do indeed remember the public "debates" between both Pearson and Diefenbaker's ministers, and between ministers and the PM ... you're right: Pierre Trudeau imposed order and it held through Mulroney, Chrétien and Harper, each of whom retained, and in some cases even tried to strengthen, the policy stranglehold that Trudeau-Pitfield imposed.

Someone else has commented that the government does not, yet, appear very well organized ... the PR team seems oddly inept, given how very, very good the campaign team was. 

My recollection is that Prime Minister Harper brought in his own PR team in 2006 ~ that was the very start of his _war_ with the Parliamentary Press Gallery ~ and they got everyone "on message" very quickly. Additionally, Prime Minister Harper moved very quickly, only a month after taking office, to replace Alex Himelfarb with Kevin Lynch and, therefore, to get a very firm grip on policy very quickly.

Given the quality of his transition team ~ Peter Harder is something of a bureaucratic superstar ~ I have to guess that there has been some conflict between _Butts~Telford_ in the PMO, _Charette_ in PCO, _Harder_ in the Transition Team, and, possibly, some senior people like _Dion_ and _LeBlanc_ ...

               
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





... it is, otherwise, hard to explain what's going on at the centre.

It hints at weakness.


----------



## Altair (25 Jan 2016)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> It's no secret, I suppose, that I regard Chrystia Freeland as a _fool_ ~ she's a very well educated, very literate, very lettered fool, but a _fool_ all the same. And now she proves it: she says that Canada will go to New Zealand sign the TPP but she hints, suggests to the loony-left, anti-trade part of the Liberal base that Canada may not _ratify_ it.   :  Of course parliament has to debate it, but the Liberals have a solid majority so they can pass whatever they want ... to hint that we might not ratify the TPP weakens business confidence at the worst possible time and is an incredibly irresponsible, indeed a f'ing stupid thing for a minister to say in these economic circumstances. She's just pandering to the ignorant left wing of her party. If Justin Trudeau had a brain ~ which I'm starting to doubt ~ he would boot her _dumb_ *** out of cabinet right now.


Hey, let them debate. That's how parliament is suppose to work. 

Fact is, even if the loony left of the LPC doesn't vote for it, the CPC will and it will pass. 

I rather like that the members of the LPC can speak their mind and speak for their ridings.

To each their own.


----------



## George Wallace (25 Jan 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> I rather like that the members of the LPC can speak their mind and speak for their ridings.



We shall see.


----------



## PuckChaser (25 Jan 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> I rather like that the members of the LPC can speak their mind and speak for their ridings.



Unless its abortion, because then Trudeau determines what your morals and values are. Even the Tories had a free vote on that.


----------



## Altair (25 Jan 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Unless its abortion, because then Trudeau determines what your morals and values are. Even the Tories had a free vote on that.


True enough. A bit of a stain on the whole free vote idea.

That said, I like that  they are given leeway on non confidence issues. These people got to where they are today by be creative driven free thinkers. Nothing worst that seeing intelligent people forced to toe the party line and become drones.

I found it refreshing that after the CPC fell, a whole bunch of former ministers started saying things that they never would have of they were still in power.


----------



## Old Sweat (25 Jan 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> Hey, let them debate. That's how parliament is suppose to work.
> 
> Fact is, even if the loony left of the LPC doesn't vote for it, the CPC will and it will pass.
> 
> ...



The challenge is when they are not speaking for their riding, but are expressing personal or departmental opinion that has yet to be approved by cabinet. Believe me, and I was in my twenties in the sixties, nobody really knew what government policy was. Ministers used to debate policy and attack their colleagues in public.


----------



## George Wallace (25 Jan 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> That said, I like that  they are given leeway on non confidence issues. These people got to where they are today by be creative driven free thinkers. Nothing worst that seeing intelligent people forced to toe the party line and become drones.



Have the Chretien years been completely wiped from your mind?


----------



## Altair (25 Jan 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Have the Chretien years been completely wiped from your mind?


No. They were horrible. This is a breath of fresh air I'm comparison.


----------



## George Wallace (25 Jan 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> No. They were horrible. This is a breath of fresh air I'm comparison.



We shall see.


----------



## cavalryman (26 Jan 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> No. They were horrible. This is a breath of fresh air I'm comparison.


A breath of air... as I suspected... no substance  ;D


----------



## Altair (26 Jan 2016)

Everyone is a comedian.


----------



## jollyjacktar (26 Jan 2016)

cavalryman said:
			
		

> A breath of air... as I suspected... no substance  ;D



Farts have no substance either and are a puff of air.


----------



## chanman (26 Jan 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> If that's not a list of BC stereotypes, I don't know what is....  8)



For 'random' interviews in a city where about half the population has a first language other than English, a similar proportion aren't white, only 42% voted Liberal, and nearly a third of eligible voters didn't cast a ballot, ... they sure did end up with an unrepresentative group of white, native English-speaking Liberal voters, even for the downtown core compared to the 'burbs (where many downtown workers actually live...)


----------



## PuckChaser (26 Jan 2016)

It was a jab at the issues they supported, not their skin colour. It's OK, it was only a joke, you didn't miss much.


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Jan 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> Hey, let them debate. That's how parliament is suppose to work.
> 
> Fact is, even if the loony left of the LPC doesn't vote for it, the CPC will and it will pass.
> 
> ...




That's not the way it works in our, Westminster system, of _*responsible*_ parliamentary government. She a minister of the crown, part of the _*executive*_ so she forfeited the right to speak for his constituency when she addresses policy. If she wants to make policy, herself, then she must resign from cabinet and challenge for the leadership ~ otherwise she must maintain absolute solidarity* with the rest of the executive, and, to date, I have read/heard nothing to suggest that the executive's leader, Prime Minister Trudeau, nor any other important minister wants to sign but not ratify the TPP ~ I would be happy to learn that I am wrong.

I repeat: Chrystia Freeland is an irresponsible _fool_, and Justin Trudeau is an even bigger _fool_ for having selected her and, now, for keeping her around.
_____
* We've only got 300_ish_ years of precedent and practice for that principle.


----------



## Kirkhill (26 Jan 2016)

ERC:

Cabinet is debating the response to ISIL - unlike that nasty efficient chap before.
Trudeau will mediate the pipelines debate so that all sides are heard and cases can be made - 
Policies are yet to be clarified

The puck is being ragged and it has only just been dropped.


----------



## OldSolduer (26 Jan 2016)

I'd prefer that JT would sit in Parliament and govern responsibly vice appearing on "The Social".


----------



## Remius (26 Jan 2016)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> I'd prefer that JT would sit in Parliament and govern responsibly vice appearing on "The Social".



I'm pretty sutre he has a 100% attendance rate for 2016 so far  ;D


----------



## FSTO (26 Jan 2016)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> I'd prefer that JT would sit in Parliament and govern responsibly vice appearing on "The Social".



I saw adverts for that show. So it was pre-recorded and did not interrupt his time in the House of Commons.

For the record, everytime I see that smug smile I want to throw something through the TV! :mg:

I need to purchase a supply of nerf bricks!


----------



## Kirkhill (26 Jan 2016)

Its going to be worse for us than it ever was for the Harper haters.

Harper stayed away from cameras.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (26 Jan 2016)

FSTO said:
			
		

> I saw adverts for that show. So it was pre-recorded and did not interrupt his time in the House of Commons.
> 
> For the record, everytime I see that smug smile I want to throw something through the TV! :mg:
> 
> I need to purchase a supply of nerf bricks!



I can supply you some, $5 a brick


----------



## OldSolduer (26 Jan 2016)

FSTO said:
			
		

> I saw adverts for that show. So it was pre-recorded and did not interrupt his time in the House of Commons.



Fair enough. However he should be governing by way of Parliament and not on glib, vacuous television shows.


----------



## Altair (26 Jan 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Its going to be worse for us than it ever was for the Harper haters.
> 
> Harper stayed away from cameras.


We had to put up with 9 years of harper.

You guys have had 3 months of trudeau. Come on now, you can do it.


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Jan 2016)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Fair enough. However he should be governing by way of Parliament and not on glib, vacuous television shows.




It is, actually, very good, very effective politics.

My guess is that you will see a lot more of this. I expect the Liberals to be in "campaign mode" for four years, forcing the less attractive (to TV producers) Conservatives to play second fiddle. 

The CPC caucus was smart: Rona Ambrose is very telegenic and a "good" media personality. She's quick, extroverted and "nice," too.


----------



## Kirkhill (26 Jan 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> We had to put up with 9 years of harper.
> 
> You guys have had 3 months of trudeau. Come on now, you can do it.



I've seen more of Trudeau's mug in the last two years than I saw of Harper in 10.


----------



## Loachman (26 Jan 2016)

http://www.torontosun.com/2016/01/26/trudeau-must-be-leader-not-referee-on-pipeline-debate

Trudeau must be leader, not referee, on pipeline debate 

By Anthony Furey, Postmedia Network

First posted: Tuesday, January 26, 2016 10:13 AM EST | Updated: Tuesday, January 26, 2016 10:32 AM EST

On too many issues, Justin Trudeau seems to think his position as prime minister is to be a referee and not a leader.

He’s done this with carbon pricing. He’s doing it with electoral reform. And now he’s doing it on pipelines.

Last week Montreal Mayor Denis Coderre lead a renewed charge against the Energy East pipeline – a major project that would mean greater energy independence for Canada as well as create access to new markets.

Coderre, representing all Montreal municipalities, said “we are against it because it still represents significant environmental threats and too few economics benefits for greater Montreal.”

What are those threats? Is it simply fear-mongering or does he have specific concerns? Because if he does, they can likely be addressed.

Two years ago the National Energy Board gave approval to the Northern Gateway pipeline. Outraged activists would have had you believe the oil companies were being given carte blanche to do what they pleased. But the NEB’s approval was actually conditional. And it came with 209 conditions.

That same NEB will be passing judgment on Energy East. Clearly they’re not against making energy companies jump through hoops. Whatever reasonable concerns Coderre has can likely be met.

It makes no sense to toss out a project that has the support of politicians from across the political spectrum – with firm backing from Alberta Premier Rachel Notley and Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall and expected support from Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne.

Enter Trudeau. On Monday morning he met with Coderre in Montreal. What was his purpose? Was it to champion this national project of economic importance? Was it to sit down and reason with Coderre? Alas, no. The Canadian Press headline says it all: “_*Trudeau says his job is to bring people together*_”.

Huh? _*So it’s not to be a leader*_. But instead just a mediator; a moderator in a debate in which the PM won’t stake out territory. If he has a firm pipeline policy, he should be working to bring Coderre on side with him. If he doesn't, that's troubling.

He told media “my responsibility as prime minister is to make sure that on national projects we're behaving in a way that both contributes to the economy, to a secure environment, to bringing people together and mostly to creating a better future."

Coderre triggered a national conversation over a major issue. Trudeau met with him for 45 minutes. And this is all he had to say afterwards? Some leadership.


----------



## jollyjacktar (26 Jan 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> I've seen more of Trudeau's mug in the last two years than I saw of Harper in 10.



Not to mention that it's already feeling like more than 10 years.


----------



## Altair (26 Jan 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Not to mention that it's already feeling like more than 10 years.


And it felt like Harper had ruled for 20 by the end of his reign.

I feel no pity.


----------



## YZT580 (26 Jan 2016)

One thing that makes me feel more secure.  Justin does not take after his father.  I absolutely did not like Trudeau senior but he did have b###S.  Justin instead takes after his mother.


----------



## Altair (26 Jan 2016)

YZT580 said:
			
		

> One thing that makes me feel more secure.  Justin does not take after his father.  I absolutely did not like Trudeau senior but he did have b###S.  Justin instead takes after his mother.


Disputed by most everyone who has met him, but what would they know?


----------



## jollyjacktar (26 Jan 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Its going to be worse for us than it ever was for the Harper haters.
> 
> Harper stayed away from cameras.


And he had his smile surgically removed before he got into politics.


----------



## Brad Sallows (26 Jan 2016)

Headwaiter, referee - not much diff.  Pity his father isn't alive.

"The Canadian Press headline says it all: “Trudeau says his job is to bring people together”.
 Huh? So it’s not to be a leader."
Go on, TorStar, you can say it ... "Not a leader".

Regardless, Trudeau isn't mediating - he has effectively chosen a side.  As long as provinces and municipalities control their own turf the outcome is "no pipeline".  He is essentially able to side with QC and his establishment buddies while pretending he isn't picking a side.

People who are sympatico with all this shouldn't underestimate the depth of antipathy building in parts of western Canada, particularly AB and SK.  The fact that provinces do not pay into equalization is a distinction lost on most Canadians, and is in any event eclipsed by the fact that provinces do receive equalization.  The growing impression is of the perennial spoiled and selfish child of Confederation, QC, continuing to collect the money - and becoming quite irate when even the theoretical possibility of moving QC into "have" status is raised - while saying "no" to some of the ways in which the pot of money might be created.  (Bind not the mouths of the kine that tread the grain, etc.)

A good thing it is that he wasn't in charge in the early days of establishing national railroads and building the country.  Are there any adults in the Liberal government who can graft in a spine and reach up into his inguinal canal and pull down his balls?


----------



## a_majoor (26 Jan 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> Disputed by most everyone who has met him, but what would they know?



Just as a reality check, I have actually had the opportunity to see both former Prime Minister Harper and then MP Justin Trudeau at fairly small events. Interestingly enough, in small fora and without media in their faces, the two men were not only opposites to each other, but also 1800 removed from their media presentations. PM Harper was warm and personable (I suspect he is uncomfortable in larger settings, which the media played up into the cold, controlling caricature). The Young Dauphin was giving a speech in U Windsor, and despite the venue and the payment (this was when he was still commanding 20K/speech), the speech was "telephoned in" and devoid of any interesting or new ideas. He then left rather abruptly without taking much, if any time to work the crowd. (The fact that the crowd still seemed to be enthralled with this performance was perhaps the most baffling part of the entire event).

I have always wanted the opportunity to see Thomas Mulcaire up close and personal, to see just how much of the "Angry Tom" meme is a media artifact.


----------



## PuckChaser (27 Jan 2016)

First step in Trudeau paying back PSAC for its support:

http://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2016/01/26/liberal-negotiations-with-civil-service-could-reverse-900m-in-planned-savings-3/#.VqhCO1mgWjx



Liberal negotiations with civil service could reverse $900M in planned savings

By Andy Blatchford — Jan 26 2016

OTTAWA — The Liberals are poised to abandon the Conservative hardline approach to contract talks with public labour unions, a move that could cost the federal balance sheet nearly $1 billion this fiscal year.

The Liberal government has confirmed it will repeal Tory legislation that allows Ottawa to impose changes to short-term disability and sick leave in the public service.

The Treasury Board recently signalled to federal unions that it would make withdrawing a provision in Bill C-59 "one of its first orders of business."

The action is expected to have fiscal consequences.

The Conservatives booked $900 million in savings to the government's bottom line in last year's budget, even though negotiations were still ongoing with the unions.

The Harper government's accounting decision helped its election-year budget forecast a $2.4-billion surplus, including the contingency reserve.

By booking that figure, it means the 2015-16 balance sheet could be another $900 million deeper in the red.

Since coming to power, the Liberals updated the 2015-16 budget projection in November to a $3-billion shortfall.

Internally, however, the government is aware that more could be shaved from the public books because of the accounting around the short-term disability and sick leave regime.

"If the (short-term disability plan) is not implemented this fiscal year, then the $900 million in savings in 2015-16 will need to be unwound," said briefing material on "urgent issues" provided to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau shortly after he took office.


----------



## Kat Stevens (27 Jan 2016)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Headwaiter, referee - not much diff.  Pity his father isn't alive.
> 
> "The Canadian Press headline says it all: “Trudeau says his job is to bring people together”.
> Huh? So it’s not to be a leader."
> ...


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (27 Jan 2016)

Will the facade of Trudeau mania dissipate by next election?  I fear the sheople will still vote him in (wasn't the provincial Liebrals enough of a warning?)


----------



## SeaKingTacco (27 Jan 2016)

The anger in Alberta right now is palpable and should not be under-estimated. A lot of people are out of work and scared. All it would take is the right issue to ignite a fuse that the entire Ottawa establishment might live to regret.

Mark my words.


----------



## Kirkhill (27 Jan 2016)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> The anger in Alberta right now is palpable and should not be under-estimated. A lot of people are out of work and scared. All it would take is the right issue to ignite a fuse that the entire Ottawa establishment might live to regret.
> 
> Mark my words.



Hear him!


----------



## Kat Stevens (27 Jan 2016)

Albertans are still Canadians, and will do what Canadians have done forever; bitch, howl and moan about the unfairness of it all, then roll over, bite the pillow, and take it.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (27 Jan 2016)

Maybe you are right.

But.

This feels like 1982 all over again.

Except Rachel Notley is no Peter Lougheed.

This could get right out of hand.


----------



## Altair (27 Jan 2016)

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> Will the facade of Trudeau mania dissipate by next election?  I fear the sheople will still vote him in (wasn't the provincial Liebrals enough of a warning?)


Depends if the CPC gets with the times and actually choose someone likeable as leader.

So probably not.

Regardless, as of right now, trudeau is still polling in the 40s and his approval rating is high. Maybe people outside of this board are giving him more than 3 months to get everything done.


----------



## Altair (27 Jan 2016)

A small break from the regularly scheduled quebec bashing  

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/quebec-city-mayor-supports-energy-east-pipeline-but-blasts-incompetent-transcanada-corp



> MONTREAL — Unlike his counterparts in metropolitan Montreal, Quebec City Mayor Régis Labeaume supports with the Energy East pipeline project — but he blasted the promoter Tuesday for an “incompetent” sales job.
> 
> Labeaume distanced himself from the Montreal mayors who last week came out against the proposed pipeline, saying it presented environmental risks without any economic benefits for their communities.
> 
> ...





Everyone may now resume the regularly scheduled quebec  bashing.


----------



## jollyjacktar (27 Jan 2016)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Maybe you are right.
> 
> But.
> 
> ...



I can well imagine as I lived through it.  This is why I hate the Liberals and anything Trudeau.  I would not be surprised to see the Western Canada Concept come Zombie like from the grave.


----------



## The Bread Guy (27 Jan 2016)

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> Will the facade of Trudeau mania dissipate by next election?  I fear the sheople will still vote him in (wasn't the provincial Liebrals enough of a warning?)


It might be closer to a case of Obama-osis -- huge letdown among the truest believers after big expectations going in.


----------



## daftandbarmy (27 Jan 2016)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Maybe you are right.
> 
> But.
> 
> ...



Especially if their teams don't make it to the Staley Cup playoffs


----------



## George Wallace (27 Jan 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> Depends if the CPC gets with the times and actually choose someone likeable as leader.



Being Prime Minister is a leadership job; not a celebrity job.  They are not there to be likeable, but to have the qualities necessary to lead our nation.  This Trudeaumania II is once again more of a fashion statement than a choice of a leader.


----------



## Jed (27 Jan 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> Depends if the CPC gets with the times and actually choose someone likeable as leader.
> 
> So probably not.
> 
> Regardless, as of right now, trudeau is still polling in the 40s and his approval rating is high. Maybe people outside of this board are giving him more than 3 months to get everything done.



Well Altair, if there are enough people that follow your logic ?, they will push enough buttons to set sh!t in motion.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (27 Jan 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> A small break from the regularly scheduled quebec bashing
> 
> http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/quebec-city-mayor-supports-energy-east-pipeline-but-blasts-incompetent-transcanada-corp
> 
> ...



Transcanada has done pretty good work out here on the preliminary work for their western pipelines. Endbridge and previous Federal governments (Liberal and CPC) ignored or under appreciated the complexity of First Nation engagement in BC and it bit them. The problem with any western pipeline is that it has to pass through significantly unstable mountain areas, geological instability  and areas of potentially severe seismic events. Some of the areas the proposed pipeline passes through would be unreachable for 1/2 the year due to snow (20-60') This is why the gas pipelines would be routed through the sea to Prince Rupert. Going east is much longer, but safer from a geological standpoint. The main problem area for pipelines has been river crossings, but with huge advances in HDD they can avoid most of those issues. Now this report does nothing to help the pipelines or the government case. When they told us the focus for all departments would change from prescriptive regulating at the front end to more compliance and enforcement, I said it was going to cost far more than what was costing us doing the front end work, then they cut budgets..... :

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/audit-finds-national-energy-board-failing-to-enforce-pipeline-safety-conditions-1.2752307


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (27 Jan 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Being Prime Minister is a leadership job; not a celebrity job.  They are not there to be likeable, but to have the qualities necessary to lead our nation.  This Trudeaumania II is once again more of a fashion statement than a choice of a leader.



But George, He's going to look soooooo cute tonight on that highly acclaimed public affairs show known as "The Social"*, when he talks about that great topic, mental health, and (if the ads are to be believed) will basically announce that we must do something, take action, when the damn thing is none of his business: It's a provincial responsibility.

In the same vein, he has no business whatever meeting with city mayors, no matter that they used to be Liberal MP's (and yes, I mean Mr. Coderre). Municipal affairs are Provincial. (If I were Premier, I would tell the mayor: you meet with the PM and I will put your damn municipality under tutelage!). And I don't care, here, about the little Tempest in a Tea Pot over Mr. Coderre's view of the Energy East pipeline, which isn't made any simpler when people like mayor Nenshi replies: In both cases, the pipeline is none of their business or area of responsibility. We have an organization that oversee authorization of inter-provincial energy infrastructures: It's the N.E.B., which hasn't had its hearing yet on the matter (they have just released in December their list of Native groups with standing to be heard) and before which it is doubtful that any municipality has standing.

For people interested in Quebec bashing, BTW, you will be happy to learn that all the polls here (formal and informal) show a 60% support FOR the Energy East pipeline, but an 80% support for the proposition that the River crossing must have the top environmental protection available: It is our drinking water here and trust me, you don't want to have to provide bottled water to four and half million people.

However, Mr. Trudeau has spent so little time in Ottawa doing his job that I cannot help but wonder if they are following the advice of Sir Humphrey: "Send the PM on all those jaunts and international conference, then while he is out of the country, the Cabinet Secretary can get on with running the country the way it ought to."

* That great CTV show aimed squarely at upper-middle class stay at home trophy wives with topics such as (just the latest - based on their own website): What We Wore last week; The Latest in Chic Travel Accessories; Fashion Tips: Lessons in Layering; How Long Do You Take to Get Ready in the Morning; or, Where Is the Worse Place to Go on a First Date.

P.S.: Colin: It is a little known fact but the St-Lawrence Valley is an actual seismic activity high spot. The valley is actually a fault between the plate that supports the Canadian Shield and the one covered by the Appalachian mountain ridge. There are on average 400 to 450 earthquake a year in the Montreal region - the large majority of such small level that they feel like a heavy truck driving by - no more. But the return period (probability) for an earthquake of 5.0 and above magnitude is one every forty years (and we had the last one 1988). That is one of the reason they are building a new Champlain bridge BTW. They could have fixed the one already there to its original standard, but it is too complex and expansive to bring it up to current seismic protection levels.


----------



## Kirkhill (27 Jan 2016)

Colin P said:
			
		

> .....Now this report does nothing to help the pipelines or the government case. *When they told us the focus for all departments would change from prescriptive regulating at the front end to more compliance and enforcement,* I said it was going to cost far more than what was costing us doing the front end work, then they cut budgets..... :
> 
> http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/audit-finds-national-energy-board-failing-to-enforce-pipeline-safety-conditions-1.2752307



Colin, I was going to tackle the technicalities - but decided against it as it would all be supposition on my part.

I will tackle the highlighted bit.  Having had a fair bit of experience checking out regulations in the food industry in multiple jurisdictions over the years, and also working with construction codes, the change away from the "Prescriptive" is universal and endemic.  

It has happened in the US, Europe and Japan amongst others.  It is the result (IMHO) of lawyers and politicians obfuscating in the name of universal standards.

Every jurisdiction used to have technical standards, approved solutions, which could be incorporated and to which you could engineer making life simple (at least locally).  

But that created two major problems:

The government was liable financially if their authorized solution was found technically incompetent;

The engineers had to re-engineer systems for every jurisdiction driving up prices and inhibiting technology transfer.

Now, at least in my field, the onus is entirely on the operator to decide if a solution is "reasonable" (a favourite word in all the new regulations) and then develop SOPs to manage that solution.

The inspectors in my field, the food industry, now focus on:

Do you have paperwork to support your selection?
Do you have paperwork describing your SOPs?
Do you have paperwork detailing your compliance with your SOPs?
Do you have paperwork describing how you manage non-compliance?
Do you have paperwork describing the corrective actions taken?

The "inspectors" of old used to understand the processes and technology - often being plant personnel that moved on to government.  Now, by and large, they are clerks.

WRT the pipelines - 

The pipelines MUST be built.  Just like the railways HAD TO be built.  I am afraid that you cannot convince me that a liquid pipeline is any more likely to break than a gas pipeline due to external forces.  If you consider that corridors are acceptable for gas then, in my view, they are acceptable for liquids.

The existing mountain corridors have been in service for decades, and the railways for longer. How many disruptions of service have there been in that time due to seismic activity?  With respect to the pipelines the vast majority of breaks occur in urban settings where contractors suddenly discover pipelines that are clearly identified.   Not many breaks happen in the boonies.

When the NEB identifies 209 issues with the Northern Gateway proposal that is a good thing because it clarifies what has to be done to make the customer happy.  Once the problems are defined then solutions can be found.  They cannot be used as an excuse for inaction.

Your protections are perceived in an altogether less altruistic light on this side of the mountains.  Your scenery.  Our bread.


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Jan 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> ... It is a little known fact but the St-Lawrence Valley is an actual seismic activity high spot. The valley is actually a fault between the plate that supports the Canadian Shield and the one covered by the Appalachian mountain ridge. There are on average 400 to 450 earthquake a year in the Montreal region - the large majority of such small level that they feel like a heavy truck driving by - no more. But the return period (probability) for an earthquake of 5.0 and above magnitude is one every forty years (and we had the last one 1988). That is one of the reason they are building a new Champlain bridge BTW. They could have fixed the one already there to its original standard, but it is too complex and expansive to bring it up to current seismic protection levels.




That's an excellent point, OGBD, and one I am sure (more than just hope) the NEB will hoist on board when it imposes literally hundreds of conditions on any new pipeline it approves.

But, if folks can build 100 story skyscrapers to withstand both the strongest typhoons ever recorded and the once in 2,500 year earthquakes, then surely good engineers can manage to build a pipeline that will withstand the earthquakes that are common in Quebec magnified by, let's just say, one or even two orders of magnitude.






Taipei 101

Ditto, by the way, for both _Chek Lap Kok_ and _Changi_ airports, both of which are built on (largely) artificial or partially reclaimed islands that have been strengthened (especially the connecting links) to make them resistant to potential earthquake damage. Again, I'm sure good engineers can accomplish this sort of thing for pipelines in Canada, too.

But I suspect that Denis Coderre has a price, and my guess is that it's not really too steep, and I suppose that PM Trudeau will find a way to shovel piles of someone else's money into Montreal's (and M. Coderre's) pockets.


----------



## quadrapiper (27 Jan 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> They are not there to be likeable, but to have the qualities necessary to lead our nation.


If that means seeing to the quiet, efficient, competent administration of national services, absolutely. If that means delivering very sincere soundbites, with no purpose than to be heard, not so much. Would be quite happy to hear from the PM only when there's something of substance to announce, or when there's a question either to be posed to the country (e.g. what to do with assisted dying) or posed to the PM.

Most of the things that actually, really, matter will take at least a year to get off paper: civil infrastructure spending, the CSC, the CF-18 successor, etc. On the Cabinet front, it feels like a pendulum moment: the last lot gave the impression of not necessarily giving value for money, where this contingent might be a bit madly off in all directions.


----------



## Kirkhill (27 Jan 2016)

OGBD - I can agree with every element in your post.  And I do appreciate the local level of support in Quebec.

I also agree with ERC on the ability of the engineering community to find suitable solutions.  The only real question becomes how much money will it cost to solve the problems to everyone's satisfaction and can the project still turn a profit.

WRT Quebec Bashing - 

Quebec (And BC) Bashing are only necessary if they present as walls. M. Coderre certainly presented as such. And while he and Nenshi don't have standing in this debate neither do the natives, the environmentalists, or the provincial premiers or the mayor of Burnaby - but all of them seem to have managed to get their oar in anyway.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (27 Jan 2016)

Chris: Unfortunately, and whether you and I like it or not (more likely not - for both of us), the legal state of affairs in Canada gives the Natives a right to be consulted whenever natural resources are concerned. That is why the N.E.B. has published its list of Native groups with standing for the Energy East Project, for instance.

As for the Premiers, they don't have a say before the N.E.B., where inter-provincial projects are concerned, but those projects do have intra-provincial components that require provincial authorizations, particularly where environmental protection is concerned. On those aspects, they have a say. That is one of the reason, BTW, why Premier Couillard's sole comment on Energy East here in Quebec related to meeting our environment requirements - nothing else. Though, in answer to a journalist question, he did mention that in his view, after the Energy East group decided to modify its project to remove any port facilities on the St Lawrence, the lack of permanent jobs and direct benefit for Quebec would make it more difficult for the N.E.B. to approve the remaining project.

As for the Engineering aspect of things, I personally have no doubt that proper systems with the environmental protection required can and will be offered by the Energy East group pushing the project. However, people better be ready: It will not be a zero risk project - no such level is possible in human construction.


----------



## Kirkhill (27 Jan 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Chris: Unfortunately, and whether you and I like it or not (more likely not - for both of us), the legal state of affairs in Canada gives the Natives a right to be consulted whenever natural resources are concerned. That is why the N.E.B. has published its list of Native groups with standing for the Energy East Project, for instance.
> 
> ....



They have a right to be consulted.  And they have a right to fair compensation. They don't have a right to block.  Just like any other citizen.

And I agree with you on the risk.  But as I noted on the $60 a barrel thread, Montreal and Quebec are already assuming great risks, greater than the pipeline is likely to present, by transporting 200 car trains over 100 year old bridges, not to mention the risks associated with large trains going through urban areas.

Lac Megantic obviously comes to mind as does the Mississauga rail disaster ca 1979.


----------



## PuckChaser (27 Jan 2016)

Paul Wells from Maclean's takes a shot at defining Trudeau's first 100 days in office:

http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/justin-trudeaus-first-100-days/



> Justin Trudeau’s first 100 days
> 
> From free-falling oil to terrorism, the Liberal government has already had its share of woes
> 
> ...


----------



## Altair (27 Jan 2016)

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/don-braid-trudeau-aims-to-rebuild-confidence-first-energy-east-later



> Sir John A. Macdonald of beloved schoolroom memory was all for the national railroad, but it didn’t prove much easier to build than a modern pipeline, even though things were simpler in the days when a prime minister just handed the first contract to a guy who gave $350,000 to his election campaign.
> 
> Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s world is more complicated by far.
> 
> ...



I will laugh very hard if more pipelines get built under Trudeau than under harper.

I'm all seriousness, the Harper approach of trying to force pipelines, calling them "no brainers" didn't work worth a damn. Let's see if trudeau's approach bears fruit before ripping him a new one? No?

As for meeting with mayors, he's met with them before. John Tory for one, and as far as I can tell he wasn't a ex liberal.


----------



## Jed (27 Jan 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/don-braid-trudeau-aims-to-rebuild-confidence-first-energy-east-later
> 
> I will laugh very hard if more pipelines get built under Trudeau than under harper.
> 
> ...



I sincerely hope you have the opportunity to laugh long and hard. In fact, I will hold you to it and check back in four years. This is one outcome that I would happily 'eat crow' on. Would you be willing to do the same?


----------



## Rocky Mountains (27 Jan 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> I'm all seriousness, the Harper approach of trying to force pipelines, calling them "no brainers" didn't work worth a damn. Let's see if trudeau's approach bears fruit before ripping him a new one? No?



I don't recall Harper trying to force anything.  The Northern Gateway Pipeline submitted a request to the National Energy Board which held hearings and approved the project with conditions.  Based on the National Energy Board approval, the applicable minister approved the project.  I am not sure where Harper fits into the process other than expressing a disinterest in personal involvement.  He was clearly in favour of the project but sat back and let the system operate as it should.


----------



## PuckChaser (27 Jan 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> I will laugh very hard if more pipelines get built under Trudeau than under harper.
> 
> I'm all seriousness, the Harper approach of trying to force pipelines, calling them "no brainers" didn't work worth a damn. Let's see if trudeau's approach bears fruit before ripping him a new one? No?



I'm positive that if Trudeau told all the environmentalists that the pipelines were part of his "Real Change" plan, with an absolute copy of Harper's position, they'd allow them to be built because it wasn't Stephen Harper asking. I think what Trudeau is going to find very quickly that the people aren't opposing pipelines, they're opposing fossil fuels because they think if they believe real hard, we can jump 30 years into the future and have hydrogen fuel cells as an economically viable technology for cars/trucks/planes/ships.

If you're referring to the newly release "upstream greenhouse gas" emissions requirement, we'll never get any pipelines built. That is, unless the companies spend millions doing studies to show what everyone with a clue knows, that driving hundreds of trains spewing diesel fumes across the country contributes more to GHG emissions than tossing it into a pipeline. The oil is going to move, whether the environmentalists want it or not. How it moves is what we can control, and we should push to have the pipelines built ASAP.


----------



## George Wallace (27 Jan 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I'm positive that if Trudeau told all the environmentalists that the pipelines were part of his "Real Change" plan, with an absolute copy of Harper's position, they'd allow them to be built because it wasn't Stephen Harper asking.




So true.  The "Hate Harper crowd" would likely do just that.  All of it was in "spite".



			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> .... How it moves is what we can control, and we should push to have the pipelines built ASAP.



Wait!  That would be common sense.  A "no brainer".   >


----------



## jollyjacktar (27 Jan 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Wait!  That would be common sense.  A "no brainer".   >



Then almost any Liberal should be able to follow the logic.  Maybe...






(Edited to modify post by adding missing " ] " .   )


----------



## Rifleman62 (27 Jan 2016)

Kat Stevens 





> Albertans are still Canadians, and will do what Canadians have done forever; *****, howl and moan about the unfairness of it all, then roll over, bite the pillow, and take it.



You get what you tolerate.

Canadians are complacent.


----------



## Kat Stevens (27 Jan 2016)

Pretty much what I said.


----------



## Cloud Cover (27 Jan 2016)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> I don't recall Harper trying to force anything.  The Northern Gateway Pipeline submitted a request to the National Energy Board which held hearings and approved the project with conditions.  Based on the National Energy Board approval, the applicable minister approved the project.  I am not sure where Harper fits into the process other than expressing a disinterest in personal involvement.  He was clearly in favour of the project but sat back and let the system operate as it should.



The Northern Gateway project was conceived, designed and presented in the very first instance to the government that was in power prior to Mr. Harper winning his first minority.  The man supposedly out of power at that time but nonetheless still the most powerful man in the country served his clients as the chief lobbyist/strategist/backroom deal maker on behalf of Petro China, a man named none other than  Jean Chretien. The man that was in political power and most "un-energetic" about it (initially) was --- Paul Martin. The man in the official opposition who had concerns about the Chinese being involved... Stephen Harper. The man who was totally opposed to it, because he had no understanding of economics and national pride was Jack Layton. I would put PMJT in the same camp as Layton on this one. 

I honestly don't believe that Harper gave a crap one way or another about it save and except for the fact that it was his duty as an Alberta MP to focus on his riding constituency economic concerns, which was of course the GateWay (and also KeystoneXL*). But as PM he saw this the same way Martin did- a pain in the arse that was always destined to go nowhere. But of course, that is an inconvenient truth nobody in the Liberal Party, the environmentalist lobby or the Media would ever admit to. 

* not to be confused with Keystone Pipeline, which was approved and built. It was the Martin government that first reviewed proposals of Keystone XL project, but with little Chinese involvement (hence no profits for the business concerns of certain out of office Liberal party member(s)) it was near certain that Canadian Unions (the CEP in particular) would be in receipt of what turned out to be pretty solid advice on how to kill off the project.    That is the dirty face of Canadian pipeline politics.


----------



## Altair (27 Jan 2016)

Jed said:
			
		

> I sincerely hope you have the opportunity to laugh long and hard. In fact, I will hold you to it and check back in four years. This is one outcome that I would happily 'eat crow' on. Would you be willing to do the same?


Yup, if I'm still around and not banned permanently I will certainly be willing to see the outcome of this.


----------



## PuckChaser (27 Jan 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> Yup, if I'm still around and not banned permanently I will certainly be willing to see the outcome of this.


If Kilo lasted this long, you should be fine until at least the next election.


----------



## Kirkhill (27 Jan 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> Yup, if I'm still around and not banned permanently I will certainly be willing to see the outcome of this.



Jeez Altair, how else are we going to find out what Montreal thinks?  And I look forward to educating you in the niceties of the Scottish tongue.....  [


----------



## Altair (27 Jan 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Jeez Altair, how else are we going to find out what Montreal thinks?  And I look forward to educating you in the niceties of the Scottish tongue.....  [


CBC.ca comments section


----------



## George Wallace (27 Jan 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> CBC.ca comments section




Ewwww!  Nasty.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (27 Jan 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Jeez Altair, how else are we going to find out what Montreal thinks?  And I look forward to educating you in the niceties of the Scottish tongue.....  [



To rebreathe life in the Auld Alliance, my friend? Long live Mary, Queen of the Scotts!!!

On a more serious note, the one thing that PM Harper did, which was long overdue, was rewrite the Federal Environmental regulations so that the environmental assessment process would stop being hijacked by specific lobby groups (such as the Natives right industry or the more radical environmental movements) as a stalling tactics that did nothing to address the specific environmental matters raised by the project at hand, but instead were used for self-publicity and to raise their utopian overarching environmental message no one cared for otherwise (such as the aforementioned: We-all-have-to-stop-burning-fossile-fuel-on-the-whole-earth crowd). These unhelpful groups and intervenors did nothing to assist with making proper environmental assessments of the actual project and were acting only to derail these projects altogether by delaying them in perpetuity.

That is the action of PM Harper that railed the environment lobby industry, which candidate Trudeau tried to get on his side when he talked, during the campaign, of "introduce a new and fair environmental assessment process". He may be indebted to these lobby groups, which means back to the old useless process.

I sincerely hope that this is one instance where the senior civil servants brief him on the realities of the old system and the reason why the Harper amendments have actually brought sanity back to the process: All people with a useful contribution can still be heard, but specifically on any actual environmental problems relating to the project at issue only, and so long as it contributes to the conversation by offering (or forcing the project's developer to come up with) alternatives or potential solutions to alleviate the perceived specific problem, the whole within a reasonable time frame so that delays do not become impediments in and of themselves. Hey! In fact, the process developed under PM Harper was "new and fair". What do you know!


----------



## Kirkhill (27 Jan 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> .... Long live Mary, Queen of the *Scotts*!!!



And her mother Marie de Guise?  I don't think so.  I'm just as happy John Knox came along when he did.  We had quite enough of the Valois and Medici meddling thanks.   

And by the way, I think Mary claimed to be Queen of all the Scots, and not just the Scotts.


----------



## stealthylizard (28 Jan 2016)

There was quite a bit of pipeline work done while Harper was prime minister, at least for natural gas.  The economy was good, prices were decent, companies and people were spending money.  That isn't the case right now.  Three years ago at this time of the year I was working an average of 40 hours a week because of pipeline projects as a line locator.  It started to slow down last year (2014/15), now I'm down to 20 hours a week.  The only ones in this area still spending money are farmers and Atco Gas.  I can't do this for another year if things don't improve.  If the prime minister is going to do something, I'm hoping he does it quick.


----------



## George Wallace (28 Jan 2016)

BLAME IT ON TRUDEAU!

OK.  Harper is gone.  It is 2016.  The Liberals are in power.  They are at the reigns now.  This is complete BS and they should be ashamed at having things like this happen to Canadians, especially Canadians who are NOT RICH:

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.



> Man evicted from hotel has ‘no place to go’
> Long-term tenants Garnet Fulton and his family are being evicted as a North York hotel welcomes Syrian refugees whose rooms were booked last month.
> 
> The Toronto Star
> ...



More on LINK.

The "Refugee Problem" does not justify throwing Canadians out on the street.  Yes; it is time for the tables to turn and BLAME TRUDEAU.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (28 Jan 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Colin, I was going to tackle the technicalities - but decided against it as it would all be supposition on my part.
> 
> I
> The existing mountain corridors have been in service for decades, and the railways for longer. How many disruptions of service have there been in that time due to seismic activity?  With respect to the pipelines the vast majority of breaks occur in urban settings where contractors suddenly discover pipelines that are clearly identified.   Not many breaks happen in the boonies.



Every thing going to Prince Rupert has to follow the Skeena valley and the rail, power, NG pipeline and road has been cut by landslides numerous times . I have been involved in pipeline review and worked with the companies involved. Some of them I trusted explicitly, others not so much. This is one of the ones I had to deal with http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/how-little-leaks-can-become-big-oil-spills/article4418229/

A few years later and on the same river another break was narrowly avoided, thanks to oversight by the company looking after the gas pipelines running parallel to it which resulted in a 600m HHD crossing for the oil and this for the NG lines. An interesting project to work on and with good people to work with.


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Jan 2016)

Tunneling river crossings, 



> 5.4 Tunnel design and construction
> 
> The pipeline route segment between the upper reaches of the Clore River and Hoult Creek would cross a section of the Coast Mountains unbroken by low elevation passes. Northern Gateway proposed 2 tunnels, each approximately 6.5 kilometres long, to avoid construction, environmental, and operating risks associated with a conventional pipeline route on steep slopes. Northern Gateway's 2009 preliminary geotechnical report (revised in 2010) examined the geology and anticipated geotechnical conditions for the tunnels.
> 
> ...



The same strategy would likely be used crossing the St Lawrence.

Other examples.
http://www.riverhumberpipeline.com/the-pipeline.aspx
http://oilsandstruth.org/keystone-pipeline-build-tunnel-under-mississippi-river


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Jan 2016)

The Review Panel concluded that the biggest challenge would be managing the spoil from the tunnels.

I am guessing that the spoil would/could be employed elsewhere down the route as fill or road beds.

These are still not reasons to stop the construction.

And here is another river tunnel - under the Merrimack

http://eaglefordtexas.com/news/id/141834/gas-pipeline-proposal-tunnel-merrimack-souhegan-rivers/


----------



## Colin Parkinson (28 Jan 2016)

Actually the property I grew up on had a tunnel built in the 40-50's to run a waterline through under the Capilano river. My brother got to walk a 9km long water tunnel near Sooke to assess the walls with radar. Funny enough even their radios failed after a few hundred metres and only 2 exits at either end! ;D


----------



## PuckChaser (28 Jan 2016)

So much for free votes in the Commons. Liberal MPs were whipped into defeating a Tory motion to publically support Energy East. Probably the same reason they were shut out in of the 4 western provinces. Wonder how all those NB MPs are going to fair when they find out their MPs voted against more jobs at refineries for their constituents?

http://ottawacitizen.com/storyline/kady-liberals-to-vote-down-pro-energy-east-pipeline-motion-put-forward-by-tories



> @Kady: Liberals to vote down pro-Energy East pipeline motion put forward by Tories
> January 28, 2016 1:12 pm
> 
> Bad news, Energy East enthusiasts: Despite continuing pressure from Western Canada, the federal Liberals aren’t willing to publicly back the pipeline proposal in a House vote — not yet, anyway.
> ...


----------



## ModlrMike (28 Jan 2016)

This may well come back to haunt them. If there's no approval during this Government's tenure, it might influence their chances of victory next time.


----------



## Altair (28 Jan 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> So much for free votes in the Commons. Liberal MPs were whipped into defeating a Tory motion to publically support Energy East. Probably the same reason they were shut out in of the 4 western provinces. Wonder how all those NB MPs are going to fair when they find out their MPs voted against more jobs at refineries for their constituents?
> 
> http://ottawacitizen.com/storyline/kady-liberals-to-vote-down-pro-energy-east-pipeline-motion-put-forward-by-tories


I wish I had the energy.

Alas, I do not.

Officially taking a break from this site.


----------



## PuckChaser (28 Jan 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> I wish I had the energy.
> 
> Alas, I do not.



I really wish you did. How you try to spin Trudeau's pledge to have free votes in Parliament immediately dissolve at the first sign of trouble would be exciting.


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Jan 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> I wish I had the energy.
> 
> Alas, I do not.
> 
> Officially taking a break from this site.



You would have more energy with a pipeline to Montreal.


----------



## Lumber (28 Jan 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> So much for free votes in the Commons. Liberal MPs were whipped into defeating a Tory motion to publically support Energy East. Probably the same reason they were shut out in of the 4 western provinces. Wonder how all those NB MPs are going to fair when they find out their MPs voted against more jobs at refineries for their constituents?
> 
> http://ottawacitizen.com/storyline/kady-liberals-to-vote-down-pro-energy-east-pipeline-motion-put-forward-by-tories



Isn't this a good thing? Shouldn't parliament keep their hands off and let the NEB do their thing? I've only read the part of the article that was cut and pasted here, but it smells like the Tories knew the Liberals would shut it down, and pushed the motion to force the Liberals between a rock and a hard place.


----------



## PuckChaser (28 Jan 2016)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Isn't this a good thing? Shouldn't parliament keep their hands off and let the NEB do their thing? I've only read the part of the article that was cut and pasted here, but it smells like the Tories knew the Liberals would shut it down, and pushed the motion to force the Liberals between a rock and a hard place.



There's nothing wrong with Parliament saying we want this, and then letting the process take care of itself. As long as the NEB is kept at arm's length, there's no issue.

In case you were wondering, here's the actual motion. In no way does it circumvent the NEB decision.



> Business of Supply
> 
> The Order was read for the consideration of the Business of Supply.
> 
> Ms. Bergen (Portage—Lisgar), seconded by Mr. Bernier (Beauce), moved, — That, given this time of economic uncertainty, the House: (a) recognize the importance of the energy sector to the Canadian economy and support its development in an environmentally sustainable way; (b) agree that pipelines are the safest way to transport oil; (c) acknowledge the desire for the Energy East pipeline expressed by the provincial governments of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, and New Brunswick; and (d) express its support for the Energy East pipeline currently under consideration.



The Liberal government is now on record for not supporting any of these provisions.


----------



## jollyjacktar (28 Jan 2016)

The apple doesn't fall far from the PET tree, so it would seem.  Like father, like son.  1982 all over again.


----------



## YZT580 (28 Jan 2016)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Isn't this a good thing? Shouldn't parliament keep their hands off and let the NEB do their thing? I've only read the part of the article that was cut and pasted here, but it smells like the Tories knew the Liberals would shut it down, and pushed the motion to force the Liberals between a rock and a hard place.


Two different and opposite issues here. You are absolutely correct, Parliament should keep its hands off, although I notice that the mayors don't have any business trying to step in either.  And the motion did leave space to support the NEB process.  But the second and more fundamental issue is the idea of whipping the party.  Better to have made a request and presented the arguments in caucus for a no vote but still left each member free to vote their conscience.  Now JT appears as the same tyrant that folks have accused Harper of being.  He lost credibility and broke an election promise at the first hint of conflict, much as he appointed his first potential candidate before the election after saying appointments were entirely a local matter.  The optics are really bad.


----------



## PuckChaser (28 Jan 2016)

Also note here, on the Liberal platform:

https://www.trudeaumetre.ca/promise/4303



> For members of the Liberal Caucus, all votes will be free votes except those that implement the Liberal platform, traditional confidence matters, and those that address the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.



The Liberal's own platform supported Energy East, but they were whipped into voting against it.


----------



## Lumber (28 Jan 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> The Liberal government is now on record for not supporting any of these provisions.





			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> The Liberal's own platform supported Energy East, but they were whipped into voting against it.



We might be splitting hairs here, but I think we need to be clear; and this is why I don't see it as such a big deal.

First, refusing to support a motion to officially ackowledge support for a project doesn't necessarily mean that they do no support the project. 

Second, they didn't "vote against" Energy East. They simply voted against a Tory motion to publicly throw their support behind it.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Jan 2016)

Lumber said:
			
		

> We might be splitting hairs here, but I think we need to be clear; and this is why I don't see it as such a big deal.
> 
> First, refusing to support a motion to officially ackowledge support for a project doesn't necessarily mean that they do no support the project.
> 
> Second, they didn't "vote against" Energy East. They simply voted against a Tory motion to publicly throw their support behind it.



The content of the motion doesn't matter. They promised not to whip the caucus, except for certain items. 

They just broke that promise and whipped the caucus on an item that wasn't included in their platform.

That's the nuts and bolts of it.

Another election lie.


----------



## Remius (28 Jan 2016)

Lumber said:
			
		

> We might be splitting hairs here, but I think we need to be clear; and this is why I don't see it as such a big deal.
> 
> First, refusing to support a motion to officially ackowledge support for a project doesn't necessarily mean that they do no support the project.
> 
> Second, they didn't "vote against" Energy East. They simply voted against a Tory motion to publicly throw their support behind it.



His detractors and opponents won't see that way.


----------



## PuckChaser (28 Jan 2016)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Second, they didn't "vote against" Energy East. They simply voted against a Tory motion to publicly throw their support behind it.



You're spinning it. They voted against these 2 provisions:



> (c) acknowledge the desire for the Energy East pipeline expressed by the provincial governments of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, and New Brunswick; and (d) express its support for the Energy East pipeline currently under consideration.



Which means they do not acknowledge the desire for the Energy East pipeline and do not express support for the Energy East pipeline under consideration. That's what voting against something means, you do not agree with the provisions. Spinning it any other way is to try to confuse the truth.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Jan 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> You're spinning it. They voted against these 2 provisions:
> 
> Which means they do not acknowledge the desire for the Energy East pipeline and do not express support for the Energy East pipeline under consideration. That's what voting against something means, you do not agree with the provisions. Spinning it any other way is to try to confuse the truth.



As I said above, the content is immaterial. They could have been debating red gummy bears on Thursdays.

THEY WHIPPED THE CAUCUS for the vote and hence the broken promise. 

The broken promise is the important part of the discussion, everything else is fluff and folly.


----------



## Lumber (28 Jan 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> As I said above, the content is immaterial. They could have been debating red gummy bears on Thursdays.
> 
> THEY WHIPPED THE CAUCUS for the vote and hence the broken promise.
> 
> The broken promise is the important part of the discussion, everything else is fluff and folly.



I wish they had voted in favour of the motion myself. However, the broken promise is not the most important part of the discussion. In my opinion, keeping promises is less important than running an efficient and effective government. Ergo, the content of what happened here is not simply fluff and folly. In this case, they made a shitty decision.


----------



## Brad Sallows (28 Jan 2016)

It was only a feel-good motion.  Break it down:

"(a) recognize the importance of the energy sector to the Canadian economy and support its development in an environmentally sustainable way;"

Anything controversial about that?

"(b) agree that pipelines are the safest way to transport oil;"

Anything controversial about that?

"(c) acknowledge the desire for the Energy East pipeline expressed by the provincial governments of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, and New Brunswick; and"

Anything controversial about that?

"(d) express its support for the Energy East pipeline currently under consideration."

This is the only item which is not pablum, and all it asked for was a show of recognition.


----------



## PuckChaser (28 Jan 2016)

Ergo: There was no reason to vote it down. A quick soundbite after clarifies that the Liberals will not interfere with the "new" NEB process, however they would like to see the pipeline built should the NEB decides. Then the motion gets forgotten. Instead, they've now broken another election promise and have not clarified their position on Energy East, despite campaigning to support it.


----------



## Kat Stevens (28 Jan 2016)

Let's not kid ourselves here.  The particular content of the motion was irrelevant, the Liberals sent a clear message, by squashing it, that it's their playpen now, setting the tone for the next four years.  It was a softball motion served up on a plate, that would have cost nothing to pass.


----------



## jmt18325 (28 Jan 2016)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Let's not kid ourselves here.  The particular content of the motion was irrelevant, the Liberals sent a clear message, by squashing it, that it's their playpen now, setting the tone for the next four years.  It was a softball motion served up on a plate, that would have cost nothing to pass.



It would have gone against their own interim assessment process.  To get pipelines built, we have to mean it when it comes to the environment and aboriginal rights, or they won't happen.


----------



## Kat Stevens (28 Jan 2016)

The motion could have said "Let's all agree that rabid wombats are pretty nasty and we should avoid appointing them as school crossing guards" and it would have been crushed.


----------



## quadrapiper (29 Jan 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Which means they do not acknowledge the desire for the Energy East pipeline and do not express support for the Energy East pipeline under consideration.


Wonder if the latter one might have been the governance reason (as opposed to the political desire to give the Tories a slap). By not expressing support for (but, equally, not the tabling a measure to oppose) the pipeline, they are able to say they and Parliament are hands-off as far as the NEB's handling of individual applications.


----------



## PuckChaser (29 Jan 2016)

That's a stretch, and easily solved with a sound bite during debate or after in the scrum about not interfering in the process. All voting no does is give the opposition ammunition.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (29 Jan 2016)

They are caught between their promises and reality. Already I think the First Nations are realizing that most of what they heard was smoke and mirrors, a lot were hoping he would make a statement by suspending the Site C certificate, which they clearly shown they are not interested in revisiting. I suspect that they will muddle along they Sept, then role out Minor changes to CEAA, NEBA and the NPA. At which point they will have their “stamp” on the process and then they will select which projects go ahead. After all the Liberals are about big businesses. Those that switched their vote from NDP to Liberal will howl at how hollow the changes are and that might come back to bite them at election time if those votes go back to NDP. 
Sooner or later another westcoast oil pipeline will be proposed, it may follow a different route and have a terminal other than Kitimat. There is actually a fair bit of support for LNG export from the Coastal First Nations, the calculation of risk vs economic reward is very favourable.


----------



## Remius (29 Jan 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> That's a stretch, and easily solved with a sound bite during debate or after in the scrum about not interfering in the process. All voting no does is give the opposition ammunition.



It's essentially what they said.  The motion was to support the Energy East pipeline, but they can't do that until the review process is complete as per their platform promise.  Therefore, whipping the vote is consitent with their platform.

Claiming they lied or broke their promise about free votes is grasping at straws.  There seems to be a lot of that from criticising his magazine photoshoot, his vacation, his appearance on a tv show to coincide with Bell's Let's talk week to whatever.  It's no better than what the left did to Stephen Harper about a whole slew of things.  

All of the critisism so far is all about fluff.  And to be fair, it is likely because he hasn't done anything substantial so far.  

That would be my biggest critique so far.  But he still has a few days left before his probation period is up and hard questions will have to be answered.  Patience will be wearing thin on the economy and things like the ISIL mission if we don't get concrete action.

I'd like to jump on the critic bandwagon but so far it he hasn't done anything yet to merit it.


----------



## PuckChaser (29 Jan 2016)

I posted their promise, they broke it by whipping against this motion. I'm willing to bet their NB MPs would have voted yes. It's cut and dry, no shades of grey in a no vote.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (29 Jan 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> he hasn't done anything



That could be the most accurate, concise statement in this thread!  

Unless one considers the other stuff you mentioned "doing stuff" at a PM level.  



> his magazine photoshoot, his vacation, his appearance on a tv show...



 ;D


----------



## dapaterson (29 Jan 2016)

Noted journalists (shurely you jest - ed) at Frank Magazine are reporting that a close personal friend of Gerald Butts is about to be named Canada's High Commissioner to the United Kingdom.

Congratulations, Premier Dad (aka Dalton McGuinty).


 :facepalm:


EDIT: Added link: http://frankmag.ca/2016/01/premier-patronage-mcwimpy-to-london/


----------



## Fishbone Jones (29 Jan 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Noted journalists (shurely you jest - ed) at Frank Magazine are reporting that a close personal friend of Gerald Butts is about to be named Canada's High Commissioner to the United Kingdom.
> 
> Congratulations, Premier Dad (aka Dalton McGuinty).
> 
> ...



Is the PM really that dense that he's going to give this guy a high profile, international position, representing Canada at a time that the trial of his minions is starting to take place.

I wonder how he would handle it in Parliment, if McGuinty ended up with charges, or was seriously implicated, resulting from those charged flipping on him.


----------



## Remius (29 Jan 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Noted journalists (shurely you jest - ed) at Frank Magazine are reporting that a close personal friend of Gerald Butts is about to be named Canada's High Commissioner to the United Kingdom.
> 
> Congratulations, Premier Dad (aka Dalton McGuinty).
> 
> ...



I really hope this isn't true.


----------



## cavalryman (29 Jan 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Noted journalists (shurely you jest - ed) at Frank Magazine are reporting that a close personal friend of Gerald Butts is about to be named Canada's High Commissioner to the United Kingdom.
> 
> Congratulations, Premier Dad (aka Dalton McGuinty).
> 
> ...


A pay-off for having the McWynnty machinery throw its full weight behind the LPC during the election?  :


----------



## a_majoor (29 Jan 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Is the PM really that dense that he's going to give this guy a high profile, international position, representing Canada at a time that the trial of his minions is starting to take place.
> 
> I wonder how he would handle it in Parliment, if McGuinty ended up with charges, or was seriously implicated, resulting from those charged flipping on him.



There is an excellent German expression to describe that: _*schadenfreude*_


----------



## RangerRay (30 Jan 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Is the PM really that dense that he's going to give this guy a high profile, international position, representing Canada at a time that the trial of his minions is starting to take place.
> 
> I wonder how he would handle it in Parliment, if McGuinty ended up with charges, or was seriously implicated, resulting from those charged flipping on him.



Why not?  Gordon Campbell was appointed as High Commissioner by PM Harper after he was gently force out of office in a cloud of suspicion and unpopularity.  And he's a convicted drunk driver to boot!

Thanks to him, BC is now stuck with Premier Sarah Pailin...I mean, Christie Clark.


----------



## The Bread Guy (30 Jan 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Is the PM really that dense that he's going to give this guy a high profile, international position, representing Canada at a time that the trial of his minions is starting to take place.
> 
> I wonder how he would handle it in Parliment, if McGuinty ended up with charges, or was seriously implicated, resulting from those charged flipping on him.


"Diplomatic immunity" is such a harsh term  >


----------



## SeaKingTacco (30 Jan 2016)

Diplomats don't get immunity from prosecution by their own country....

Just sayin....


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (1 Feb 2016)

http://m.ottawasun.com/2016/01/31/krayden-trudeau-is-on-a-collision-course-with-defence-minister-sajjan


----------



## George Wallace (1 Feb 2016)

Trouble in the Butts?


Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.



> OPINION
> KRAYDEN: Trudeau is on a collision course with Defence Minister Sajjan
> DAVID KRAYDEN
> FIRST POSTED: SUNDAY, JANUARY 31, 2016 11:22 PM EST | UPDATED: SUNDAY, JANUARY 31, 2016 11:30 PM EST
> ...



More on LINK.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (1 Feb 2016)

It’s to early in the day for Sajin to revolt. He will be a good soldier and try to maintain his vision and accommodate the others, but within a year I think his frustration level is going to skyrocket when he realizes that he is going to get little support for defense issues from his own caucus and then only in the guise of jobs in various ridings.


----------



## PuckChaser (1 Feb 2016)

Colin P said:
			
		

> It’s to early in the day for Sajin to revolt. He will be a good soldier and try to maintain his vision and accommodate the others, but within a year I think his frustration level is going to skyrocket when he realizes that he is going to get little support for defense issues from his own caucus and then only in the guise of jobs in various ridings.



Its likely killing him to keep his mouth shut on the ISIL mission, especially WRT the fighters pulling out. A few of his soundbites seem like he's trying to distance himself from the decision, and throw Trudeau/Gerald Butts/Liberal Power Corp under the bus. If he's anywhere close to the leader he's been described as, he won't have a public fight. Whether he stays a Liberal candidate at the next election, however, would interesting if he keeps getting jerked around.


----------



## The Bread Guy (3 Feb 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Noted journalists (shurely you jest - ed) at Frank Magazine are reporting that a close personal friend of Gerald Butts is about to be named Canada's High Commissioner to the United Kingdom.
> 
> Congratulations, Premier Dad (aka Dalton McGuinty).
> 
> ...


Maaaaaaybe not so fast?


> Dalton McGuinty has left his position as senior consultant with Pricewaterhousecoopers to pursue “other business activities” — but is not taking the position of high commissioner to the U.K., as reported by Frank Magazine.
> 
> Frank reported Friday that McGuinty had been tapped for the senior position, which would have seen him take over from former premier Gordon Campbell.
> 
> ...


----------



## dapaterson (3 Feb 2016)

Now, isn't a denial just further proof something?


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Feb 2016)

> to pursue “other business activities”



I've seen that on one or two inter-office emails in the past.  It seldom means anything good.


----------



## Kat Stevens (3 Feb 2016)

That almost reads like the old "encouraged to seek success and fulfillment in another field of endeavour" line.


----------



## George Wallace (3 Feb 2016)

Just watched this video (a copy on YouTube with the CBC logo on it) and was absolutely revolted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WE9yJ4rlQBI


----------



## jollyjacktar (3 Feb 2016)

I was impressed at the questions the young man put to JT, not so impressed with JT's answers.  But then, I'm not surprised that JT underwhelms me time and time again.  We're screwed.


----------



## dapaterson (3 Feb 2016)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> That almost reads like the old "encouraged to seek success and fulfillment in another field of endeavour" line.



In the military, he'd be "promoted and posted".


----------



## a_majoor (3 Feb 2016)

We had plenty of warning. Andrew Lawton interviewed the Young Dauphin Jan 20, 2015 and everyone heard this:

https://soundcloud.com/am980/andrew-lawton-interviews

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hz9KHRNxtCo

So no one should be acting surprised now......


----------



## rmc_wannabe (4 Feb 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> We had plenty of warning. Andrew Lawton interviewed the Young Dauphin Jan 20, 2015 and everyone heard this:
> 
> https://soundcloud.com/am980/andrew-lawton-interviews
> 
> ...



What I find hilarious about that interview is how he is asked the same question 3 times and gives nothing but anti-war rhetoric that is irrelavent to the conversation.

He's clearly pandering to a peace movement that is silent or damn near non-existent with regards to Daesh.


----------



## Old Sweat (6 Feb 2016)

This assessment of the performance of the government by Andrew Coyne in the National Post is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act. It is not very flattering and to those of us who remember the lack of fiscal discipline of the 70s, more than a little frightening.

*Andrew Coyne: Trudeau’s first three months in power big on symbolism, short on substance*


Andrew Coyne | February 5, 2016 3:50 PM ET

Three months in, the governing style of Justin Trudeau’s government is coming into focus. It is one part not being Stephen Harper, one part symbolic gesture, one part wriggling out of campaign promises, and one part saying yes to everybody. You thought the Harper government was all about the permanent campaign? Get used to it.

For a government that makes much of its progressive, forward-looking credentials, the Trudeau crew are unusually obsessed with digging up the recent past. The platform itself was filled with promises (my colleague, Bill Watson, puts the number at 50 ) to reverse this or that Conservative initiative. Some of these were well-considered — restoring the long-form census, forswearing the use of omnibus bills — others, such as abolishing income-splitting, less so. But what was common to all was their relentless symbolic focus, achieving maximum political mileage for least expense.

That trend has continued in office. From dropping highly charged legal appeals — the niqab case being the most famous example — to repealing laws that had become lightning rods for favoured client groups (e.g. bills requiring greater transparency in the affairs of unions and native bands) to such relatively minor irritants as the monument to the victims of Communism in Ottawa or the “Mother Canada” statue in Cape Breton, the Trudeau government has at all times been at pains to remind voters of the differences between itself and the government that preceded it, at least so long as this does not require much actual change in direction.

The lengths to which it is prepared to go in this regard are best illustrated in the continuing silliness over the mission against ISIL. The platform was unequivocal on this point: “We will end Canada’s combat mission in Iraq.” More specifically, the Liberals had promised to withdraw Canada’s CF-18 fighter jets from the mission, though from the time they made the promise they have yet to make any serious attempt to explain why: why others should fight in the region while we do not; why flying combat sorties is not where our “competitive advantage” lies, though our pilots are among the world’s most skilled and our allies have specifically requested they continue; nor any other of the host of questions it raised.

But of course they haven’t; of course they can’t. The truth is the policy was solely intended to distinguish them from the other parties, neither so gung ho as the Conservatives nor so cravenly pacifist as the NDP. Which is why when what the Liberals are pleased to call their new “policy” is announced next week, it will look like such ludicrous mush: withdrawing our own fighter jets (on precisely the schedule the mission was originally projected to end), but leaving in place the planes that refuel and guide those of other nations; doubling the number of “trainers,” whose actual work of painting targets for bombing runs looks a lot like combat; perhaps even sending an army battalion.

This tendency — to announce policy first, then figure out the consequences later; to prefer show to substance — is by now established as this government’s modus operandi. Is it to be supposed that the “evidence-based” party had any research to support its claim to be able to safely admit 25,000 Syrian refugees under government sponsorship by December? Was there any basis whatever to the party’s claim that raising the rate of tax on incomes above $200,000 by three percentage points would raise precisely the same sum ($3 billion) as cutting the middle tax bracket by a point and a half — and not, as is now admitted, at least $2 billion less?

Of course not: they gave each about the same amount of thought as Trudeau did in announcing, on the day the report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was released, that he would implement all 94 of its recommendations. Which is about twice as much thought as he and his advisers gave to the implications of abolishing party caucuses in the Senate, resulting in its current state of more or less total confusion and paralysis. Or, for that matter, than they gave to their pipeline policy.

It was great fun being in opposition, when it was possible to favour building pipelines in general, save for any that happened to be proposed (the exception was Keystone, which had the great political virtue of being on foreign soil), supporting established regulatory processes while insisting on the need to obtain “social licence” and promising aboriginal groups a veto. But now the Liberals are in government, and the party’s position is murkier than ever, the prime minister reduced to pleading with warring provincial politicians to get along.

Ah well. Perhaps it can all be held together with promises of more cash to everyone: more for public-sector unions (the Tories’ attempt to dial back the banking of sick days is the latest reversal), more for cities (is there a transit plan so ill-advised this government will not underwrite it?), more for provinces, more for aboriginal groups. It’s a particularly appealing strategy when you have effectively abolished the budget constraint: after first freeing themselves, at some political risk, from the stricture against running deficits, the Liberals found it comparatively easy to sail past the platform’s commitment to deficits of no more than $10 billion a year.

We’re now led to believe the bottom line is a continually declining debt-to-GDP ratio, but there’s no particular reason to think the Liberals will be any more bound by this constraint than they were the others. I’m sure they’re not completely happy about it, but in the end the show must go on.


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Feb 2016)

In _my opinion_, just based on "gut feel," not any specific evidence, the Liberals are, still, and plan to remain for as long possible, in the campaign mode. They campaigned well in 2015 and they are campaigning, now, for the 2019 election ~ a lesson they (and the CPC) have learned from our American neighbours who have demonstrated that it is possible to not govern themselves at all. (I'm not sure who is more responsible for the decay, the _rot_ in American politics, the clowns on the left of the Democratic Party or the morons on the right wing of the GOP, but, suffice to say, the USA is, really, not quite fit to be an independent country any more.)

But, when campaigning, all you need to really worry about are the polls and you "play to the polls," and propose polices that have no hope of being "good" or useful or even in the national interest, but you propose them just because they're likely to popular. That's what the LPC is doing now. The PMO, Betts, Telford, _et al_ _*are*_ the campaign team and they are not interested in governing, only in campaigning.

Can they keep that up for four years?

Well, no, I think ...

               
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





                    ... will intrude at, normally, the most inconvenient possible moment. _cf._ Murphy's Law and all that.


Edit: typo


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Feb 2016)

> gov·ern  (gŭv′ərn)
> v. gov·erned, gov·ern·ing, gov·erns
> v.tr.
> 1. To make and administer the public policy and affairs of (a state, for example); exercise sovereign authority over.
> ...



http://www.thefreedictionary.com/governing

In most cases, except the political apparently, to govern is synonymous with control.  It is the back end of Boyd's OODA loop - the bit where Decision is required and Action occurs.  But to decide is to make enemies.

How long does it take before the ungoverned becomes the ungovernable?


----------



## Brad Sallows (7 Feb 2016)

I only hope the PM and his ministers continue to meet with their provincial counterparts frequently.  So many people seem to think it is so important, and for my part I think it is so very entertaining.


----------



## a_majoor (7 Feb 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> http://www.thefreedictionary.com/governing
> 
> In most cases, except the political apparently, to govern is synonymous with control.  It is the back end of Boyd's OODA loop - the bit where Decision is required and Action occurs.  But to decide is to make enemies.
> 
> How long does it take before the ungoverned becomes the ungovernable?



Right about now.

In both the United States and in Europe there are growing movements to support formerly fringe or marginalized political movements, or elect "outsiders" who claim to lead the revolt against the "Elites".

I think the Republicans made a terrible mistake when they worked to marginalize or coopt the TEA Party and TEA Party candidates and representatives. Since voters got a clear "FU" signal from the people who supposedly represent them, they will go to further extremes (Trump and Sanders in this cycle) and the far left nativist parties gaining traction in Europe.

The real question is what happens next when voters elect people promising fundamental changes who don't deliver what the voters elected them to do? History does not give pretty answers.


----------



## Good2Golf (7 Feb 2016)

So we're about seven weeks away from the end of the fiscal year FY15/16.

Let's see how the Gov't does on this Policy promise? (ref: *REAL CHANGE*: A Plan to Strengthen the Economy and Create Jobs Investing in the  the Navy )



> • *We will not lapse military funding from year to year, and we will re-invest in building a leaner, more agile, better equipped military.* This will also include ensuring adequate support systems for military person- nel and their families.



op:


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Feb 2016)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> So we're about seven weeks away from the end of the fiscal year FY15/16.
> 
> Let's see how the Gov't does on this Policy promise? (ref: *REAL CHANGE*: A Plan to Strengthen the Economy and Create Jobs Investing in the  the Navy )
> 
> op:


 :nod:


----------



## PuckChaser (7 Feb 2016)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> So we're about seven weeks away from the end of the fiscal year FY15/16.
> 
> Let's see how the Gov't does on this Policy promise? (ref: *REAL CHANGE*: A Plan to Strengthen the Economy and Create Jobs Investing in the  the Navy )
> 
> op:



Considering the HEA lawsuit was the only one the Liberals didn't drop, I wouldn't hold my breath for more support for CAF families.


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Feb 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> First step in Trudeau paying back PSAC for its support:
> 
> http://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2016/01/26/liberal-negotiations-with-civil-service-could-reverse-900m-in-planned-savings-3/#.VqhCO1mgWjx ...


Maybe not so fast ...


> *Largest public service union denounces Liberal sick leave plan*
> by Elizabeth Thompson | Feb 5, 2016 8:49 pm
> 
> The Public Service Alliance of Canada is denouncing the Liberal government’s plan to reform sick leave for government workers, saying it mirrors the controversial plan put forward by former Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government.
> ...


As others with loads more experience in unions than I have has said here, while public service unions may be strong, the employer can do (pretty much) whatever they want.


----------



## Good2Golf (8 Feb 2016)

Gutsy move.  My sense was that a lot of PSAC folks were very unhappy with PMSH, and that they likely formed a significant portion of the base that ensured a near-clean Red sweep of the NCR.  Maybe Orange would have been a better bet?

:2c:

G2G


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (8 Feb 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Maybe not so fast ...As others with loads more experience in unions than I have has said here, while public service unions may be strong, the employer can do (pretty much) whatever they want.



Just ANOTHER large voting base dupped


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Feb 2016)

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> Just ANOTHER large voting base duped


So far I haven't heard anything come down via the PSAC chain, but I'm expecting a response proportionate to the kick in the 'nads given  ;D


----------



## cavalryman (8 Feb 2016)

Considering TBS had begun working on sick leave reform under the previous Liberal government prior to 2006 the unions seem to have been totally bamboozled by PMJT's skittles pooping unicorn.  Schadenfreude is such a fine word


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Feb 2016)

cavalryman said:
			
		

> Considering TBS had begun working on sick leave reform under the previous Liberal government prior to 2006 the unions seem to have been totally bamboozled by PMJT's skittles pooping unicorn.  Schadenfreude is such a fine word


Should have read the fine print, I guess ...


> ... *Sick Leave* ... the Liberals would bring back labour rights for public servants and rely on them to provide independent advice.
> 
> The letter hits all the worrisome issues for Canada’s public servants, of which nearly 108,000 work in the region. These include:
> 
> a new mandate to *negotiate a sick leave deal* rather than impose one ...


... or, more specifically, from the Liberal info-machine pre-election (see attached):


> ... Employers should continually look for opportunities to improve the benefits that employees receive, but these benefits should not be unilaterally imposed by employers, or taken away, without proper negotiation ... The Harper Conservatives have not justified why they plan to make changes to public sector sick leave. A Liberal government would review the bargaining mandate to ensure that it is fair and reasonable for the public service and all Canadians ...


Not zackly the same as "we're not going to touch sick leave" ...


----------



## Colin Parkinson (8 Feb 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> So far I haven't heard anything come down via the PSAC chain, but I'm expecting a response proportionate to the kick in the 'nads given  ;D



PSAC leadership is likely attempting to fit this into the narrative they pushed.


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Feb 2016)

Colin P said:
			
		

> PSAC leadership is likely attempting to fit this into the narrative they pushed.


Square peg, meet roundish hole  >


----------



## PanaEng (8 Feb 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Should have read the fine print, I guess ...... or, more specifically, from the Liberal info-machine pre-election (see attached):Not zackly the same as "we're not going to touch sick leave" ...



exactly, some ppl read what they want to hear and some then get unrealistic expectations which, regardless of political affiliation, are never met...
every time.
But I am a "glass half full" guy so I'm optimist that 'somethin' positive will get done before it's time to kick this crowd out   ;D


----------



## George Wallace (8 Feb 2016)

PanaEng said:
			
		

> exactly, some ppl read what they want to hear and some then get unrealistic expectations which, regardless of political affiliation, are never met...
> every time.
> But I am a "glass half full" guy so I'm optimist that 'somethin' positive will get done before it's time to kick this crowd out   ;D



http://www.timeanddate.com/countdown/generic?iso=20191021T00&p0=188&font=cursive


----------



## Lumber (8 Feb 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> http://www.timeanddate.com/countdown/generic?iso=20191021T00&p0=188&font=cursive



You're that excited about another Liberal majority that you started a countdown timer?


----------



## George Wallace (8 Feb 2016)

Lumber said:
			
		

> You're that excited about another Liberal majority that you started a countdown timer?



LOL!   [

Someone else found that.  If you can't see the humour in that reply to a post, I apologize.


----------



## Lumber (8 Feb 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> LOL!   [
> 
> Someone else found that.  If you can't see the humour in that reply to a post, I apologize.



Sorry, haha, mine was sarcasm as well! >


----------



## Loachman (8 Feb 2016)

http://www.calgarysun.com/2016/02/07/trudeau-spurns-ndp-votes-he-once-courted

Trudeau spurns NDP votes he once courted 

By Tom Parkin, Postmedia Network

First posted: Sunday, February 07, 2016 08:22 PM MST | Updated: Sunday, February 07, 2016 08:26 PM MST

In a show that ran last Sunday, “Neil from London” was among the ten “ordinary Canadians” the CBC picked to chat with Prime Minister Trudeau. Among his questions: do you agree the minimum wage should go up?

If you watched the Liberals’ last campaign, you’d expect Trudeau to quickly say yes. Trudeau supported an NDP plan to boost the federal minimum wage to $15, but criticised it for not covering enough people.

But this week, when Neil from London asked about it, Trudeau dodged. And then said he worried about negative effects from raising the minimum wage. His answer wasn’t clear. But the message sure was: there’ll be no minimum wage increase.

This and many other promises have outlived their usefulness to the Liberals. They were useful to attract enough NDP voters to win. But mission accomplished.

Some of the Liberals’ promises were just plucked from air – the most famous being Trudeau’s pledge to bring 25,000 Syrian refugees by Dec. 31. The government couldn’t deliver much more than 6,000. Made a good headline though.

It seems other fictions they had no intention to keep.

Trudeau promised consultations on Harper’s TPP. But last week, his government signed it – without consultations or even an economic impact assessment.

He said he’d end air bombing in Iraq, but now might extend it – he’s set no withdrawal date, even though approval for Harper’s mission expires in about 35 days.

He told communities he’d “restore” home mail delivery cancelled by Harper – but now only talks of “review.”

Trudeau told First Nations they’d “absolutely” get a veto on pipelines over their land -- but last week offered bafflegab when invited to repeat that pledge.

He told environmentalists any current pipeline assessment “needs to be redone.” But Energy East and Kinder Morgan processes continue uninterrupted.

He promised transparency, but cancelled all-party budget consultations.

And some Liberal promises were simply deceptive. Trudeau’s headline promise was a tax cut for the middle class. But buried in the fine print was his absurd definition of it. His plan gives nothing to workers earning $45,000 or less – and the biggest pay-out to a $200,000 income. Whose crazy definition of middle class is that?

But perhaps the biggest campaign deception may still be revealed. Trudeau promised three years of $10 billion deficits for massive infrastructure investment. On budget day, see if Trudeau’s investment hits that number.

The problem isn’t only that broken promises erode trust in our leaders. It’s also that most of those now-jettisoned promises were – and still are – right for Canada.

We badly need infrastructure investment. Take the case of Toronto’s transit. Six years ago, Dalton McGuinty played an infrastructure bait-and-switch game. He first promised massive transit investment to Toronto, then cut $4 billion from its Transit City expansion plan. Commuters are still suffering. We can’t play that game anymore.

And we need to stop signing bad trade deals. If you’re a billionaire who wants to move production to a low-wage zone then sell your goods back to North America without paying tariffs, TPP is a deal made for you – literally.

But if your job or investment is in Canada, it’s a terrible agreement. That’s why such diverse voices are upset – dairy farmers, auto manufacturers, auto unions -- BlackBerry co-founder Jim Balsillie calls it innovation “colonialism.” Strong words.

And, Neil from London, yes we absolutely need to increase minimum wages to ensure a living income. This is Canada.

New Democrats, whose party got outplayed by Liberals promises, can take heart knowing their policies are supported by a broad spectrum of Canadians. But with two critical provincial campaigns this spring and two more next year, the challenge remains: how do you defeat a fundamentally dishonest political style?


----------



## Loachman (8 Feb 2016)

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/rex-murphy-will-it-be-paris-or-calgary-mr-trudeau

Rex Murphy: Will it be Paris or Calgary, Mr. Trudeau?

Rex Murphy | February 8, 2016 | Last Updated: Feb 8 5:49 AM ET

What will it be, Paris or Calgary? That is the question.

Are the commitments made so energetically and with such a show of elan in Paris superior to the need to give support and relief to the oil industry in Calgary? Indeed, the commitments made in Paris run counter to the needs of Calgary (let Calgary here stand for all Alberta). One cannot make huge pledges to reduce carbon emissions one week and wax all enthusiastic about giving federal support to pipelines intended to carry Alberta oil the next. The two agendas are simply not compatible.

Thus, the debate over pipelines is not about the pipelines themselves, as there is really only one question that a debate over pipelines has to answer: will they be safe? With the technologies and expertise already available, that’s a question accessible to an “evidence-based” inquiry. It is not one that takes years or introduces novel concepts like “social license,” or requires the stamp of approval from herds of mayors.

If pipelines are not safe, they should not be built. If, however, they are safe, and can be proven to be so within the limits of human scientific competence, then all other questions disappear. Safety is the social license. It is the political license. It is the economic license. Thus, there is no call for any other direction of inquiry once that fundamental question has been answered.

Translation: denying the pipeline burnished his administration’s own green credentials. The symbolism was more important than the facts of the project itself.

If, however, the goal of the federal government is to be a “leader” in green politics, if reducing carbon emissions is its desired passport to winning the outside world’s esteem, then saying yes to pipelines is not a response grounded in the evidence concerning how safe they are. Rather, it is contingent on the outside world’s response to such an approval.

What will UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon say? What will the luminaries of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change think? What will the Leonardo DiCaprios, the Neil Youngs and the Bonos of the world think if this fresh, green government, if it were to allow one of the proposed pipelines to take shape?

They would be heart-struck down to their caring boots, and disillusioned with the new, greener Canada. They would revive the harsh rhetoric of Canada as a vicious “petro state.” Young would compose a ballad about Hiroshima. David Suzuki would sink into another sulk and call for various imprisonments. I do not think it would be safe to call on Green Party Leader Elizabeth May.

So all the talk about revised National Energy Board (NEB) guidelines may reasonably be seen as a kind of political hat trick designed to give the illusion that these pipelines have a hope of ever being approved. Deep down, however, the lines are drawn and the real position has already been declared. It follows U.S. President Barack Obama’s pattern of doing exactly the same thing. After seven or eight years and multiple studies that all advocated for the approval of the Keystone XL pipeline, Obama, on the very eve of the Paris summit, announced he was turning down the project. And please note his stated, highest-priority reason: the decision reflected America’s determination to be a global leader in the fight against climate change. His own words are: “Frankly, approving that project would have undercut that global leadership.”

John Kerry, his secretary of state, said the same: “The critical factor in my determination was this: moving forward with this project would significantly undermine our ability to continue leading the world in combating climate change.” Translation: denying the pipeline burnished his administration’s own green credentials. The symbolism was more important than the facts of the project itself. Because activists, as the Guardian noted, had made Keystone a “totemic issue” — i.e., one of value for its symbolic quality — the U.S. president had to turn it down.

And that’s where Canada is now. It has precisely the same ambition: to be seen as a world leader against the speculative horrors of a warming future. Under the auspices of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government, how we look on the world stage trumps the interests of the country itself. It’s better to be pleasing in Paris than caring in Calgary.

Even if Energy East were to survive the new NEB regulations, the cabinet could still turn it down. That was Trudeau’s position this week. It’s all a shadow dance. There is no appeasement of the forces against Alberta energy. Killing the oilsands is their goal, and killing the pipelines under any guise — safety, social license, upstream emissions — is the sly path to killing the oilsands

Combine that with the Liberal’s zeal to be seen as the greenest global government, and there is really no hope down the road. There is no debate. The decision is made, but for now it is merely waiting for a more opportune time to make itself known.

National Post

Editted to add link.


----------



## jollyjacktar (8 Feb 2016)

oh oh, looks as if the honeymoon is starting to wane.  Should be interesting to see the bricks and bats come out.


----------



## Altair (8 Feb 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> oh oh, looks as if the honeymoon is starting to wane.  Should be interesting to see the bricks and bats come out.


http://www.threehundredeight.com/2016/02/january-2016-federal-polling-averages.html?m=1

Really?


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Feb 2016)

Really.







All those NDP Harperhaters that Trudeau co-opted, having married in haste now have the opportunity to repent at leisure.

Ed Broadbent, Stephen Lewis, David Lewis - all of them will recognize the playbook.

Too bad folks don't read history anymore.


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Feb 2016)

Well, according to a story in the _Globe and Mail_ it looks like part of the "Team Trudeau's" communication problem is "media logistics," and, Laura Stone reports, "The Prime Minister’s Office has poached the long-time chief of the Parliamentary Press Gallery to run media logistics for the new Liberal government ... Terry Guillon, the de facto administrative head of the gallery who worked as a liaison between Parliament Hill and journalists for 37 years, told The Globe and Mail he will join Justin Trudeau’s office after he leaves his current post on Feb. 19."

The report says, that "Mr. Guillon, who recently accompanied the Liberals on three foreign trips ... is a public servant and not a journalist nor a member of the press gallery."

Others, with more knowledge of media and communications have speculated, here on Army.ca, about problems "getting the message out." I assumed it was just the need to hire staff and get media lines straight, but it may be bigger ... or it may be that Mr Guillon should have been hired back in Oct, not now, which suggests a lack of professionalism in _one part_ of the transition team.


----------



## George Wallace (9 Feb 2016)

Question as to the importance of having a "Gold Reserve".  Is it really that important?


Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.



> CANADA SELLS 43.3% OF ITS OFFICIAL GOLD RESERVES
> DAN POPESCU – GOLD AND SILVER ANALYST
> 
> According to the IMF (http://www.gold.org/research/latest-world-official-gold-reserves), Canada sold 1.3 tonnes of gold reserves (43.3% of its gold reserves) in January 2016. As of January 2016 Canada had 3.0 tonnes of Gold reserves and as of February 2016 only 1.7 tonnes.
> ...




More on links found on LINK.

What affect will the Trudeau Government's selling off of these Gold Reserves have on our National Debt, our economy and GDP?


----------



## jollyjacktar (9 Feb 2016)

Heated twitter exchange between Gerald Butts and political analysts over ISIS fight stance or lack thereof. Rather fun to read the barbs.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-twitter-butts-isis-policy-1.3440155


----------



## jollyjacktar (9 Feb 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Question as to the importance of having a "Gold Reserve".  Is it really that important?
> 
> 
> Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.
> ...



So, maybe that's how the budget will balance itself...


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 Feb 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Heated twitter exchange between Gerald Butts and political analysts over ISIS fight stance or lack thereof. Rather fun to read the barbs.
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-twitter-butts-isis-policy-1.3440155


And that's why the Boss has to get the message straight before s/he delivers it - everyone's going to parse every syllable, no matter who's in, so best to have it down before than having the sidekicks "clarify" later.  If they really HAD said it hundreds/thousands of times before ...


			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ... I assumed it was just the need to hire staff and get media lines straight, but it may be bigger ... or it may be that Mr Guillon should have been hired back in Oct, not now, which suggests a lack of professionalism in _one part_ of the transition team.


... then maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaybe this is the case.



			
				jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> So, maybe that's how the budget will balance itself...


As much as I'm not really a PMJT Hater, if that's what they did and why, I wouldn't exactly call the budget "balanced _by itself_".


----------



## jollyjacktar (9 Feb 2016)

Sigh, as part of my upgrade to Win 10, I can't use the faces or hyperlink, quotes etc.  I was being sarcastic on the budget stuff but can't post the face to go with it (much to my annoyance).


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Feb 2016)

Head of the Parliamentary Press Gallery joins the Liberals after 37 years -  No reason for Harper to believe that the Parliamentary Press Gallery was biased, eh?  Just like the civil service.

And on the subject of the Gold Reserves.

http://army.ca/forums/threads/120785/post-1412264.html#msg1412264



> It is as I was reading the Department of Finance table linked above that I discovered this curious fact.
> 
> In 2005, Paul Martin's last full year on the job Canada held gold reserves equivalent to 56 BUSD based on December 2015 valuations.
> 
> ...


----------



## George Wallace (9 Feb 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> So, maybe that's how the budget will balance itself...



A quick fix?

What are the long term effects?

I am sure a brilliant economist can weigh in as to what affect this may have on Canada, if at all.  It may be a red herring to trip up us less enlightened.


----------



## jollyjacktar (9 Feb 2016)

I'm surprised that one of his two stalwart defenders here have not already charged to the rescue to explain it all to the great unwashed.


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 Feb 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I'm surprised that one of his two stalwart defenders here have not already charged to the rescue to explain it all to the great unwashed.


Wait for it ...


----------



## PuckChaser (9 Feb 2016)

I have no idea why we have gold reserves, but if we've sold $44B USD of it, we should have a surplus on the upcoming budget of over $50B CAD, after the $10B deficit and exchange rates. If we don't, something funny is going on with the books, and the PBO needs to investigate.


----------



## Brad Sallows (9 Feb 2016)

If we had gold, it was an asset.  If we traded the gold for cash, now the cash is an asset.  The balance sheet doesn't change, nor does the fiscal balance, unless the cash moves somewhere (eg. used to pay program or debt costs).


----------



## Altair (10 Feb 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I'm surprised that one of his two stalwart defenders here have not already charged to the rescue to explain it all to the great unwashed.


Told everyone I'm taking a break from this thread.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (10 Feb 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Heated twitter exchange between Gerald Butts and political analysts over ISIS fight stance or lack thereof. Rather fun to read the barbs.
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-twitter-butts-isis-policy-1.3440155



For those wanting a quick visual summary;   :slapfight:

 ;D


----------



## a_majoor (10 Feb 2016)

You know the messaging is going seriously south when Ceasefire.ca is now speaking against the Young Dauphin's plan as well:



> Mason: Let's leave this ill-considered military mission altogether
> by Peggy Mason
> 
> Published in the Ottawa Citizen online, February 8, 2016
> ...



In politics, just like the military, selection and maintenance of the aim is an all important consideration. The aimlessness of so much of the new government's messaging and apparent plans (we will see where the _real_ priorities lie once the budget is released) is now becoming apparent to many on the Left who voted for unicorns and "nice hair".


----------



## The Bread Guy (10 Feb 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> You know the messaging is going seriously south when Ceasefire.ca is now speaking against the Young Dauphin's plan as well ...


Looks like a Liberal variation on the "the NDP's not socialist enough for some of the base" theme.


----------



## Journeyman (10 Feb 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Mason: Let's leave this ill-considered military mission altogether
> 
> The federal government can be rightly castigated for not articulating more forcefully its reasons for wanting to adjust the role.



It's never been a case of inadequately explaining;  it's not having given any explanation whatsoever.  It is always been a policy portrayed as no more thoughtfully considered than  'Conservatives did A, so we will do B'

....because it's now 2016!


----------



## The Bread Guy (10 Feb 2016)

Well, since the Info-machine has seen fit to share three out of the four speeches from earlier this week (PMJT, Dion and Bibeau -- but not the Defence Minister's - yet?), let's see what a word cloud of their speech  highlights (top 100 words), shall we?

First, using the text of all three speakers we have transcripts for ...



... and this from just the PM's text:




Discuss  ;D


----------



## Colin Parkinson (10 Feb 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Question as to the importance of having a "Gold Reserve".  Is it really that important?
> 
> 
> Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.
> ...



1.3 tonnes? That's about the same amount of gold as 10 well off high caste East Indian ladies in Surrey have.  8)


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Feb 2016)

If I read that chart right then we have MacKenzie King storing gold,  St-Laurent filling the coffers hand over fist, Diefenbaker selling gold, early Pearson going back to St-Laurent's policy with late Pearson commencing a sell off that continued through early Trudeau up to the oil shock of 73 at which point Trudeau held.  Mulroney then sold off during his tenure, depleting the horde and Chretien sealed the deal.  Harper initiated a very modest buy when the dollar was strong and immediately sold off when the dollar was week.  Trudeau seems to have increased the rate of sell off.

Gold can act as surge tank, or buffer, for the economy, allowing plans to proceed independently of the Just In Time economy.


----------



## Cloud Cover (10 Feb 2016)

Isn't the RBC tower in Toronto window filmed with gold? I wonder how much privately held gold there is in the country.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (10 Feb 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> If I read that chart right then we have MacKenzie King storing gold,  St-Laurent filling the coffers hand over fist, Diefenbaker selling gold, early Pearson going back to St-Laurent's policy with late Pearson commencing a sell off that continued through early Trudeau up to the oil shock of 73 at which point Trudeau held.  Mulroney then sold off during his tenure, depleting the horde and Chretien sealed the deal.  Harper initiated a very modest buy when the dollar was strong and immediately sold off when the dollar was week.  Trudeau seems to have increased the rate of sell off.
> 
> Gold can act as surge tank, or buffer, for the economy, allowing plans to proceed independently of the Just In Time economy.



You may read the chart that way, Chris, but you have to take into consideration the following when reading it (and it will also answer in part people wondering what happened to the money generated by the deal:

To understand the apparent huge acquisition of the 1940-55 period and sell off beginning in about 1980, you have to understand the world monetary system at the time. We are then in an international economy based on what is known as the gold standard, that is countries money is guaranteed by gold reserves, and in theory you could actually "cash" your money for its gold reserve value. This explains why between 1940-55 our reserves go up so much: European countries are using their gold to pay back their debts to the government of Canada and our huge industrialization during the war has greatly boosted the size of our economy, which is reflected in the supply of Canadian money in the economy. 

However, starting with WWII, the US dollar becomes so prevalent that it is easier to use it in international money exchange as the "reference". Thus, shortly after the war, the Bretton-Woods accord is struck and we enter a period known as the gold exchange standard. In that period, gold's value is set at a US $ price and all other moneys set their values in relation to the US$, at a fixed rate subject to revision from time to time.

This system did not provide much flexibility and as the US economy went into a huge valuation, its stressed the fixed value of gold and the fixed value of other countries money. So in the 70's the values started to strain and some changes in the fixed rates started to occur, ultimately leading to completely floating rates for foreign exchange in relation to the US $. To avoid depletion and the transmission of economic downturn from countries entering recession into the US economy trough the gold reserve/floating mechanism, the US finally decided in 1976 to abandon the gold standard altogether and from that point on the US$ became the international standard on its own merit without supporting reserve.

Therefore, starting in 1976, the holding of gold reserves as an international monetary support ceased to matter. What mattered were the reserves in US$ that a country held. It took a few years for all that to sink in to the central banks that were holding the countries gold reserve but basically, starting a few years later, they all began to sell off gold to the US in exchange for US$ in order to build up their US$ reserves instead. If you pull the Bank of Canada US$ account graphs, you can see the correlation. 

All of this, Btw, is controlled by the Bank of Canada in Canada, and we should not necessarily see the hand of the Government of Canada directly in the decision making process, even though the Bank takes into consideration the policy decisions made by the Department of Finance.

So to answer the "where did the money go" question, it simply went from the Bank of Canada gold holdings account to their US$ holdings. After that, I suspect that the Bank used some of these US$ to buy Canadian dollars on the international market as a  mean of stabilizing the swings it has been suffering lately with the volatile oil market. So, no, that money is not budgetary money for the Government of Canada and won't affect the up coming budget deficit.

Everything is connected in the international monetary system.


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Feb 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> ...
> All of this, Btw, is controlled by the Bank of Canada in Canada, and we should not necessarily see the hand of the Government of Canada directly in the decision making process, even though the Bank takes into consideration the policy decisions made by the Department of Finance.
> 
> So to answer the "where did the money go" question, it simply went from the Bank of Canada gold holdings account to their US$ holdings. After that, I suspect that the Bank used some of these US$ to buy Canadian dollars on the international market as a  mean of stabilizing the swings it has been suffering lately with the volatile oil market. So, no, that money is not budgetary money for the Government of Canada and won't affect the up coming budget deficit.
> ...




Exactly right!

The premise of the original post, that, somehow, Justin Trudeau has done something (else) wrong, is silly.


----------



## PuckChaser (10 Feb 2016)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The premise of the original post, that, somehow, Justin Trudeau has done something (else) wrong, is silly.



Absolutely. There's plenty of ammo out there instead of stretching at this. I mean, we only have to wait for the gongshow that will be his budget in a few weeks.


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Feb 2016)

OK, the first 100 days are done.

My take:

First: On balance, he has done quite well, or, at least, well enough.

Despite my personal reservations about some of his decisions ~ the CF-18 thing ~  and about some of his choices ~ I really think Harjit Sajjan was selected to be MND because he is a political lightweight, a novice, a nobody, who will be a loyal lapdog, always more grateful for being in cabinet than concerned about the "rightness" of policy, I think that he, PM Trudeau, has not made any really serious missteps. Such polling data as we have seems to indicate that he remains popular, and Canadians, mostly (50% of them), still have confidence in what he is doing.

Second: It seems to me that he has managed two “crises,” both of his own making I hasten to add, well enough:

     1. The refugee (numbers) fiasco; and

     2. The CF-18s/war against _Da’esh_/ISIL/ISIS problem.

Both, it seems to me, have been resolved to Canadians’ general satisfaction, but the unintended consequences of the _Da’esh_/ISIL/ISIS “solution” (if there are any, especially on the international stage) remain to be seen.

Third: The Liberals have decided to remain in campaign mode for as long as they possibly can … maybe even until 2019 if they can manage it. I think that’s smart politics ~ Butts, Telford and, indeed, Prime Minister Trudeau himself, are formidable campaigners and “happy warriors” in the political campaign sense, too. It is less clear, to me, that any of that top level troika have much in the way of a “will to govern,” which is much more difficult.

That third issue might allow the Conservatives to drive wedges between this government and the electorate.

But, on balance, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has had an uneventful ~ which means successful ~ first 100 days. *Congratulations to him*.

Now it is up to Rona Ambrose and the Conservatives to force Prime Minister Trudeau to govern for the good of all Canadians … I suspect that’s his weak spot.


----------



## Kat Stevens (12 Feb 2016)

The rot is already starting to set in for at least two western provinces, led by the Saskatchewan premier.  The sentiment that JT has dusted off his dad's middle finger to the west, and displays is prominently, is widespread, justified or not.  The west fed and clothed this country for decades, and suddenly nobody is returning our calls.


----------



## Kirkhill (12 Feb 2016)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> The rot is already starting to set in for at least two western provinces, led by the Saskatchewan premier.  The sentiment that JT has dusted off his dad's middle finger to the west, and displays is prominently, is widespread, justified or not.  The west fed and clothed this country for decades, and suddenly nobody is returning our calls.



There does seem to be a sense of piling on these days Kat.  Justin, Coderre and now Christie Clark's recent gratuitous comments in her throne speech.  The sense of isolation is starting to creep into the discourse again.


----------



## Jed (12 Feb 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> There does seem to be a sense of piling on these days Kat.  Justin, Coderre and now Christie Clark's recent gratuitous comments in her throne speech.  The sense of isolation is starting to creep into the discourse again.



I do not think Alberta and Saskatchewan will go off into the night not nearly as quietly as they did after Trudeau Sr., Chretien et al.

Highly unlikely you will see serious talks of Western Canada separation but IMO, you will see very noisy and verbal push back and possibly long term alienation with the Centre.


----------



## Kirkhill (12 Feb 2016)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Exactly right!
> 
> The premise of the original post, that, somehow, Justin Trudeau has done something (else) wrong, is silly.



Silly indeed lads.



> The latest data, published last week by the Department of Finance, show the total Canadian gold reserves have now dropped to 0.62 tonnes. That’s less than 0.1 per cent of the country’s total reserves, which also include foreign currency deposits and bonds. In comparison, the U.S. holds 8,133 tonnes of gold, while the United Kingdom weighs in at 310 tonnes.
> 
> *The decision to sell came from Finance Minister Bill Morneau’s office.*
> 
> “Canada’s gold reserves belong to the Government of Canada, and are held under the name of the Minister of Finance,” explained a spokesperson for the Bank of Canada on Wednesday. “Decisions relative to gold holdings are taken by the Minister of Finance.”



http://globalnews.ca/news/2508940/canada-sells-nearly-half-of-all-its-gold-reserves/

 :cheers:

PS I admit to having misread the original tables.  Where I read a drop of 44 BUSD from 102 to 58 it was actually 44 MUSD at which point this does become something of a tempest in a teapot.


----------



## PuckChaser (12 Feb 2016)

Not even a month in office, and he sells half of the gold reserves. As we don't back currency with gold anymore, is this a slush fund to weather against global economic collapse, or used for something else?


----------



## a_majoor (12 Feb 2016)

In my bookshelf (yes I am old enough to appreciate a dead tree library) are "The New Canada", and "The Big Shift". I get a sense from that and travelling to parts of both Eastern and Western Canada that the Liberal government is using its time in office to try and reverse the decline in the fortunes of the "Laurentian Elites" and the Toronto-Montreal corridor that the shift in economic power and demographics since the 1980's. Preston Manning was a man ahead of his time, and the Laurentian elites hated Stephen Harper because he showed that it was possible to create a majority government without having to carry Quebec.

While we should "never say never", I suspect that it is ultimately a quixotic quest, and will lead to pathologies in the body politic similar to the BQ/PQ and the rise of demagogues (Hello Donald Trump and the Ford Brothers) in response. Attempts to create a permanent ruling class through trickery (like ramming some form of PR through the system without public input or debate) will only hasten this rather than suppress it.


----------



## quadrapiper (12 Feb 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> There does seem to be a sense of piling on these days Kat.  Justin, Coderre and now Christie Clark's recent gratuitous comments in her throne speech.  The sense of isolation is starting to creep into the discourse again.


No idea about east of the Rockies, but my _impression_ is that Christie Clark represents no one but Christie Clark; certainly not any sort of BC _zeitgeist_.


----------



## jmt18325 (12 Feb 2016)

From reading this thread, all I sense is a lot of mild paranoia.


----------



## PuckChaser (12 Feb 2016)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> From reading this thread, all I sense is a lot of mild paranoia.


Did you live through the 90s? Or the 70s? You'd distrust the Liberals too.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (12 Feb 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Did you live through the 90s? Or the 70s? You'd distrust the Liberals too.



Your profile says that you are 31.  I doubt that you were all that politically aware from the ages of 5-15 in the 90s, and you sure didn't live through the 70s.....


----------



## PuckChaser (12 Feb 2016)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Your profile says that you are 31.  I doubt that you were all that politically aware from the ages of 5-15 in the 90s, and you sure didn't live through the 70s.....



I lived in a military household, who suffered because of the pay freezes during the decade of darkness. I also never claimed to speak for the 70s generation, nor even for the 90s generation, simply pointing out 2 decades where most of the political distrust of the Liberals comes from. My age has absolutely no bearing on political commentary, for all you know I might have a masters in political science and studied Canadian Politics in the 1970s in university (I did not, I took something useful).

I do thank you for another post immediately after mine, trying to pick apart my arguments, even if I'm getting pretty tired of it. If you have a personal issue with me, my PM inbox isn't full.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (12 Feb 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I do thank you for another post immediately after mine, trying to pick apart my arguments, even if I'm getting pretty tired of it. If you have a personal issue with me, my PM inbox isn't full.



You are right.  On reflection, I rise to the bait of your relentless Liberal-bashing and general negativity every time, and I do not know why.  My reaction adds nothing to the conversation, and is relatively undignified for all of that.  I will refrain from now on.


----------



## jmt18325 (12 Feb 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Did you live through the 90s? Or the 70s? You'd distrust the Liberals too.



I certainly lived through the 90s.  I don't distrust the Liberals any more than the Conservatives.  They're all humans, after all.


----------



## jollyjacktar (12 Feb 2016)

Ha!  You say.


----------



## PuckChaser (12 Feb 2016)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> I will refrain from now on.



Won't miss the smug replies. At least Altair would form a counter argument, it was enjoyable debating him.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (12 Feb 2016)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Your profile says that you are 31.  I doubt that you were all that politically aware from the ages of 5-15 in the 90s, and you sure didn't live through the 70s.....



I lived in Alberta in the 1980s. The then Trudeau Liberals were an unmitigated disaster from an Albertan point of view. I watched the oil industry get crush; thousands lose jobs and houses- all for an ill conceived National Energy Policy.

You will, perhaps, forgive me if I view this lot with some degree of sceptiscm, for now, given the mewling I keep hearing about the evils of pipelines and the oil sands out of the East...


----------



## Kirkhill (12 Feb 2016)

I too lived in Alberta in the 80s.


----------



## jollyjacktar (12 Feb 2016)

As did I, born and bred.  And why I'll never trust nor vote Liberal.


----------



## dapaterson (12 Feb 2016)

And the provincial mismanagement of Alberta by successive Conservative governments doesn't factor into your considerations?


----------



## Jed (12 Feb 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> And the provincial mismanagement of Alberta by successive Conservative governments doesn't factor into your considerations?


You flipped from the Feds to Provincial.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (12 Feb 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> And the provincial mismanagement of Alberta by successive Conservative governments doesn't factor into your considerations?



Says the man from Ontario.

Glass houses, brother.

As Jed said, don't mix apples and chainsaws.


----------



## dapaterson (12 Feb 2016)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Says the man from Ontario.
> 
> Glass houses, brother.
> 
> As Jed said, don't mix apples and chainsaws.



No virtue in Ontario Liberals, and their close connections with the current Federal government fill me with no small amount of concern.  I'd never claim otherwise.

Also close links between the Federal and provincial Tories in Alberta - a gentleman by the name of Prentice, for example.


I'm arguing more for "None of the above".


----------



## SeaKingTacco (12 Feb 2016)

I would argue that the links between the federal Conservatives and their Alberta counterparts were not as close as one might surmise. Based solely on Prentice's sudden demise.


----------



## daftandbarmy (13 Feb 2016)

Clark's greatest error had been to succumb to vainglorious and largely false impressions of her own magnificence, thus splitting the West so that now the Feds can divide and conquer that much easier.

I am sure that history shall remember her as a much diminished, Neo- Ozymandius. And, as a result, the 20 teens shall suck as far as the West is concerned.


----------



## a_majoor (13 Feb 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> And the provincial mismanagement of Alberta by successive Conservative governments doesn't factor into your considerations?



Successive Alberta PC leaders after Ralph Klein may have run on the PC banner, but their policies were very Liberal or at least "Liberal-lite". The attitudes of the post Kelin PC leadership was also pretty arrogant and insular (although that certainly is not limited to any particular party), which did not help them in any way at all.

I suspect that the Wildrose Alliance will be looking pretty tempting to a lot of Albertans by the end of their little experiment with the NDP.


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 May 2016)

Since we've gone past 100 days as of 12 Feb 2016, locking this one and moved the newest stuff to the rough & tumble over at "Politics in 2016".

*Milnet.ca Staff*


----------

